ABSTRACT
Perhaps nowhere are the errors of pre-judging issues by definition more common than in the writings about revolutions. As often on other scores, the worst sinners have been the Marxists who, interpreting everything in the light of their predestinarian presumption, have labelled revolutions in accordance with what came after them. Less serious is the error of defining a phenomenon by its cause or causes. For example: ‘revolution’ has been defined as ‘manifestation of mass discontent’, which presupposes that there can be no revolution without mass discontent, and that there can be no other manifestations of mass discontent than revolutions. There are many cases where there is no doubt that this criterion applies. The difficulties begin when it is not clear whether there is an established government or where the frontiers are, or when it is uncertain whether we are looking at an overthrow or a handing over, or when an overthrow occurred with help from outside.
