Which sane person would consider Washington politicians "revolutionaries" or the New York Times a press organ of "revolution"? That's how far political dumbing has gone for the coup in Kiev was hailed as a "revolution" by these representatives of the richest and supposedly "revolutionary" 1% of society. Revolution means or used to mean a radical change of society--not from the right though, but from the left. The opposing radical change was traditionally and rightly called counter-revolution. But that was before up became down and the left became the right and the right became these incredibly incredible "revolutionaries" with John McCain certifying with this label anyone who was paid or assisted by the CIA or the White House and who gladly took a picture with him whether among al Qaeda "freedom fighters" in Libya and al Qaeda in Syria ... or resurrected fascists in Ukraine.
Speaking of Ukraine, what "revolution" was there if what was oligarchy changed into oligarchy ... but, thanks to the violent coup, with one important difference--what used to be oligarchy by means of mismanagement and kleptomania became an oligarchic dictatorship that joined itself to fascists not only below "the waist line, sunshine," but also everywhere else, where oligarchy provides money and trained fascists provide the boots that stomp over the face of the nation and the 7 million of its dead killed by fascists in World War II.
So now the New York Times decided to call a real anti-oligarchic and anti-fascist revolution in eastern Ukraine "counter-revolution": "As the threat of a Russian invasion into eastern Ukraine has declined and appeals for annexation by rebel politicians have gone unanswered, the pace of fighting has picked up in eastern Ukraine with both the Kiev government and the separatists trying to seize momentum. Whether eastern Ukraine’s counterrevolution succeeds or crumbles depends increasingly on battle commanders like Mr. Khodakovsky and the fighters they command ..."
So what about revolution in this day and age? Historically, there were two main sources of enslavement: war and debt bondage. Liberalism preferred the latter in its metropolises and practiced both war and debt bondage for making new peon underclasses elsewhere. Fascism comes to the scene when financial capital either no longer wants to or no longer can play the game of indenturing people through debt (state, corporate, private taxation) and falls in love with the more direct, traditional forms of mass enslavement by means of force, terror, and destruction. And, as we can see these days in Ukraine, Western oligarchs (for that's what they actually are and not democrats) a falling in love with fascism again. And they are doing this in our name and call fascism "democracy" and "freedom."
Che Guevara was right: true revolutions are born from true love for others, for humanity, and are borne and sustained by such love. If such love dies, revolution dies too. That's what happened to the Soviet Union and this may also serve as the most succinct possible diagnosis.
When it comes to the other side of ruling oligarchy who needed to call the system with some other name (such as capitalism) so that most people for most time would not see through into the simple truth, Machiavelli, Hobbes, de Sade, Mandeville, or Wagner at the beginning of his Der Ring of des Niebelung Opera tell us in so many ways, oligarchy has nothing to do with true love. At best, it is love of money, at worst, love of tyranny that is either mediated or disguised. And so when it comes both love and revolutions, oligarchs fake both.
Let me also cite here a conclusion of a brief summary of central banking in the US from www.opensecrets.org:
English, the language of modern finance and capitalism (and other things too) does have a peculiar idiom "to make a killing," which chiefly means "to make an enormous, large and quick (financial) profit" (i.e., "he wanted to make a killing as a banker ..."). In common usage, "to make a killing" also came to denote a sense of unsurpassable perfection--"killing the song" ...Flag waving and propaganda aside, all modern wars are wars by and for the private bankers, fought and bled for by third parties unaware of the true reason they are expected to gracefully be killed and crippled for. The process is quite simple. As soon as the Private Central Bank issues its currency as a loan at interest, the public is forced deeper and deeper into debt. When the people are reluctant to borrow any more, that is when the Keynesian economists demand the government borrow more to keep the pyramid scheme working. When both the people and government refuse to borrow any more, that is when wars are started, to plunge everyone even deeper into debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild. When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt to the private bankers for the next century. This is why Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was funding the rise of Adolf Hitler.
In US culture, moreover, the connection between literal killing and killing as profit making were never too far away from each other as attested in this dictionary example: "The term was used in the literal sense by American bison hunters to describe the act of shooting a large number of buffalo in a short period of time:
1907, John R. Cook, The Border and the Buffalo, Citadel Press (1967), page 118 (describing events occurring in the 1870s): Buck said if I would stay with him he would make a killing as long as it would pay to stay; said he would give me 30 cents apiece for all the buffaloes I would skin and peg out."
So what does this make of capitalism and fascism and their inherent connection? Fascism happens when profit and killing (in the sense of making dead) come together much literally and physically on a sufficiently large scale.