Toward a taxonomy of kinds of revolution

A thorough and careful inquiry into how we use the basic vocabulary of political and social discourse will reveal that much of our language is in some form or another of disarray, which is to say there is little common agreement concerning the details and specifics as to what a revolution is, what a civilization is, what politics is, what culture is, etc. This may sound like an exaggeration. But if you think I'm exaggerating I will dare you to spend some time exploring the word "civilization" as it is defined by anthropologists, sociologists and historians, etc.  If your results are like mine, you will discover that only the historians have something of a consensus on what a civilization is, and for them it's a way of life centering on the existence of cities, which are essentially permanent settlements which depend upon the importation of goods and materials for their existence. 

Some people believe they have a solid handle on what constitutes and defines a 'revolution'. And they will say so with some air of authority, but as often as not these people just simply avoid dealing with commonly known counterexamples which are in common English usage.

For example, the French Revolution and the American Revolution have much in common with one another, but relatively little in common with the Industrial Revolution (which should be plural, but that's a story for another day), the Green Revolution and the Scientific Revolution -- all of which are commonplace terms in history books. 

I think what the word 'revolution' requires is some sort of lexicographic taxonomy, or a reasonable and rational classification into kinds. And I think it better to air on the side of capaciousness, rather than incommodiousness, in welcoming sub-classes of the general term. 

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary seems capacious enough. (Revolution Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)  But there are places where the air of authority is heavy and thick and the speaker will insist that revolutions are always bloody and violent, "and you'd not want to be a part of anything like that."  Such speakers (and writers) mean to distinguish political revolutions from other sorts in such a way which draws a stark and solid conceptual boundary between them, so that there is no continuity between terms like "the Industrial Revolution" and "The French Revolution. But they are never sufficiently clear how their dividing line actually works. We're simply expected to believe that it does.  And there appears to be no agreed upon taxonomy of the word, which taxonomy we would require to even contemplate where our distinctions can be made clear.

Wikipedia has an article on Nonviolent revolution, so no sensible  lexicographer could produce a taxonomy of 'revolution' which does not include this sub-type. But then Wikipedia strands the kind of non-violent revolution I described in Revolution 2.0 in Substack.  (Strand [Merriam-Webster]: to leave in a strange or an unfavorable place especially without funds or means to depart.)

Here is how Revolution 2.0 got stranded in a land of presumable non-existence or meaningless impossibility:

"A nonviolent revolution is a revolution conducted primarily by unarmed civilians using tactics of civil resistance, including various forms of nonviolent protest, to bring about the departure of governments seen as entrenched and authoritarian without the use or threat of violence."  

                             - from Wikipedia, Non-violent revolution

Revolution 2.0 actually does qualify as a revolutionary movement, and a non-violent one (and a non-insurrectionary one), but it doesn't seek to bring about the departure of any government.  Wikipedia -- and most writings on 'revolution' do not recognize this branch of the lexicographical tree.  We are not acknowledged to exist! 

No wonder we are challenged to imagine our revolution sufficiently to enact it!

Let's work on that.