Wolin wants to reinvent ‘revolution’ with a new concept/terminology. Proceed and we will see!
In the nonce, I can review my own sentiments here: Last and First Men cites all the revolutions of the early modern since the Reformation. These revolutions show a correlation with the macro dynamic of world history cited in that work. In their wake we see that revolutions not in the mainline show an altered character.
Many of the revolutions of the early modern were spontaneous, please note, not the result of determined revolutionary agents. The revolutions of 1848 show the transition to something new, at least in the minds of the more radical groups, platforms for revolutionary initiation by revolutionaries with specific ideologies, e.g. communism.
We have to wonder if our bufuddlement on this subject isn’t reflecting this: we can’t really induce spontaneous revolutions. Nor non-spontaneous revolutions. The question of revolution bifurcated with the emergence of communism into a confusion of democratic and anti-capitalist revolutions. The whole labor of Marx/Engels was to clarify this ambiguity, but it persists to this day in the most obvious confusions of discussion between the two modes of democracy, with or without free markets. Free markets are a revolutionary right established by revolution, free markets are not a genuine right if they impinge on the rights of the larger public, or the working class. So the shift between meanings has stultified all discussion by fragmented activist groups.
A new and original upgrade beyond the Second Internationale with a platform that both expresses and transcends/upgrades the older marxism would energize the public into a populist communism at the edge of globalization.
A revolution at this point must be a pre-defined platform of revolutionary intent, but at the same time ready to exploit moments of revolutionary chaos after the fashion of Lenin and the Russian revolution.