> But a socialist revolution would differ in one important respect. Whereas
> all previous social revolutions entail one social class which was minority
> of the population taking power at the expense of another social class
> which was also a minority, a socialist revolution would be a revolution of
> and by the overwhelming majority.
In theory, yes. But I don't know how "overwhelming" the majorities were in Russia, China, and Cuba where they had to fight prolonged civil wars against the old ruling classes and their counter-revolutionary peasant armies before building on their victories. On the other hand, these historic anticapitalist revolutions - the only examples we have -probably do not conform to your ideal social revolution.
> Against such a force, violent resistance would be futile. Strategic
> non-violence is ideal for the working class in such a conflict, because
> the deciding issue is the will of the majority working class and every
> blow struck by the ruling class simply strengthens the arm of the working
> class by undermining the legitimacy of the ruling class.
How can you know this with such certainty?
> Remember too that the working class revolution does not need to concern
> itself with controlling a subject class after the revolution.
Hardly my view. See above.
> As have all previous social revolutions. The working class revolution is
> the abolition of class relations.
Again, ideally, yes, over the long run. But in practice, not the next day, or the day after. If it comes to that, I expect there will still be a need for transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat", a misunderstood term if ever there was one, which probably also does not conform to your ideal.