Ask Lemmygrad

It becomes more evident when looking at how both are formed. A color revolution is engineered by an external power to latch onto legitimate grievances and hijack this movement to reorient it towards regime change goals. But who has the power to actually engineer this? the ruling class of the ruling mode of production. I'm sure in feudal times lords also conspired to pit guilds against each other and foment revolts in cities. These could be considered color revolutions of their time. So by definition a color revolution can only ever be reactionary because they will attempt to move back progress. They are also counter-revolutionary because they suppose that a revolutionary movement of some kind must be taking place, otherwise there would be no need to go this far to regime change something.

Conversely a revolution is progressive, but not necessarily proletarian. The bourgeois revolutions of the modern era were progressive. Slave revolts of old were progressive too, even if they failed. A revolution is progressive because the opposite is a counter-revolution. Again it has to do with the exploiting and exploited classes. The bourgeoisie does not do revolution; they already have power. The definition of revolution is "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system." What new system could the ruling class want? It will necessarily be a system that doesn't have them in power, so of course they will be against it. And to reinforce its power, the exploiting (or ruling) class doesn't need a 'forcible overthrow', that would be antithetical to their purpose; They just need to pass laws.