Understanding Revolutions

According to Jack A. Goldstone, a writer for Foreign Affairs and author of "Understanding the Revolutions of 2011: Weakness and Resilience in Middle Eastern Autocracies", there are several factors that need to coincide in order for a revolution to succeed.
First, the government must seem so horrible, so poor at running the country or so unequal about it, that it is commonly thought a threat to the country's future.
Second, the elites, particularly those in the military, must be alienated from the government and therefor unwilling to defend it.
Third, a large portion of the population, ignoring various divides or barriers posed by gender, race, religion, or the like, must band together.
Finally, international powers must either avoid becoming involved with the government or must prevent the government from using it's full might to defend itself.


How do these compare to our revolutions? Generally speaking, I think that these do need to be present in a revolution. For example, in India, Britain was the ruling power, and the majority of India's population, that native Indians, agreed that it was not acting in their best interests. The population that thought this was the population native to India, and this belief crossed boundaries of ethnicity, religion, community, and economic class. The soldiers British military in India, as often as not, was either unused to the climate, or was either Hindu or Muslim, and therefore offended by the grease used on the bullets, which was made of a mix of pig and cow fat. The elites around the world, on the other hand, were drawn into interest in the conflict by Gandhi's charisma and the unique protest techniques his followers were using. This gave the elites pause in attacking the protesters, and drew the international community into the issue. That everyone was so interested in the revolution, because of sheer press coverage, prevented international intervention

 

Picture of Ayatollah Khomeini, from http://www.listal.com/viewimage/395420

Was Khomeini a dictator? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines a dictator as “A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force” or “a person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere”. By those definitions, by the end of the Iranian revolution, he was. By the time the revolution ended, he was supreme leader within the government: everything went back to him, and he came as close to autocratic power as he could get.

On the other hand, he did not ask to be supreme leader. He asked to have his opinions heard, but he did not necessarily expect to be followed as a leader in the revolution. Does the possibility that he did not try to achieve dictator-like power in Iran effect whether or not he is a dictator?

A Comparison between Stalin and Chairman Mao

During our study of China under the rule of Mao, I noticed he had many similarities to Stalin and the tactics Stalin used while in power. A few of the similarities and differences between the two men and their tactics are listed below.

Qualities/conditions only belonging to Stalin

·            25 million people died

·            The Five Year Plan (Stalin’s five year plan)

·            Pro communism actions if not necessarily ideals

·            People re-educated in gulags

·            People's Comissariat for Internal Affairs

·            Shot the sailors who argued for democracy

·            18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953

·            “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” -Stalin

Qualities/conditions belonging to both Stalin and Mao

·            Millions died because of them

·            A five year plan

o   Both plans failed, to varying degrees

·            Pro communism

·            Thought of as heroes at the time

·            Cult personality

o   Songs written praising them, etc

·            Knocked off political opposition and people who protested too loudly

·            Sent people off for ‘re-education’ via hard labor

·            Supported in their efforts by armed forces and terror

·            Communal farms

·            Their lifetimes overlap between 1893 and 1953.

·            Revolution requires violence

·            Everyone encouraged to turn ‘traitors’/non-believers in, even friends and family

Qualities/Conditions only belonging to Mao

·            15 million people killed

·            The Great Leap Forward (Mao’s five year plan)

·            Pro strict communism

·            Wrote his own book and told everyone to use it to answer any questions

o   The Little Red Book sounds like it was treated almost religiously

·            People wrote song and dance numbers praising him

·            People re-educated working farms in the country

·            Involved the children and people via bug and sparrow catching

·            Red Guards

·            December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976

·            “Revolution is not a dinner party…” –Mao

It is very interesting exactly how many similarities exist between the two of them. They seem to have had similar view on revolution and violence, and were equally talented at inspiring love in the people. Their lifetimes overlapped by a total of sixty years, and they may well have been influencing each other, one way or the other, as early as 1918.  Did the rising of one of these men inspire the rise of the other?

Mahatma Gandhi

Everyone has heard of Mahatma Gandhi,  perhaps seen his picture. Most people know that his most famous work was his work to free India, and that he protested violence.

Not many people know what sort of a man he was personally. I fall into this category.

Still, one has to wonder what such a man was like? He mobilized a revolution against one of the greatest powers of the time, and along the way he revolutionized the art of rebellion. On the other hand, many of his followers were imprisoned, injured or worse while doing what he asked of them, and, if only by his own definition, failed in what he had set out to do: a non-violent separation of India from the British Empire.

One popular point of view is that Gandhi was an amazingly strong-willed, trusting and believed strongly in the inherent goodness of an individual. He must have strongly believed in human goodness, because his entire idea of satyagraha depends on it. He must have been strong willed, because he was able to go through such abuse for what he believed in, and he was able to keep fasting when he said he would until his demands were met, even inn his old age. He must have been trusting, because satyagraha would not have worked if there was distrust present, and he had complete faith in his followers.

However, one has to realize: he went through what he did with full knowledge of what that meant for him, and that he could be imprisoned, injured or killed. More then that, through word and deed he encouraged others to do the same, or act in the same spirit: a fact not always taken into account when considering who Gandhi was. Gandhi led people into situations where they could get hurt in many different ways, but they went knowing the potential consequences and fully willing anyway. This is where the image of Gandhi, the general, appears. That statement is not perfectly accurate: Gandhi never served in the army as any sort of officer, and Gandhi himself would dislike the idea of being associated with such death and bloodshed. But the job description of a general and the description what Gandhi did are, in fact, surprisingly similar. Gandhi planned out where his protests would be and what would be done, what strategies would be used during the 'battle'. People followed him all over the country, and he led them all. He felt responsible for their actions and they felt loyalty to him, facts demonstrated by his choice to fast after the British policemen were killed and during the rioting while the Indian population was dividing into those of Pakistan and India, and the nation-wide response of the people to give him what he wanted. Even his followers are comparable to American soldiers: they all signed up willingly to 'fight', knowing the potential dangers, and yet fought anyway. They signed up because of their beliefs, like many soldiers do today.

So who was Gandhi? It is hard to say for certain. I believe he was both kindly and trusting man, and a general for a war that wasn't. He had the mind and the cunning of a professional lawyer, and had a mind for people and philosophy: there is no reason why he could not have had both facets. How interesting is it, then, that he is remembered today for one of these faces he showed the world, and not the other.

What it takes to start a revolution

During a discussion that had turned towards the subject of what it takes to start a revolution, and whether war was really necessary, war was referred to as the catalyst, or the spark. Which had me thinking: if war was the spark, what was everything else? Where would government, and the like come in?

The kindling would be the general problems that the people who rebelled lived under. The smaller things that build up over time, like pine needles or old newspapers do. They might support some anger, but could only sustain it for a little while alone. A kindling fire, when nothing else is there, would be easy enough to smother and put out.

The weakened government itself would be the chopped logs that burn in the fire. While a kindling fire might not do much, the kindling can get a nice blaze going with enough fuel. A weak government is the perfect setting for a revolution.

The larger problems would be the gasoline poured over the top of it all. Gasoline is a quick-catching flammable liquid. It catches fast, it burns quickly, but it travels even faster. Because it is a liquid, it can make it’s way onto cloths, it can run across surfaces and even float across water. Little problems, generally speaking, don’t apply to everyone, are more annoying and representative than necessarily problematic, or some combination there of. Larger problems spread and affect everything they touch, ready to go up in flames at any time.

War, the example used in the original discussion but not the only possibility, would be the spark or catalyst. It would jumpstart the activities of the revolution, lighting the kindling and the gasoline and logs in such a way so as to bring everything together into the flames of change.

It is important to note, however, that the flames of change: not revolution. Even with the kindling, the spark, the gasoline and wood all together and in order, one might not have a revolution. It is possible to smother a roaring fire with the right materials, the right timing. If a fire is smothered early enough, the flames might not have taken hold: merely blackening the wood and kindling. Effectively causing little change, but leaving marks and memories that could, depending, either protect the wood somewhat from further damage or harbor a burning ember that might one day flame up again. Likewise, smothering a fire may put it out, but might just as easily store burning embers and coals until some future time.

If a war, or an event that also emphasizes problems and weakens the government, is the spark, then it is not too hard to see how everything else fits together into the fire and spark metaphor.

Self Help- a Philosophy

Samuel Smiles is famous for writing the first self help book in 1882 titled, simply enough, Self Help.  His main ideas therein are that the harder one works, the farther one goes and the better one is. If a person is poor, it's his or her own fault.

Obviously, this guide also doubles as a textbook to Smiles' personal philosophy: most self-help books do. But what has me curious, is what other philosophies contributed to this? The enlightenment, fueled with the ideas of Locke, had ended a long time before Smiles published his work, but those ideas undoubtedly still held some sway in society. The catholic church had also made a comeback by that time: a church that, to my limited knowledge, agreed with several of Hobbes' general principals. This could easily have been an influence even if Smiles followed another religion, simply because of how many people were religious, and how much religion had soaked into culture.

Of these potential influences, there are a few similarities of interest.  For one, it seems rather Hobbsian that it is the individual's fault if he doesn't get further in life, but rather Lockeian to believe that any man can better himself without influence of government. For that matter, Smiles wrote in his book

                "Whatever is donefor men or classes, to a certain extent takes away the stimulus and necessity of doing for themselves; and where men are subjected to over-guidance and over-government, the inevitable tendency is to render them comparatively helpless. Even the best institutions can give a man no active help."

Smiles shows both Hobbsian and Lockeian ideas in his philosophy, and goes on to inspire one of the best known believers of socialism: Karl Marx. How else did he effect people's views? Karl Marx inspired to communist movement: what other ripple effects did his book cause?

It's interesting, I think, how similar the American, French, and Hatian revolutions were.

Similarities between the Haitian revolution and the American revolution are striking, in many ways.
Both colonies were rich, offering up produce for sale that could be found few, if any, other places in the world. Both colonies fought wars against a nation over seas, and those nations both wanted their colonies for their incomes. The colonies were helped by other foreign nations, and in both cases the underdog fought and won, hoping to achieve better treatment by those conventionally considered 'betters'.

Differences were present as well, of course: George Washington didn't die in an enemy cell, and unlike the American war, the Haitian Revolution was based predominantly around race and the rights inherent to those of a given race, while Americans fought over the right to communicate their opinion to their leaders, and for equal rights/closer to equal rights among the classes. Unlike France, Britain was not currently at war and mid revolution when it's colony rebelled, and the Americans did not use scorched earth tactics against the incoming British.

The similarities between the American and French revolutions are quite obvious as well: one was based off the other, after all. Similar goals, similar classes of people leading the rebellion, and similar ideals buoying the whole thing. Differences are clear as well: the American Revolution was significantly less bloody than the French one, and significantly more successful. The distance that enemies had to travel to reach France was nothing compared to the journey to America, the amounts and proportions of soldiers per side of the battles, and the shear number of sides to the conflict all differed.


These revolutions share so much in common with each other, and likely with other revolutions as well.
Are there common traits to revolutions?