A cautionary note on revolutions

[Fortesbrand]

The idea of a radical revolution as a means to eliminate what seems to be intractable challenges is a problematic one. I do think that civilisation has benefited from revolutions but from gradual ones that build towards a reshaping of society rather than violent shifts in social, political or economic organisation or concentrations of power into the hands of a few. This is an account of the effects of a revolution on society in Corcyra from The Peloponnesian War Book 3, paragraph 82:

To fit in with the change in events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question form all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted. And anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one’s blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of established laws, but to acquire power by overthrowing the existing regime; and the members of these parties felt confidence in each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.

Revenge was more important than self-preservation. And if pacts of mutual security were made, they were entered into by the two parties only in order to meet some temporary difficulty, and remained in force only so long as there was no other weapon available. When the chance came, the one who first seized it boldly, catching his enemy off guard, enjoyed a revenge that was all the sweeter from having been taken, not openly, but because of a breach of faith. It was safer that way, it was considered, at the same time that a victory won by treachery gave one a title for superior intelligence. And indeed most people are more ready to call villainy cleverness than simple-minded honesty. They are proud of the first quality and ashamed of the second.

Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added the violent fanaticism which came into play once the struggle had broken out. Leaders of parties in the cities had programmes which appeared admirable – on one side political equality for the masses, on the other the safe and sound government of the aristocracy – but in professing to serve the public interest they were seeking to win the prizes for themselves. In their struggles for ascendancy nothing was barred; terrible indeed were the actions to which they committed themselves, and in taking revenge they went farther still. Here they were deterred neither by the claims of justice nor by the interests of the state; their one standard was the pleasure of their own party at that particular moment, and so, either by means of condemning their enemies on an illegal vote or by violently usurping power over them, they were always ready to satisfy the hatreds of the hour. Thus neither side had any use for conscientious motives; more interest was shown in those who could produce attractive arguments to justify some disgraceful action. As for the citizens who held moderate views, they were destroyed by both the extreme parties, either for not taking part in the struggle or in envy at the possibility that they might survive.

Thucydides describes a society divided into two extreme camps; an oligarchical one and a popular one. Mostly we think of revolutions as being of the popular kind. For example the French and Russian revolutions but oligarchical revolutions do take place. This is an example of one in Athens as a democracy is being turned into an oligarchy from book 8, paragraph 66:

Nevertheless the Assembly and the Council chosen by lot still continued to hold meetings. However, they took no decisions that were not approved by the party of the revolution; in fact all the speakers came from this party, and what they were going to say had been considered by the party beforehand. People were afraid when they saw their numbers, and no one dared to speak in opposition to them. If anyone did venture to do so, some appropriate method was soon found for having him killed, and no one tried to investigate such crimes or take actions against those suspected of them. Instead the people kept quiet, and were in such a state of terror that they thought themselves lucky enough to be left unmolested even if they had said nothing at all. They imagined that the revolutionary party was much bigger than it really was, and they lost all confidence in themselves, being unable to find out the facts because they had insufficient knowledge of each other. For the same reason it was impossible for anyone who felt ill-treated to complain of it to someone else so as to take up measures in his own defence; he would either have had to speak to someone he did not know or to someone he knew but could not rely upon. Throughout the democratic party people approached each other suspiciously, everyone thinking that the next man had something to do with what was going on. And there were in fact among the revolutionaries some people whom no one could ever have imagined would have joined an oligarchy. It was these who were mainly responsible for making the general mass of people so mistrustful of each other and who were of the greatest help in keeping the minority safe, since they had made mutual suspicion an established thing in popular assemblies.

What we see here is a culture of fear and not one that anyone would want to live in. It’s important that we look at the merits of issues than get caught up in personal rancour. A commitment to justice is not a luxury; it is a vital necessity if we are to avoid suffering from a spiteful social environment. We should recognise that people have different beliefs and opinions and that because they differ from us does not mean that it condemns them.

The successful revolutions in history were built from a united society that had agreed the goals and values of their movement and the appropriate methods they would use. They generally had developed over decades. The rule of law was instrumental in their success – that of justice not revenge. The American Revolution was perhaps the most successful in history as it did not descend into the terrors that accompanied so many others and was the practical way to liberate a people from oppression.

In the last century, the method of non-violence and peaceful demonstration emerged and, with the use of the ballot box, it has proved itself very powerful. This gradual, sustainable way of emerging from structural injustices and corrupt regimes is a part of the history of our nation and an important element in our political traditions. Once a political process has emerged that one can have a reasonable confidence in then it should be pursued and once a political system that respects political rights has been established then all avenues should be exhausted within it before other options are contemplated.

A citizen is not a king or a god or a president but a citizen has, nevertheless, a political power and inalienable rights within his or her state that should not be dismissed or despised.

What are your views on what citizenship means? Is a citizen a ward of the state or a shareholder in it?

[toxic avenger]

You are only a citizen in a democratic republic, isn't that right? The people who live in monarchical countries are called subjects. Although Britain, Belgium, Spain, etc., are weird cases now, with sovereignty being held in common with the EU there is a case to be made that the people there are both subjects and citizens. I would argue otherwise myself, the EU being neither a republic nor very democratic...

On the wider point of revolutions, I tend to go with Edmund Burke on this. He supported the American Revolution but opposed the French one, thinking the latter to be ill-thought out mob-justice masquerading as political ideology. A revolution that calls for 'liberty' but discards the importance of continuity, respect, historical tradition, etc., is usually doomed to failure, or at least to degenerate into a grossly warped parody of its stated intentions...

[merle haggard]

On the wider point of revolutions, I tend to go with Edmund Burke on this. He supported the American Revolution but opposed the French one, thinking the latter to be ill-thought out mob-justice masquerading as political ideology. A revolution that calls for 'liberty' but discards the importance of continuity, respect, historical tradition, etc., is usually doomed to failure, or at least to degenerate into a grossly warped parody of its stated intentions...

continuity of what ?, respect for what ? the historical tradition of what ? I can only assume your talking about the existing institutions of power . I see little point in a revolution that does not seek to cast them into historys dustbin .

Personally i think Burke suffered from that all too familiar Irish liberal disease . Far away revolutions are good , ones on your doorstep to be thoroughly abhorred .

[5intheface]

Merle,

I cant understand why you didn't just highlight this from your sig.

[ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mzHoEpoVgWE]YouTube - Fistful Of Dynamite_James Coburn_Rod Steiger[/ame]

[merle haggard]

revolutionary movements must be democratic in character and intent . But more importantly as regards a colonised society like Ireland , Mexico , Cuba etc they must be constituted upon the clear overthrow and destruction of all existing post colonial institutions and not involve one ounce of compromise with them - one can arrive at a peaceful arrangement but the arrangement must be the post colonial institutions are finished and finished for good . When someone says power to the people thats what must happen . Power must be sovereignty , sovereignty must be sovereignty in all its forms ( territorial , economic , democratic , political) and sovereignty must be vested solely in the people . Anyone standing in the way of the peoples sovereignty is a traitor to the people and his nation . Its treason . One cannot compromise on treason . No point having a revolution if ones only going to commit the same treason as the people you overthrew - or co-opted as is sadly often the case .
A revolution cannot be a compromise .

[merle haggard]

Merle,

I cant understand why you didn't just highlight this from your sig.

YouTube - Fistful Of Dynamite_James Coburn_Rod Steiger

it is indeed a cautonary note for all, particularly in this country

[wysiwyg]

I liked this too.. from The Wind that Shakes the Barley ... I would have come down on the side of the anti-Treatyites here..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z_z6lSgB_8&feature=related]YouTube - Greatest Political Debate in a Film[/ame]

[merle haggard]

[quote=Fortesbrand;1386434].

In the last century, the method of non-violence and peaceful demonstration emerged and, with the use of the ballot box, it has proved itself very powerful. This gradual, sustainable way of emerging from structural injustices and corrupt regimes is a part of the history of our nation and an important element in our political traditions. Once a political process has emerged that one can have a reasonable confidence in then it should be pursued and once a political system that respects political rights has been established then all avenues should be exhausted within it before other options are contemplated.

part of our nation has remained occupied by a foreign power for the best part of a century . Our current political institutions and leaders are intent upon not only legitimising that occupation , which they have done constitutionally , but the denial and subversion of national democracy and national sovereignty that accompanies it . And portraying that as perfectly normal and democratic. The existing and seemingly permanent occupation of our national territory by a foreign colonial power was not an arrangement arrived at by the Irish people but one foisted upon them by the threat of foreign military aggression and the subversion of national democracy and sovereignty by native party cliques who had bent to foreign interests .
The political consensus was first determined by the colonial power and demands then made of the native bourgouisie who had risen to prominence on the back of a popular struggle for national sovereignty to enforce this as their political consensus . Foreign colonial interests take precedence over all in our society when push comes to shove . The Dublin Monaghan families and indeed now the omagh families can testify to that equation of popular interest versus British interests in Ireland .
Our post colonial country has not gradually emerged from a foreign regime , foreign interests are simply upheld by natives .

A citizen is not a king or a god or a president but a citizen has, nevertheless, a political power and inalienable rights within his or her state that should not be dismissed or despised.

the right to oppose the foreign occupation of your country is one that has been . The right to freedom of speech , to remain silent , to have a trial by jury etc went out the window with that one . The southern Irish state even pays a yearly fine to the EU in advance because of the dismissal of its citizens rights . An admission that rights are being trampled upon .

What are your views on what citizenship means? Is a citizen a ward of the state or a shareholder in it?

In the south of Ireland its also apparent that the right of a citizen to vote no in a referendum and hav that result respected , much less accepted , is non existant also . Hardly surprising when the political principle that the Irish people do not have the right to determine their own futures free from foreign interference has already been embedded in their constitution to permit the physical occupatuion of their national territory by an aggressive foreign power. The duty of an Irish citizen is simply to obey his betters and submit to the same foreign interests theyve already submitted to behind closed doors .

Thats our political traditrion now and for the best part of a century or more .

[toxic avenger]

continuity of what ?, respect for what ? the historical tradition of what ? I can only assume your talking about the existing institutions of power . I see little point in a revolution that does not seek to cast them into historys dustbin .

Personally i think Burke suffered from that all too familiar Irish liberal disease . Far away revolutions are good , ones on your doorstep to be thoroughly abhorred .

No, calm down, I mean in a cultural and moral sense, i.e. no 'year zero' mentality as with France, the Bolsheviks, Pol Pot etc. Respect for the institutions of power as already existing would hardly lead to revolution, would it?

Burke was certainly partially motivated, in ridiculing the French example, by a desire to prevent such ideas spreading to Britain, but that doesn't mean that all his criticism was without foundation, in my view it was well-founded indeed. The French Revolution was conducted in a manner that almost inherently meant there would be a 'Terror' soon afterwards. The fundamental problem with this and the Russian one was the complete contempt for the dignity and rights of the individual in relation to the revolutionary system. Put the system ahead of the individual, in any society, and evil will follow.

[merle haggard]

No, calm down, I mean in a cultural and moral sense, i.e. no 'year zero' mentality as with France, the Bolsheviks, Pol Pot etc. Respect for the institutions of power as already existing would hardly lead to revolution, would it?

Burke was certainly partially motivated, in ridiculing the French example, by a desire to prevent such ideas spreading to Britain, but that doesn't mean that all his criticism was without foundation, in my view it was well-founded indeed. The French Revolution was conducted in a manner that almost inherently meant there would be a 'Terror' soon afterwards. The fundamental problem with this and the Russian one was the complete contempt for the dignity and rights of the individual in relation to the revolutionary system. Put the system ahead of the individual, in any society, and evil will follow.

but in those societys youve mentioned - cambodia , france and russia the cultural traditions which existed where intrinsically linked to the regimes themselves - monarchy , church etc . The regimes authority was god given , the church - whether French catholic , Russian orthodox or cambodian buddhist agreed . Furthermore you were dealing with populations which were largely illiterate , indeed deliberately kept illiterate . That rendered calm considered arguments basically impractical in many instances . The regimes operated upon the principle of the populations ingrained deference to the institutions of power and their inability to question them or hold them to account democratically . With peasant masses unable to read then actions had to take precedence over words in those particular circumstances , as the masses simply didnt understand the words . They thought theyd burn in everlasting damnation if they opposed the regime , not simply be killed or imprisoned .
What happened in those instances in my opinion was the regimes themselves guaranteed the terror which enveloped them by creating and sustaining societies , often through no less dreadful terror , were the populations ability to reason in a peaceful and democratic manner was outlawed by the regimes themselves . They then fell victim to their own lack of standards , sowed the seeds of their own destruction.

I agree with you that in order to fully succeed a revolution must be centred upon the rights of a citizen , and that a citizens rights must be upheld within a constitution . And that a constitution must be upheld by the revolution . It must be democratic . But its also the case that those who engage in treason must be held firmly accountable - including banishment , imprisonment and even execution . In my opinion the French and Russians did the right thing in liquidating their monarchies and aristocracies , although they did a lot of other things wrong , no doubt about that . But those elements engaged in clear cut treason against their countries in order to attempt to remain in power.