Perhaps one of the most important factors in determining the right or wrong of revolutionary politics is to consider that most established ideologies, whether political, social or religious, began as revolutionary ideas.
The Liberal democratic model, dominant in western cultures and increasingly global, evolved under and within the authoritarian hierarchical structure present in Europe prior to and during the 18th and 19th centuries. Liberalisms strong individualistic ideology, emphasising the rights and freedoms of the individual and the opposition to the privileged aristocratic system was in direct conflict to the then existing establishment.
“... We must not forget that the reality they [the early Liberal economists] spoke of was a state upholding absolutist privileges, no countless protectionism, and pervasive corruption. What they attacked was a system of government that repress their ideas of both freedom and enterprise. Hence, theirs was revolutionary theory...”
The monarchistic regimes of the time were based on social hierarchy and the ‘divine right of kings’. Accepted theory held that everybody had their place in society allotted by birth (divine right), and it was their duty to fulfil the responsibilities of their position, and not to attempt to rise above their station, and in turn, those who were born with privilege had ‘Noblesse Oblige’ to those below them. This view of society, as one glorious and structured whole, was swept aside by the highly individualistic and atomised principles of liberalism, individualism and constitutional representation.
Today this is judged as right and proper; privilege should not be an accident of birth, but the result of personal achievement. At that time it was a revolutionary and dangerous belief.
Liberals challenged the absolute power of the monarchy supposedly based upon the doctrine of the divine right of kings. In place of absolutism they advocated constitutional and, later, Representative government. Liberals criticised the political and economic privileges of the landed aristocracy, and the unfairness of a feudal system in which social position was determined by the accident of birth. They also supported the movement towards freedom of conscience in religion, and questioned the authority of the established church.”
Liberal revolution, whilst undeniably one of the most profound and long-lasting political revolutions of recent history, was also largely bloodless. This was mainly due to the fact that the Liberal Revolutionaries were, in the majority middle-class, seeking greater representation and political participation, not the total destruction of the existing system. Indeed the competitive nature of liberalism demands a hierarchy.
“Capitalism can flourish only through the creation of extremes of wealth and poverty.”
Many of the Liberal reformers were wealthy businessmen and merchants, it was therefore not in their interest to create dramatically unstable economic conditions. To this end they pressed their revolution through non-violent means (economic and political pressure).
In contrast to the relatively painless rise of liberalism, the socialist movement suffered many more hardships and violent struggles in its bid for socio-political change.
Socialism as a doctrine emerged in the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, its rise triggered by many of the same factors as that of liberalism, but with the exception that whilst the Liberal revolution took place first among the middle-class, Socialism was the revolutionary doctrine of the working class, which saw not only the existing hierarchical structure as its enemy, but also the growing number of middle class factory owners and businessmen, the bourgeoisie.
The difference between the Liberal and socialist revolutions was that Liberal revolutionaries were attempting to integrate themselves and those they supported into the existing elitist structure, thereby increasing political participation, freedom and representation. Socialism, however, wished to completely remove the elite and replace it with a non-hierarchical Communist structure, “all animals are equal.” The result being that liberalism presented itself as less of a threat to the existing establishment than Socialism, and therefore received less hostile resistance; this has been sited as one reason why socialist revolution is frequently condemned as fundamentally destructive by non-socialist thinkers. Socialist thinkers such as Marx believed that although some few mature democratic systems, such as those in Britain and the US, might escape violent revolution, the normal trend of socialist revolutions would be violent, and associated with the process of industrialisation, the ‘means of production’. Despite this, Marx, strongly believed that the lot of the working class must inevitably be improved, no matter the cost. (Karl Marx: Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy (1859).
Through this we begin to see that revolutionary politics seems to be justifiable on the basis that the long-term outcome is sufficiently rewarding or desirable.
More recently, nationalistic movements have shown themselves equally able to justify their actions on the basis of ideology and outcome; examples include the American War of Independence, and the rise of Nazism in Germany.
The Nazi rise to power, while not as bloody as the Bolshevik Revolution, produced one of the most destructive regimes of the modern era; however, the self-justification remains similar. The Nazi party was seeking the restoration of German power and prestige and the removal of what it saw as a failed government.
Conversely, the American War of Independence (whilst not strictly nationalistic in its principles, but strongly compelled by the notion of nationhood) was based on similar causes -- the removal of a governmental structure perceived to be unjust and undesirable and the growth of their nation.
In the first case, the result of revolutionary action is perceived as extremely undesirable and horrifically destructive, the second, the most successful, feared and respected country in the modern world. The conclusion which can be drawn from these examples is that revolution is frequently self justifying and if it successfully captures the hearts and minds of the population it becomes perceived as reasonable, (prior to the outbreak of world war two Hitler was seen as the saviour of Germany by many leading politicians throughout Europe).
One important point in the connection between ideology and revolutionary justification is that conservatism is the only counter revolutionary doctrine. Its core beliefs, namely the veneration and preservation of traditional values, institutions and systems, directly opposes the concept of revolution.” Conservative political doctrine emerged in reaction to the French Revolution and the Paris commune. It was avowedly nationalistic and anti-revolutionary.
Revolutionary politics is by its very nature controversial, however it is important to consider that many of the freedoms and rights which the citizens many of today's more advanced society’s enjoy, such as universal suffrage, equal and human rights, (and in those that developed them) the welfare state, have all come at various times from revolutionary movements. Examples include the British ‘Glorious Revolution’ and the suffragette movement. While many have been won peacefully, without violent uprising resulting in a fundamental regime change, it is arguable that the fact that such a situation was avoided was the achievement of a skilful establishment, able to successfully manipulate Accelerator factors in order to incorporate these ideas rather than risk eventual revolution.
By this measure revolutionary action, even violent revolutionary action, can be said to often substantially benefit the general population in the long term. Additionally, under more totalitarian regimes, whose goal is simply to maintain the existing power balance where the will of the majority is repressed, revolution may be the only way to promote change within such a system, (be that good or bad). Examples of this type can be seen in the overthrow of President Ceausescu of Romania in the early 1990s, or in the abortive attempt to overthrow Hitler, (The July Plot 1944) –when other channels of action are cut off, the only option left is the radical.
From this we can begin to say that revolutionary politics and its associated practices, whilst often being destructive in the short-term, are frequently the most desirable, if not the only way to propagate significant change.
The more oppressive and violent the regime, the more violent revolutionary reaction becomes. This is why more liberal and open cultures tend to produce fewer violent revolutions than those of less developed or more oppressive cultures. This contradicts Marxist theory, which states that violent revolution is more likely to occur in industrialised societies, as a result of economic deprivation. “Marx expected the trade cycle of booms and slumps to oscillate ever more violently until the severity of a depression brought about a revolution”
Without revolution, little would change; through upheaval new systems are developed which cater to the needs of the time, which are then in turn replaced by systems which become more desirable to the significant majority of the population or social group as their situation, or perception of their situation changes -- change is a vital part of political evolution, and perception of ones position is a critical factor in the generation of revolutionary conditions.
“In when men revolt and why (1971), James Davies explained this in terms of the J--curve theory of revolutions. The shape of the letter J. represents a period of rising expectations that is suddenly brought to a halt. The notion of relative deprivation is significant, because it draws attention to the fact that people's perception of their position is more important than their objective circumstances.”
One counterpoint to the stated theory that revolutionary politics plays a vital role in obtaining freedoms and preventing oppression is that, as the character of revolutionary politics is determined by the system within which it develops, revolutions, be they violent and dramatic changes in regime powered by popular uprising, (as in the Marxist model), or less dramatic, but no less profound changes to the nature and structure of a political system as in the liberalist sense, the faults of the previous system will be reflected in the faults of the new. That is to say liberalism developed as a counterpoint to authoritarian hierarchy, and as such, concentrates on the individual and their rights to the exclusion of any form of collective social responsibility or duty, which may lead to a weakening of social ties and the fragmentation of society, as Edmund Burke puts it,
“It is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered…. for ages the common purposes of society.”
If the system is continually revised by the reactionary nature of revolution, is their risk of a ‘multiplier’ effect being created, whereby even greater faults are generated in reaction to the faults of the previous system? If this is the case, this is certainly the most powerful argument against justifying revolutionary politics.
This is the type of action most stable political systems claim to avoid. Despite this the stable systems inevitably continue to generate revolutionaries. The UK is one of the longest standing stable democracies in Europe, and yet it has suffered decades of terrorist violence at the hands of IRA extremists. As previously stated, revolutionary action, the right to change or overthrow one's governmental system, given sufficient cause, is in line with the concepts of representative governments. Without the plurality of revolutionary ideas politics is in danger of becoming stagnant, unrepresentative and unitary in its socio-political makeup.
Totalitarianism provokes a response by creating the perception of dissatisfaction, (oppression breeds revolution), which leads to the formation of revolutionary ideologies etc. However, if the population does not perceive its state as oppressive, then the sentiment will not develop. This manipulation of mass public perception is one explanation behind the continuing stability of the Liberal Democratic system; after all, those who believe they are free have no need of revolution.
To conclude, revolutionary politics can be destructive and runs the risk of magnifying the problems of past eras, however, it does serve a number of frequently vital functions. It allows oppressive or unrepresentative systems to be overthrown or replaced, within more open systems revolutionary politics more often than not, occurs in milder forms, which provide counterpoints to existing ideas, keeping politics and society, fresh and dynamic. Through this come greater freedoms, rights and the introduction of new ideas, which is always vital to prevent stagnation which can develop into oppression; (as previously discussed, this will, in theory, inevitably lead to revolution). Whether or not, the outcome of any given revolution is truly positive or truly negative depends largely on one's historical and political standpoint.
Therefore it is the conclusion of this paper that not only is revolutionary politics, it is also inevitable that any given society will undergo revolution after revolution in unending cycle, although the length of the cycle will indeterminate and variable with no discernable pattern.
Word Count = 2631 (including quotes)
Barbara Goodwin: Using Political Ideas Fourth Edition, p370: 2003: Wiley; Chichester.
Andrew Haywood, Political Theory—an Introduction, Second Edition, p369, 1999, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Oxford concise dictionary of politics. Second Edition, 2003, Oxford University press, Oxford.
Gosta Esping-Andersen, the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, P10, 1997, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Andrew Heywood, Political ideologies an introduction, third edition, 2003, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke
Barbara Goodwin: Using Political Ideas Fourth Edition, p73: 2003: Wiley; Chichester.
George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1949, reprint 2002, Penguin books, London.
Gosta Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, P10, 1997, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Barbara Goodwin: Using Political Ideas Fourth Edition, p72: 2003: Wiley; Chichester.
Andrew Heywood: Politics, Second Edition; pg.218; should be 2002: Palgrave; New York.
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, p152, 1969, Penguin, London.
