An interesting and important revolutionary change was accomplished by a large social movement which did not use the wide scale violence often associated with revolutions was the establishment of black rule in South Africa and the repealing of the apartheid laws in 1991. This is an example that shows there can be difficulty distinguishing between a revolution and a social movement. The conditions in South Africa experienced by the struggling black majority who were dominated and oppressed by the white minority, seemed right to trigger a violent revolution. There was widespread poverty amongst the black population who were denied many fundamental rights by the affluent white minority. It was an explosive situation and many of the uprisings such as Soweto in 1976 had already been very violent with many deaths. However, although the African National Congress (ANC), the leading black opposition movement, had been banned, apartheid rule was so universally condemned that the white government eventually promised reforms. It released the imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela who was soon elected President of the ANC and power sharing began – a truly revolutionary outcome. Writing in 1990 Gerald Segal says ‘The struggle is now not so much about whether to dismantle racist white rule but whether it can be done without too much bloodshed.’10 It seems that rather than actively helping the ANC movement to overturn the democratic white government by revolutionary methods which would almost certainly have included much violence, the international community pressurised the South African government to end its racist rule. It gave the ANC movement credibility through its support, much of which was performed outside South Africa on their behalf such as anti apartheid protest marches, boycotting sport and cultural functions and trade sanctions – all characteristic of social movements.
The use of violence is not a factor that easily distinguishes revolutions from social movements, although it is generally included in definitions such as used by Michael Taylor who states that ‘revolutions are large scale and complex events characterised by turmoil and violence.’11 The majority of social movements, however, operate in a totally non-violent manner and the minority that have resorted to violence have used it on a very much smaller scale compared to most revolutions.
An important distinction between revolutions and social movements is concerned with the breadth of change that is desired. Most social movements, known as reformative movements, are concerned with changing just one or two aspects of society whereas revolutions are normally concerned with complete change which arise from revolutionary movements. Examples of reformative movements are: the animal rights campaigners who aim to just change society’s treatment of animals and the noise abatement society which just campaigns for a quieter society. If movements such as these were to succeed in bringing about their desired changes they could not be considered revolutionary.
However, it is the few social movements whose goal it is to completely change society politically and socially that can be considered revolutionary. If the Green Movement were to attract mass support through ‘reason’ and succeed in bringing about its desired transformation of society, this would constitute a revolutionary outcome.
This example also highlights another important factor that distinguishes a revolution from a social movement – namely the size of membership. A revolutionary movement requires support on a large scale, along with a high degree of dedication from its members. This involves a readiness to endure hardship and to put their lives at risk in order for the movement to successfully engender a revolution. The availability of weapons and other potent resources are usually needed in order to achieve a revolution.
Many social movements have a restricted appeal as they can only attract support from a small sector of society because they are campaigning on behalf of justice and equality for other humans or on the behalf of animals. Members of the Trade Justice Movement are sincere and altruistic but are unlikely to risk their lives or put up with prolonged hardship for the sake of their cause, whereas the women who camped at Greenham Common for long periods in the early 1980s endured some hardship and sacrificed comforts, believing that the possible use of cruise missiles was a threat to their children’s safety.
The aims of many of the most widely supported and growing social movements of the present time in the West are not in keeping with the traditional definition of a revolutionary situation but conform instead more accurately to the original definition of revolution. The original 17th century meaning was that revolutions are part of a cyclical phenomena returning to a previous position through a revolving movement – as astrologists would understand the term. The ‘eco-pax’ movements which include CND, Friends of the Earth and some anti-capitalist groups are campaigning against and fighting for a reversal in some instances of the aspects of modernity which threaten man and his natural environment. It could be argued that these social movements are quite different from those in the past such as the suffragettes, as these ‘eco-pax’ movements are a reaction against the harmful outcomes of the industrial and technological revolutions. They seek to resist and abolish some of the harmful changes that these revolutions have produced.
An interesting social movement which has grown and become very active during the last year is the Countryside Alliance. They have organised huge protest marches in London and campaigned widely using the emotive slogan ‘liberty and livelihood’ – a little reminiscent of the Bolshevik slogan ‘bread, land and peace.’ Sidney Tarrow defined a social movement as ‘a form of political activity by the non-powerful, the non-wealthy and the non-famous.’12 The Countryside Alliance does not conform to Tarrow’s definition as it does have quite a few wealthy land-owning supporters who are campaigning against the ban on hunting. Other supporters of the Countryside Alliance such as farmers have some issues in common with those in past revolutionary situations – the losses of livelihood, control and freedom as they are now controlled by the EEC and powerful supermarkets.
A key difference between revolutions and social movements is that most social movements operate through a sustained effort to promote or resist social change using public protest activities whereas revolutions radically change both the political and social structures – they are seen as interdependent. ‘Revolutions have often been a way of creating the preconditions for social change.’13
It does seem reasonable to regard the age of revolutions as being over in the developed world and it is now through the growing number of social movements that beneficial change is more likely to be achieved using non violent means. Since the 1960s more people have joined pressure groups than political parties – ‘In the early 1980s the environmental and peace movements became major social phenomena with about 3 million people belonging to environmental groups and 400,000 belonging to local groups of CND.’14 The desire for revolutionary change undoubtedly still exists among many of these ‘green thinkers.’ The idea of a non-violent revolution driven by green ideas has been present since the late 1960s. ‘Non-violent revolution entails taking back the power that has been taken from us, and refusing to exercise illegitimate power over anyone else, whether that power be domestic tyranny, economic exploitation or the threat of military force.’15 The goal of liberty is still the prime aim of this new form of revolution which does not involve violent confrontation. Andrew Reich states ‘There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate within the individual and with culture and it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not need violence to succeed and cannot be successfully resisted by violence.’16
This vision may well describe an anti-capitalist revolution that succeeds with the help of opinion formers such as Naomi Klein who make the need for radical change seem common sense.
If the age of old style revolutionary warfare is considered to be over it is reasonable to assume that the conditions needed to precipitate a revolution are no longer present now that modernity has been achieved. Marx claimed that ‘a revolutionary situation is created when the masses can no longer live in the old way, the ruling classes can no longer rule in the old way and when the suffering and poverty of the exploited and oppressed class has grown more acute than usual.’17
In the developed world most people are well fed and want to protect their comfortable lifestyles. Many are too apathetic and complacent even to vote let alone be willing to participate in a revolution.
State security is too strong and sophisticated to allow a revolutionary movement to succeed. In a recent television programme ‘True Spies’, MI5 officially admitted targetting the subversive element within legitimate protest groups and has dossiers on 500,0000 citizens, many of whom are members of pressure groups and had merely spoken out on public issues.
The political and social systems are now extremely stable and well established in the western democracies and would be very difficult to overthrow compared with less stable regimes in the South. Many less stable regimes in the developing world where revolutions have occurred belong to former colonial countries. The coloniser was seen as ‘the aggressor and the revolutionary forces in these countries represented authentic national values.’18 It is in the developing world where the potential for revolution still exists. The combination of lack of democratic rule and humiliating grinding poverty suffered by the masses are revolutionary pre-conditions.
However, Gerard Challiand claims that the ‘revolutionary potential of the Third World has been overestimated and too much importance given to the role of revolutionary ideology without always evaluating what sort of society was to be grafted onto and under what circumstances.’19 This may well be true as it was the nationalist ideology that really fuelled the numerous revolutions in former colonial countries shortly after they were granted independence. Nationalist fervour was frequently strengthened if an anti-colonial leader had been imprisoned and was then seen as a symbol for the struggle for national liberation. Challiand also states that ‘in the past twenty years there have been few radical national and social revolutions….whereas pure national revolutions have been much more numerous.’20 These he says have enabled administrative bourgeoisies to develop politically and materially. These revolutions have strengthened the state enabling it to recuperate its natural resources but not progressed very far in transforming society keeping modern technological knowledge possessed by a small minority. ‘A social revolution demands the development of production forces otherwise as Marx says all that is socialised is poverty.’21 Marx emphasised the importance of collective class consciousness in a socialist revolutions in the 19th century. Class consciousness has greatly diminished in recent decades with the emancipation of the working class.
It is the fact that several major political and social changes have occurred in various parts of the world in recent decades involving little or no revolutionary assistance, that is perhaps evidence that the age of revolutions is over. As already mentioned, the ending of apartheid in South Africa was an example and equally worthy of mention was the fall of communism in Eastern Europe which was a striking example of great change without there being a revolution. Gorbachev recognised the need for economic reform and political change and realised that the harsh repression of Soviet communism could not resist as it was impossible to keep the Russian people isolated from the influence of the Western world. By 1988 Gorbachev accepted that it was necessary to replace authoritarian single party rule by political pluralism and to replace the totally state owned economy with a market economy. Archie Brown describes Perestroika – the liberalising of the Soviet system ‘as initially a revolution from above’22 but it had become by 1989 a movement from below when many communist party leaders were defeated in democratic elections. Noreena Hertz argues that it was free market capitalism that demolished communism and that ‘McDonalds, Levis, BMWs and pop music had become symbols of the Western way of life as important to the eastern Europeans as multi-party democracy, freedom of speech and travel’ – she adds that ‘William the Conqueror took Britain with the sword but the Soviet bloc was vanquished by the Coca-Cola bottle!’23 This may sound a little simplistic as other factors such as the Soviets defeat in their war with Afghanistan almost certainly played a part in its collapse. However, the fact that a very bloody revolution was needed to establish communism and yet nothing resembling a revolution was need to demolish it strengthens the argument that the age of revolution is over.
Religion has often played a significant role in revolutions and has sometimes been the unifying force needed to stir the masses and build a collective consciousness. It is possible that the secularisation of society is another reason for the lack of revolutionary potential that exists in the West. With the increasing complexity of modern society there has been an increase in individualism and fragmentation. Durkheim was concerned that the ethos of individualism and the process of social differentiation would undermine the collective consciousness. He feared that religion would be considered just a private matter and become incapable of unifying its members.24 In South America religion has been seen as a liberating force to help oppressed people and Catholic priests have been known to pledge their support for revolutionary struggle against the state. Father Camilo Torres a Columbian priest, believed the ownership of land by just a few wealthy people was unjust and advocated what he saw as a Christian revolution. He felt that the government would crush peaceful protest so he joined a guerrilla movement stating ‘Revolution is necessary to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked and procure a life of well-being for the needy majority of our people. I believe that the revolutionary struggle is appropriate for the Christian and the priest. Only by revolution, by changing the concrete conditions of our country, can we enable men to practise love for each other.’25 One of the few strong nationalist organisations which operates in a revolutionary manner is the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.), located in a part of the developed world where religion plays a large part. It remains a revolutionary movement, despite its use of violence it has not been powerful enough to achieve a revolution.
The equality of gender that now exists in Western society ia anothet factor making revolutions more unlikely as they were almost exclusively organised and dominated by men. The strong influence of women over men may serve to prevent the occurrence of revolutions. More women seek change through peaceful means and they have considerable involvement and power in the many large social movements.
In conclusion it can be seen that there are some ways in which the praxis of revolutions and social movements differ, such as the degree of violence used and the participation and dedication of the members. Although revolutions are borne from social movements, very few social movements engender a revolution. The majority of social movements are of the type that do not have revolutionary intentions but aim to change specific aspects of society. It is these which now have a far greater chance of success than those with revolutionary aims. The classic type of revolution can be considered over in the West where security is tight, peoples’ basic needs are satisfied, international links are strong and where there is no cause yet great enough to unite sufficient numbers of people. Revolutionary movements do however, have the potential to succeed in the developing world where hunger, mass poverty, religious fundamentalism and lack of democracy are able to fuel a revolutionary outcome. A more sophisticated, non-violent revolution, does however, seem possible engendered by a strong coalition of social movements opposed to the globalisation of capitalism.
Bibliography
Baechler, Jean, (1975) Revolution, Blackwell, New York p.1-6
Button, John, (1988) Green Ideas, Routledge p.303,395-396
Challiand, Gerard, (1977) Revolution in the Third World – Myths and Prospects, Viking Press, New York p.178-194
Coxall, W. N., (1987) Parties and Pressure Groups, Longman Group, p.162-176
Della Porta, D., (1995) Social Movements, Political Violence and the State, Cambridge University Press p.
Hampson, N., (1988) A Social History of the French Revolution, Routledge p.247-264
Hertz, Noreena, (2002) The Silent Takeover, Arrow Books, p.
Howard, Michael, (198) The Oxford History of the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, p.183
Jary, D., (1995) Dictionary of Sociology, Harper Collins, p.557-558
Morrow, J., (1998) History of Political Thought, Macmillan Press, p.323-354
Onions, C. T., (1980) Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press
Segal, Gerald, (1991) World Affairs Companion - Global Issues, Simon and Schuster p.274-277
Tarrow, Sidney, (1989) Struggle, Politics and Reform, Collective Action, Social Movements and the Cycle of Protest
Taylor, Michael, (1988) Rationality and Revolution, Cambridge University Press
Taylor, Paul et al., (1998) Sociology in Focus, Caiseway Press, p.493-531
1 Onions, C. T., (1980) Oxford English Dictionary Clarendon Press Oxford, p.1823
2 Ibid p.1366
3 Della Porta, D., Social Movements, Political Violence and the State (1995) p.3
4 Jary, D, Dictionary of Sociology (1995) p.615
5 Ibid p.615
6 Jary D, Op cit p.557
7 Morrow, J., History of Political Thought (1998) p.323
8 Hampson, N., (`1998) Social History of French Revolution p.250
9 Coxall, W. N., Parties and Pressure Groups (1987) p.169
10 World Affairs Comp p.274
11 Taylor, Michael, Rationality and Revolution (1998) C.U.P p.1
12 Tarrow, Sidney, Struggle, Politics and Reform, Collective Action, Social Movements and the Cycle of Protest (1989) p. 1
13 Morrow, J., History of Political Thought (1998).Macmillan p.54
14 Coxall, W. N., Op cit p.173
15 Button, John, Green Ideas Routledge p.303
16 Ibid p.39
17 Jary, D., Op cit p.558
18 Challiand, Gerard, Revolution in the Third World- Myths and Prospects (1977) Viking Press, New York p.178
19 Ibid p.185
20 Ibid p.189
21 Challiand, Gerard, Op cit p.190
22 Howard, Michael, Oxford History of the 20th Century, Oxford University Press p.183
23 Hertz, Noreena,The Silent Take Over, Arrow Books p.33
24 Taylor, Paul et al., Sociology in Focus, Causeway Press (1998) p.525
25 Taylor, Paul et al, Op cit p.503
??
??
??
??
