Anatomy of a Revolution

Greetings,

As events have and continue to unfold in the Middle East I am finding Crane Brinton's "Anatomy of a Revolution" a good means by which to make sense of it all. Generally, it works quite well to add a framework to what seems to be somewhat chaotic.


CONDITIONS WHICH SEEM TO BE PRESENT AS CAUSES OF MAJOR REVOLUTIONS:

1. People from all social classes are discontented.
2. People feel restless and held down by unacceptable restrictions in society, religion, the economy or the government.
3. People are hopeful about the future, but they are being forced to accept less than they had hoped for.
4. People are beginning to think of themselves as belonging to a social class, and there is a growing bitterness between social classes.
5. The social classes closest to one another are the most hostile.
6. The scholars and thinkers give up on the way their society operates.
7. The government does not respond to the needs of its society.
8. The leaders of the government and the ruling class begin to doubt themselves. Some join with the opposition groups.
9. The government is unable to get enough support from any group to save itself.
10. The government cannot organize its finances correctly and is either going bankrupt or trying to tax heavily and unjustly.


THE COURSE THAT REVOLUTIONS SEEM TO TAKE:

1. Impossible demands made of government which, if granted, would mean its end.
2. Unsuccessful government attempts to suppress revolutionaries.
3. Revolutionaries gain power and seem united.
4. Once in power, revolutionaries begin to quarrel among themselves, and unity begins to dissolve.
5. The moderates gain the leadership but fail to satisfy those who insist on further changes.
6. Power is gained by progressively more radical groups until finally a lunatic fringe gains almost complete control.
7. A strong man emerges and assumes great power.
8. The extremists try to create a "heaven on earth" by introducing their whole program and by punishing all their opponents.
9. A period of terror occurs.
10. Moderate groups regain power. The revolution is over.

Certainly many of those things tend to happen in some degree or order. But not all, and certainly not in some prescriptive checklist.

But there is a solid thread running through this:

Government policies and their implementation lead to growing discontent and perceptions of hopelessness within significant elements of society.

At some point a tipping point is reached, and the populace acts out illegally to challenge the government.

Depending on the openness of the society this reaction may grow slowly and develop a growing organization and influence to compete with government, or it may explode all at once in a disorganized mob to challenge government.

Opportunists from both within and without the populace will intervene to seek opportunities to support their interests. Some to support the government, some to support the populace.

The populace is the matrix this all occurs within, and is both the parent and the child of the government as well as the rebel. The majority of the populace will likely remain neutral unless dragged in by one side or the other, hedging their bets where opportunity allows.

Regardless of if a slow building organized revolt or a rapid disorganized revolt occurs, there will be chaos, lawlessness, retributions, economic disruption, and hardships for at least a generation until a new stability can evolve from the conflict.

If I recall correctly, the trigger point is something he described as the disappointment of rising expectations. This was, in his view, a "middle class" phenomenon wherein the growing middle class sees an end to (or frustration of) the improvement in social, political and economic improvements, and may see a drop off. At some point in the course of the revolution, the radical elements in society take over and attempt to implement their Utopian view of society through a Reign of Terror. After that runs its course, there is a cooling off period ("Thermidor") before society returns to a stable, somewhat traditional form.

I believe he also suggested that, because of the Constitution and the emergence of the two party structure, the United States remained locked in a sort of period of revolutionary behavior of the sort just prior to the Reign of Terror.

I haven't read it in a long time, and its packed away so I can't check my recollection. If I've got it wrong, let me know.

But like wolf, it's been too long since I studied it. I'll try to dust off the cobwebs.

Coupla points:
One of the other 60s Rev War guys, maybe Gurr, pointed out that the important delta was between expectations and reality. Reality could really suck, but if there were no expectations of a better life, the area was stable. Once expectations outstripped reality, even if reality was good, then trouble started to brew.

Had a P at Fletcher who made a special case for LATAM "revolutions" (this was also decades ago). His thesis was that in LATAM, revolutions were in fact rotations by various members of the educated middle class, often in the officer corps. They would incite the general populace with visions of improvement, replace the existing regime, then commence to screwing the lower classes just as before. One thugoid family simply replaced another in the name of -- take your pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

Coupla points:
One of the other 60s Rev War guys, maybe Gurr, pointed out that the important delta was between expectations and reality. Reality could really suck, but if there were no expectations of a better life, the area was stable. Once expectations outstripped reality, even if reality was good, then trouble started to brew.

---

The course I took had us reading Brinton and Gurr at the same time. Was I conflating the two, and the idea of disappointing expectations was from Gurr?