21H.001: How to Stage a Revolution
ocw.mit.edu
ocw.mit.edu
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/...
It's mostly academic, capitalist/liberal pseudo reflection and philosophy. And more than half of the people on that list are the dullest, most conservative and anything but revolutionary. The leftist literature has far more explosive, pin-point, HOWTO material.
Instead, read Gramsci, Camus, Marcuse, and Arendt for the philosophy. Then see Battle of Algiers and read the revolutionary struggles and biographies of Che, Trotsky, Mao.
Just studying Marxism is an individual act of revolution. The mental impact on one's mind, when you finally get it, is irreversible. "Class Consciousness" is a revolutionary virus of the mind.
Also, how much philosophy is really needed? I wonder how to overthrow a regime with a huge police force and secret police everywhere. Are there even any example where this happened without external forces? Maybe Rumania? In any case, it seems to be more a practical problem than a philosophical one.
The most important ingredient is the group self-identity; you can be unhappy with the State all you want, on your own, but you will have to convince your would be comrades that: 1) the regime is harmful. and 2) that they can govern themselves better.
Philosophy is needed in that it gives the group a political framework they can use to imagine their Utopia governed by. A unifying philosophy is very important; if most people in the group can't see the future political rule being better than the current one, then there would be no mass popular movement. The IRA said they want Ireland as "another democratic European country" and it worked. In Palestine, half the people imagine their Utopia to be another secular Arab state, a la Syria and Egypt, while the other half wants an Islamic Republic, a la Iran. That's why it's easiest to kill a revolution from the inside, by introducing uncertainty to their philosophical foundation and spreading suspicion about the leading committee.
The easiest revolution would be one forged under clear differences, say, based on race, language, or religion. Marxism was unique in that it was revolution based on class.
For theory, Havel's work is a bit out there but definitely interesting. Try "Power of the Powerless" and "On Evasive Thinking" (it's in his Open Letters, I think); these are two of his best political theory essays. Havel's a bit of a contested figure, but I think it's fair to say that he roughly lives by the principles he expounded in his theoretical works, and that his emphasis on public dissent as a means of taking down authoritarian regimes heavily influenced other East Bloc dissidents.
Many of the old party bosses made it into high spots in the government after the revolution, and continue in these positions to this date.
It is actually very easy - just get yourself a place on the CIA payroll. This will take care of funding for propaganda, bribes, and parties for the right locals. It will also arrange a speedy getaway should your plan fail. Do your best to create and gather up "dissidents." Hype the bright capitalist future with stylish American pants for everyone which will surely come. Provoke demonstrations at every opportunity, inciting the local regime to violence; or, if the latter has become sclerotic and emasculated, you can stage an "orange" revolution using herds of bored college students. After you're done, invite your moneyed friends to buy up whatever is left of the country's industry and natural resources.
This recipe has an excellent track record in the former Soviet block.
Another thing that I think it's hard for the modern observer to acknowledge, given the benefit of hindsight, is the incredible ambivalence the Western left felt for some of these revolutionary movements. Many leftists of the 1968 generation wanted some form of socialism to work, and there was always a hope that an East Germany or Czechoslovakia could slowly reform into an authoritarian, yes, but competitive working-class social welfare state. The Polish uprising especially seemed to throw leftists off guard; here was a revolutionary movement dominated by conservative, Catholic traditionalists who wanted things to be _like they were before the war_. This wasn't in the discourse of the Democratic (by which I mean the party) mainstream, but it was a major element of leftist political thought of the time, and it's not hard to see how that could rub off on the measures and rhetoric American administrations were willing to take.
In short, the US was pretty much a nonentity when it came to "interference in the internal affairs" of Soviet puppet states. The "hardline" right was all talk and no action in deference to the longstanding policy of detente, and the moderate/radical left was too focused on criticizing American nuclear policy and too ambivalent about the broad-based dissident movements focused on individual liberties springing up in the Soviet bloc to push for intervention.
> The US had essentially no involvement (often to the despair of Soviet bloc citizens) in any of the three major uprisings
How do we know this? There is an ocean of still-classified documents from that period.
> the US was pretty much a nonentity when it came to "interference in the internal affairs" of Soviet puppet states.
In its official foreign policy, perhaps.
Talk to someone who reads the Russian-speaking blogosphere. This statement is heavily disputed there, for a wealth of excellent reasons (and not limited to the fact of just what kind of people benefited most from the overthrows.) The skeptics I'm talking about aren't on the level of the "9-11 truthers," either - the feeling that the US and its Western European lackeys deliberately undermined the USSR and its allies runs deep, and is not without foundation (see the Afghan War, for example. Or find someone who has heard Voice of America from the period. There is no shortage of evidence, if you care to look.)
The reason I can be pretty sure there wasn't much US involvement in Eastern bloc revolutionary movements is that these movements time and again followed one of two patterns: A. "Reformist" 1. Trusted, committed Party members have falling out with Party Secretary, who is heavy-handed/incompetent/annoying. 2. These Party members (usually Politburo) force out the Party Secretary and promise to get the worker's state back on track. 3. These new leaders (to the surprise of everyone) actually become popular by forcing out the hated leader and promising reform. 4. The non-elite classes (i.e. those not in the Party) get a little too excited in the midst of this public euphoria, and start calling for cheaper meat, less overbearing local Party hacks, freely-elected union representatives. 5. The Soviets march in.
B. "Dissident-led" 1. A small group of self-proclaimed dissidents publicly and repeatedly denounce the regime. 2. Because of this, they lose their (usually) intellectual, white-collar jobs, guarantee no secondary education for their children, endure frequent jail stints and get assigned back-breaking physical work. 3. Nevertheless, they refuse to back down, and instead continue their public activities. 4. The economy gets bad/a rally is organized for a slain WWII hero, and 10k-15k people strike/protest/rally in the streets of the capitol city. Anti-communist chants inevitably occur, and someone gets shot. 5. The shooting, and the Party's embarrassment about it, encourages more people to protest and gives them a reason to protest. Soon as much as 1/4 of the population is in the streets on any given day. 6. The Soviets march in/Gorbachev writes off the Eastern bloc.
Neither of these patterns is especially useful/conducive to US interests. The first severely damages right-wing interests; here is an example of the people of a Soviet puppet state showing trust and affection in their political leaders. If it had worked -- if Hungary or Czechslovakia had transformed into something closer to Sweden or even Yugoslavia -- the meme of socialism as perpetrator of evil would be tarnished. It's also difficult to generate political enthusiasm by more than a few hundred people. That just doesn't happen, no matter how much money/support you give.
The second pattern is even more difficult to produce. Anyone willing to be bought off is a rational actor, and in 1977 nobody believed the Soviet Union was going to disappear anytime soon. Why would you give up all earthly comforts for a future that would likely never come?
Thank goodness for a healthy mental immune system, then. Proponents of Marxist thought seem to believe that because they've found there's a different way of looking at the world that explains some things better than their default view, it must thus be correct in all respects. Pointing out that one has simply swapped one kind of tunnel vision for another tends to be poorly received. This is not to say the study of Marx is without value, but I'm being a lot kinder to Marxism here than Marxists are towards their perceived 'class enemies'.
Anyway yes, the reading list is underwhelming. 4 works about Mao, but nothing by Mao himself, or by Che Guevara? Disqualifying fail.
On Guerilla Warfare by Mao Tse-Tung
Guerilla Warfare by Ernesto Che Guevara
Coup d'etat: a practical handbook by Edward Luttwak
The Authoritarian Specter by Robert Altermeyer
On the psychology of military incompetence by Norman F Dixon
That should see you through the practical end of things.
48 Laws of Power and other books by Robert Greene are good introductions to political strategy, along with Machiavelli's classic The Prince. A look at the aftermath of the French revolution is probably good idea as well if you intend to retire peacefully.
Kolakowski -> http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...
Now that you mentioned Petraeus, I see you're confused about what "Revolution" means in this context. The course is teaching actual political, armed-struggle type revolution.
Big-R Revolution is very different from anything else. It's the popular uprising of a group of people and the assertion of their will upon, and demand for their rights from, another group they deem oppressive.
Revolution derives its will from the people, and the people derive theirs from their group identity. No people, no revolution. Petraeus is a beauracrat; I don't see a nation of Petraeuses besieging the pentagon with small arms and demanding their birth right for a more efficient budget system.
Bob Hunter is an activist, not a Revolutionary, for he still lacks the popular support of determined people who are willing to defend their home planet. He also lacks the Other; the target of his alleged Revolution. No opposing Other, no Revolution.
Kolakowski is a Philosophe academic, plenty of pen-pushers to go around, frankly. I particularly avoided recommending the Western Marxists and academes because of their petty intellectualism.
Good day, Sir.
The people that support it do so from a strange mix of environmental consciousness and guilt (at least in my circle of friends).
Some of its positions are just as shortsighted as those held by the industries that it opposes.
That doesn't mean I'm against 'green', it's just that greenpeace has evolved to survive in a media driven society.
From this perspective, the 1953 US overthrow of Iran's parliamentary democracy (to install a monarch) was a successful revolution. And even a revolution with the best of intentions (which obviously wasn't the case with the 1953 revolution) won't necessarily result in an improved society. To the contrary, society might even regress. If a revolution suddenly occurred right now in the US, since we US citizens haven't laid the groundwork of serious popular organizing and institutions, we might expect a form of fascism to probably result.
Revolutions is the usual sense happen when current structures are so rotten that something else is needed, then some other form of social organisation prevails, often not really what was expected at the beginning (think russia in 1917 vs. russia after the civil war in 1921).
But it is our role as humans to modify the world at our scale, to modify our ways of interacting with others and doing things to make the world a little better. Think of the changes between the middle age and now... there's so much room to do much better... At a bigger scale, for me, the next point is introducing more participative democracy in companies, especially big companies (they are truly the most prominent fascist-like organisations there...)
I'll try to stay away from a political debate and focus on the psychological argument. That Political revolution in the United States can be done within its current system, through election and democracy, and as bad as things are, there is no need for a cataclysmic shift. As I see it, democracy is evolutionary, it continuously evolves, checks and balances are self correcting just like natural selection. I'm all about learning practical stuff and I just don't see where this fits beyond in establishing a critical mindset.
Please broaden my mind.