Category: Solved Questions

Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions” provides a fascinating insight into the relationship between states and social revolutions. Skocpol’s argument that social revolutions are shaped by the structure and functioning of the states they confront or seek to transform is a compelling one, and it is backed up by numerous examples throughout history.

One of the most compelling parts of the reading was Skocpol’s discussion of the French Revolution. On page 11, she highlights the fact that the French Revolution was the first of the great modern revolutions and the model for many that followed. This observation underscores the importance of the French Revolution as a historical event and its ongoing influence on our understanding of revolutions.

Another intriguing aspect of the reading was Skocpol’s emphasis on the role of the state in shaping and responding to social revolutions. On page 4, Skocpol suggests that “revolutions are shaped by the structure and functioning of the states they confront or seek to transform”. This notion is significant because it highlights the complex interplay between social and political forces during periods of revolution.

However, one of the least compelling aspects of the reading was Skocpol’s tendency to focus primarily on the political and institutional dimensions of revolutions, while neglecting the cultural and ideological factors that also shape these

This week’s reading, Theda Skocpol’s introduction to “States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China,” offers a compelling and innovative approach to studying social revolutions. Her focus on structural conditions and state roles in revolutions stands out most strikingly compared to our earlier discussions on individual leaders or ideologies as the driving forces of change (Skocpol 3).

Skocpol’s argument that social revolutions only occur under specific structural conditions (Skocpol, 4) appears less persuasive. While well-supported, it leaves little room for any possibility that revolution could arise outside these conditions and may oversimplify matters. Still, her insistence on considering structural conditions adds an exciting and unique viewpoint to studying revolutions. Skocpol’s account challenges ideas developed earlier in the course by shifting focus onto state institutions and their role in revolutions. This new perspective illustrates the significance of understanding their context while emphasizing state institutions’ influence over revolutionary change either facilitatively or prohibitively.

Skocpol’s analysis of the French Revolution emphasizes the significance of state fiscal crisis as a precondition for revolutionary forces to emerge (Skocpol 10). This approach challenges notions that Enlightenment ideas or individual leaders solely drove the event; instead, it emphasizes structural factors as preconditions to revolution, providing a complete picture.

Skocpol’s approach to studying revolutions emphasizes the significance of internal pressures and state responses as key contributors (Skocpol, 15). His analysis contrasts with earlier ones who placed more importance on leaders like Lenin or Bolshevik Party leaders (in his earlier works). His approach emphasizes the necessity of considering external forces such as war when studying revolutions.

Skocpol’s account of the Chinese Revolution emphasizes its cause: state breakdown and warlord rule (Skocpol 21). This perspective draws attention away from Mao and the Communist Party; instead, it highlights structural conditions which enabled revolutionaries to emerge, its success being due in large part to fragmented Chinese state structures that allowed for their rise (Skocpol 22). By emphasizing the fragmented nature of Chinese state formation in his analysis, Skocpol gives us greater insight into factors contributing to it. Skocpol’s work emphasizes the significance of studying social revolutions within their larger historical and structural context. Focusing on state institutions and the circumstances under which revolutions emerge, she provides a more nuanced understanding of the revolutionary processes. This week’s readings have broadened my perspective on revolution, highlighting its significance for state structures as key contributors alongside individual leaders and ideologies. Moreover, Skocpol’s analysis enhances our knowledge about all the factors contributing to social revolutions by showing the value of considering structural conditions as part of any comprehensive analysis of such transformative events.

Very interesting read, I believe however the theory of social revolution is very accurate. She agrees and conveys Karl Marx ideas and understanding of revolutions that it is merely class-based movements growing out of objective structural contradictions within a historically developing and conflict ridden societies. Both Skocpol and Marx convey that the key to society is the mode of production that ultimately builds the socioeconomic forces within a society. The levels of productions then separate people by class and levels of capitalist social structures.

On the other hand, by referencing the Chinese Revolution gives great factual evidence of the reading’s analysis but I can’t help to point out that from the other readings it seems that those political activist believed that the third world countries like Cuba and Vietnam achieved revolution by removing the class social structure. I also agree that this reading reiterated state and social revolutions.

Lastly and just to add, by the reading , I believe that it not only provided clarity but also touched on explaining the successful political transformations both at state and class levels of structures. Skocpol always referencing Marxism and emphasizing what are unsuccessful transformation of political societies and also conveying the power of transformation with its ability to successfully breaking down the state organization and its regimes and building up a new, revolutionary state.

While reading Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions”, the part of the text I found most interesting was her idea that social revolutions are rare in history. (5). This comes after her distinct separation of other similar movements, rebellions, political revolutions, or industrialization, on page 4. By making this distinction and then saying they are uncommon occurrences she is giving the social revolutions the recognition they deserve for successfully pulling off a “rapid, basic transformation of a society’s state and class structures…” (4) which is very difficult to do. By comparing the American Revolution to a political revolution and the French Revolution to a social revolution, I can finally understand why the other authors we read (Kumar, Arendt, Hobsbawn) were all so fixated on the French Revolution. And its because it was so rare!

I also liked the aggregate psychological approach that Skocpol mentions on page 9. I believe that political decisions, like all decisions, are based on ones experiences and emotions, so I understood this approach a lot. Skocpol however believes that this theory is incomplete because it does not take into account societal structures or social conditions that can also lead to revolution. I disagree with this; the structures and conditions of a society were created by people and other people have reactions (either good or bad; depends on their emotions and experiences) with those conditions. Furthermore, people must choose revolution. They make this choice based on their emotions and experiences! Their choices will then decide strategy, points to change, and inevitably whether or not their movement will be successful. So I believe that the aggregate psychological approach is a strong way to approach the phases of a social revolution because it can show why it started, how it went, and how it ended on an individual or group level.

In comparison to other works we have read this semester, I was drawn to Kings work. Applying Kings movement to Skocpols definition of social revolution, we see that the Civil Rights movement was a change of class structure, but there was no regime change in the government, and it definitely was not rapid. Though you could argue it was carried out through class based groups (since Black people tended to be of lower classes), it was most distinctly based on race. There was societal structural change, political transformation (Civil Rights Act 1964), and overtime social transformation. So though this fits about half of her definition, it cannot be considered a social revolution. I was surprised by this because I had always thought of the Civil Rights Movement as a social revolution.

We have been dissecting what a revolution is, whether violence is needed to different events that should or should not be considered a revolution. This week’s reading gave a more in-depth analysis of what should be considered a revolution. Base on Skocpol a revolution or I her terms a social revolution is one where there is a transformation of state organizations, class structures and dominant ideologies. She believes that in order for it to occur class struggles play a key role in it. Most ‘revolutions’ based on Skocpol’s analysis is deficient in theory. For a revolution to be a revolution it should have both a social structure change as well as a political structure change. Most revolutions have either a political structure change or a social structure change. She states that Political Revolutions only transforms the state but not the social structures and are not necessarily achieved through class conflict. Also, another revolution that is known through history is the Industrial Revolution, which she stated that this concept of revolution can transform social structures without a change in the political structure. Skocpol feels that the uniqueness of a social structure is that it both encompass a structural and social change which is a rare occurrence. It is also successful and never failed.

Skocpol’s theory is rooted heavily in Marxist and Political Conflict approach. Marxist as in class upheaval and political conflict with governments or other organizations contending for power. What I found most compelling is the statement “Social revolution makes successful sociopolitical transformation, actual change of state and class structure”. (pg. 5) A revolution should be both a social and political transformation. This do make sense, if there is to be a change it needs to happen in those two areas. The political structure is not what makes up a society it is the people who makes up the society and their interactions with one another as well as their ideologies that creates a social structure. The political structure is to govern and create a just society, so if there is a lapse in that area it trickles down to the social structure as well. Social structures have many different facets to it that can cause inequalities. In order to rectify these issues both structures, political and social, need a change to go in a new direction. For this week reading changes my view on what revolution is. From this perspective many ‘revolutions’ are incomplete of failed. I thought of revolution of just a political change or a social change not combining the two which makes better sense to do. Hence why we are still struggling today in the USA we have not have a true revolution or as Skocpol says a social revolution. We are still plagued with systemic racism which can be classified as a social structure problem.

The reading “States and Social Revolutions” by Theda Skocpol is intriguing due to its detailed examination of the relationship between sates and social revolution. I actually thoroughly enjoyed this reading because Skocpol is able to write concisely and because it made me think a lot about instances in history where these definitions, examples, and henceforth can be applied to various historic events.

The most compelling takeaway from this reading was when Skocpol defined social revolutions as “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below.” (Skocpol 4). She further explains that it is both a political and economic transformation in the structure of a society, in the lecture we referred to the French Revolution or the Chinese Revolution where economic class was a major factor in these events. While I believe her definition and connection to these historic events is valid, it also drives a bigger picture when she begins to define political revolutions “Political revolutions transform state structures but not social structures, and they are not necessarily accomplished through class conflict.”(Skocpol 4). This is very interesting because this has been said before in past modules by other authors, and it also reinforces the idea to make the distinction as such: The American Revolution was political while the French Revolution was social.

I equally admire her examination of the Chinese Revolution’s success, in part due to the fact that Chinese was a lot of independent and often warring states, therefore it was a major factor in encouraging those to support the cause for a unified country with more benefits than that of a state tucked in between dozens of others. However, what I found least compelling was the lack of acknowledgement for cultural or ideological factors to be part of her definition of a social revolution, while I guess in writing this, has made me realize adding in cultural or ideological factors could complicate the definition. In other words, this complicated definition of a social revolution could not be applied on a broader scale in relation to historic events, which appears to be its true intent.

I really enjoyed this reading by Skocpol due to its breadth of detail while also reinforcing prior authors and assigned readings like Kumar, Arendt, and King ideas on revolution, essentially echoing their ideas and somewhat evolving it by stating the following, “It is, rather, a set of administrative, policing, and military organizations headed, and more or less well coordinated by, an executive authority.”(Skocpol 29). This is what hit it on the nail for me because it is similar to what King said, what Arendt said, etc. Skocpol connects to a lot of past authors and has reinforced my understanding in the concept and definition of revolution and more so the various types of revolution. Furthermore, these readings helped me understand how we can not only analyze and define revolution, but use these assigned readings as a form of guide or toolbox to examine past and current events.

The most compelling part from this week’s reading was when Skocpol defined social revolutions as “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below.” (Skocpol 4). Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions” provides a fascinating insight into the relationship between states and social revolutions. Her focus on structural conditions and state roles in revolutions stands out most strikingly compared to our earlier discussions on individual leaders or ideologies as the driving forces of change. Skocpol’s argument that social revolutions are shaped by the structure and functioning of the states they confront or seek to transform is a compelling one, and it is backed up by numerous examples throughout history. She further explains that it is both a political and economic transformation in the structure of a society in which transforms different aspects of that part of the world. “Nor have social revolutions had only national significance. In some cases social revolutions have given rise to models and ideals of enormous international impact and appeal especially where the transformed societies have been large and geopolitically important, actual or potential Great Powers,” (Skocopl 7). To be sure, social revolutions have not been the only forces for change at work in the modern era. Social revolutions are rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below. Political revolutions transform state structures but not social structures, and they are not necessarily accomplished through class conflict.

This week’s reading really brought the concept of revolution full circle from what we read during the first few weeks tying together these last few weeks. After reading Skocpol’s introduction, the key difference between previous modules and her approach to defining revolution is the simple interaction of the state in social revolutions being so fundamental. She begins by noting a lot of prior theories which we have touched on in previous modules, such as Marxist class theories and political-conflict theories. Out of all the theories she lists, I found the most compelling would be the “aggregate-psychological theories, which attempt to explain revolutions in terms of people’s psychological motivations for engaging in political violence or joining oppositional movements.” (Skocpol, 13) I found this approach compelling because I too agree that emotions and the psychological aspects of human nature have a major impact on social revolutions. If it weren’t for the anger, repression, and emotional urges to fight back, revolutions would not occur. She quotes Ted Gurr, stating that the “theory is complex and full of interesting nuances in its full elaboration but is simple enough in essence: Political violence occurs when many people in society become angry, especially if existing cultural and practical conditions provide encouragement for aggression against political targets. And people become angry when there occurs a gap between the valued things and opportunities, they feel entitled to and the things and opportunities they actually get- a condition known as “relative deprivation.”’(Skocpol, 13) This approach resonates with me and we have seen this be the true force behind many revolutions and upheavals in society.

Reverting back to Skocpol’s structural arguments though; despite all the other theories and approaches she mentions, she makes a key distinction that without the aspect of the state, none of these revolutions would have happened. Unlike Marxist approaches where they view the state as simply an “arena” where revolutionaries interact versus a foundation for which these revolutions are even possible. She states “An assumption that always lies, if only implicitly, behind such reasoning is that political structures and struggles can somehow be reduced (at least “in the last instance”) to socioeconomic forces and conflicts. The state is viewed as nothing but an arena in which conflicts over basic social and economic interests are fought out. What makes the state-as-political-arena special is simply that actors operating within it resort to distinctive means for waging social and economic conflicts- means such as coercion or slogans appealing to the public good.” (Skocpol, 29) But it is more than that as she explains: “we can make sense of social-revolutionary transformations only if we take the state seriously as a macro-structure. The state properly conceived is no mere arena in which socioeconomic struggles are fought out. It is, rather a set of administrative, policing and military organizations headed, and more or less well coordinated by, an executive authority.” (Skocpol, 33) This goes deeper than just the socio-economic/class argument that many revolutionary theories follow suit with. This generalization of revolutions being reduced to solely socio-economic factors is what Skocpol’s whole analysis is separating itself from. Her hypothesis is stated clearly on page 37 stating “social revolutions” as defined at the beginning of this work – rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures, accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below-have been relatively rare occurrences in modern world history. Each such revolution, furthermore, has occurred in a particular way in a unique set of social-structural and international circumstances.” (Skocpol, 37)

Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions” is a fascinating text that gives an insight to the impacts that social revolutions have on states. She makes some very important distinctions in the text between what makes a social revolution versus what makes a political revolution and why social revolutions are so rare. She goes into depth about the structural conditions that have to be present in order to make a revolution a social one. Skocpol finds that the most compelling social revolutions are the class driven revolutions where political conflict comes second to changing the social structures of a nation. She stated, “Social revolution makes successful sociopolitical transformation, actual change of state and class structure.” (Skocpol 5). I find this definition of a social revolution most compelling because in order for there to be a true revolution class systems must be overruled. This means that the people who are struggling in the nation will no longer be subjected to such anguish if the revolution is successful. Instead of continuing to toil away and be exploited by the government or the upper classes the social structures will go to a more natural human condition where we are all living equally.

A very compelling point Skocpol makes is that there is a reliance on the majority when it comes to making a revolution. She wrote, “For one thing, it strongly suggests that societal order rests, either fundamentally or proximately, upon a consensus of the majority (or of the lower classes) that their needs are being met” (Skocpol 15). Once there is no more order in a society the steps towards a full upheaval are in motion. This argument really puts into perspective the basis for which all revolutions begin and that is a class of dissatisfied citizens. Whether they are dissatisfied with the government or the social conditions or both of the majority rally up then there will be some sort of revolution.

According to the definition that Skocpol puts out there that a complete successful revolution needs a sort of class upheaval leaves plenty of the revolutions as seen by the previous authors as failed or incomplete. For example, the American revolution was a complete political revolution where class upheaval never occurred due to the obvious fact that there was still a class of slaves. This writing was very interesting because it both reinforced and lessened the idea that I had from the previous readings. I came to the conclusion that a revolution must have a majority of the population backing its cause which was reinforced by this reading. The main difference between my conclusion of a revolution and Skocpol’s are what makes a revolution a success in my opinion the most successful revolutions are those that change the government/political structure while also ensuring that there is an era of relative stability and peace. In Skocpol’s opinion, the French Revolution was an incredible success but for me it was a bit of a failure because of the instability and suffering that occurred as a result. In contrast I view the American revolution as more successful because of the peaceful and stability that the new government gave in the decolonized nation while she would see it as a failure because the class dynamics remained the same. Overall, this was an incredible insight into what a revolution is and it gave some new perspective while also reinforcing what needs to happen for a revolution to have a chance.

Parts of this week’s reading that I found the most compelling is through a number of notorious ways of thinking that Skocpol had mentioned in such reading. A detailed examination that I’ll thoroughly explain within the concepts of social revolutions, and its way of thinking in more of an initial step and concluding ways of response.

Theda Skocpol has deeply explained the concepts of political revolutions and its meaning. Such meaning that can come from a surrounding of people whom have deeply analyzed such thought of how revolutions are brought upon because they are not made, ‘’Revolutions are not made, they come.’’ (Skocpol 1979) Theda Skocpol had emphasized on the critique of how historical revolutions are truly correlated within aspects of international misforms of how it deeply correlates to outcomes in how ‘’Historical revolutions, differently situated, motivated groups have become participants in complex unfoldings of multiple conflicts. These conflicts have been powerfully shaped and limited by existing socioeconomic and international l conditions.’’ (Skocpol 1979) Theda Skocpol had demonstrated the attributions that correlate to revolutions and hows so many categories fit in such place because of how the intentions of ones are not really initiated within the case taking fruition, ‘’in fact, revolutionary movements rarely begin with a revolutionary intention, this only develops in the course of the struggle itself.’’ (Skocpol 1979) Skocpol demonstrated significantly how things in revolution occur during the movements from the people, it shows perservernece. insert other two quotes and explain

The account of revolution from this week’s reading definitely has affected, and reinforced my ideas about revolutions that I have developed in earlier weeks in the course. Such an idea has deeply supported my idea, most likely because it supports my vision that the people do matter during terms of revolutions. Such moments occur when people work collectively to support an idea to successfully challenge a contradictory government, it becomes successful within the people. People do matter, and that revolutions do come but they come stronger during the process because many are challenges due to the suppression. I believe that ‘’challenges only make you stronger’’ and it shows through our studies from all the scholars we have examined that the will of the people only comes stronger during the process of revolutions. This has demonstrated to me that the struggle from the people has shown to develop with the process of revolutionary movements.

Hi Edward! Thank you so much for your post! I love how you concluded Skocpol’s arguments about people working collectively. It truly does not matter what “class” they belong to, as we have thought just because the French and the Russian revolutions were predominantly one “class” against the other. It ultimately narrows down to people. I love how Skocpol challenges us to see the bigger picture of what a revolution might be, and presents the different ways of studying it without truly telling us which one is right or wrong. Great post!

In Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions,” the introduction provides a unique perspective on the factors that contribute to revolutionary change. On page 5, Skocpol argues that successful revolutions require three key factors: a weak state, a mobilized population, and a cross-class alliance. She states that to completely understand this topic, “we cannot make progress by starting with objects of explanations that isolate…..We must look at revolutions as wholes, in much of their complexity.” These factors contribute to a situation where popular uprisings can effectively overthrow the existing government and create a new social and political order.

Skocpol’s emphasis on the importance of a weak state challenges conventional assumptions about the role of the state in maintaining social stability. Many theories of revolution, such as Marxist theories, emphasize the role of the state in maintaining the status quo and promoting the interests of the ruling class. Skocpol’s argument, however, suggests that a weak state can actually contribute to revolutionary change by creating a power vacuum that allows popular movements to gain traction. Skocpol’s emphasis on the importance of a mobilized population, as well, challenges conventional assumptions about the role of individuals in revolutionary change. Many theories of revolution, such as liberal theories, emphasize the importance of individual agency and the power of individuals to effect change through collective action. Skocpol’s argument, however, suggests that it is not just individuals, but rather a mobilized population, that is essential to successful revolutionary change.

Finally, Skocpol’s emphasis on the importance of a cross-class alliance challenges conventional assumptions about the role of class in revolutionary change. Many theories of revolution, such as Marxist theories, emphasize the importance of class conflict and the role of the working class in driving revolutionary change. Skocpol’s argument, however, suggests that a successful revolution requires a broader coalition of interests, including both the working class and other social groups. Overall, Skocpol’s analysis of revolution challenges conventional assumptions about the factors that contribute to social and political change. By emphasizing the importance of a weak state, a mobilized population, and a cross-class alliance, Skocpol offers a unique perspective on the complex social and political processes that underlie revolutionary change.

Hi Ciara! Thank you so much for pointing those three points out! I was actually going for the bigger picture about Skocpol’s opinions on how to study revolutions. I love your point about Skocpol’s emphasis on the cross-class alliance, this definitely challenges what we think a revolution is (because I am pretty sure the majority of us are familiar with the Marxist definition of revolution). There are no classes, but a clash of interests! Also, “classes” was a very 19th-century and early 20th-century concept. Classes are very differently defined nowadays, think about how Skocpol is challenging our thoughts here! Great post! 🙂

I absolutely loved the reading from this week. Even though this was written in the 70s, I believe all the points that Skocpol makes are compelling. And this is why:

First, it places revolution as not only an event of “national” significance, but it puts into perspective an international impact (Page 3). Skocpol demonstrates that the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions not only made an impact in their nations (their own society and political entities), but they also made an international impact by affecting, in one way or another, the nations that interacted with these three regions. This is mainly argued with this quote: “major revolutions affect not only those abroad who would like to imitate them. They also affect those in other countries who oppose revolutionary ideals but are compelled to respond to the challenges or threats posed by the enhanced national power that has been generated.” (Page 4).

Secondly, the reading argues that we cannot simplify revolution into a single definition: the revolutions are relative to their historical instances: “We must look at the revolutions as wholes, in much of their complexity” (Page 5). This is later argued on the following pages along with the different methods of study revolution. This brings me to my third point: There is no way to study revolutions. Skocpol goes through different scholars’ theories and methods, such as Marx (page 8), Gurr (Page 9), Tilly (Page 10), and so on. To this, it is argued that the purpose of the chapter is not to point our strengths and weaknesses of any of the theories, rather, “to take issue with certain conceptions, assumptions, and modes of explanation that they all, despite their evident differences, in fact share.” (Page 14). In a few words, there is no right or wrong theory of revolution. This is essential to understanding everything we have learned in this course by reading different scholars and their perspectives on revolution and violence: What IS revolution? What IS violence? It depends on the person, the circumstances with which they find themselves while writing, and many other factors.

Lastly, and this is my favorite point as a future historian: No perfect theory fits with the events that ACTUALLY happened in history. This quote resonated with me: “More important, the purposive image is very misleading about both the causes and the processes of social revolutions that have actually occurred historically.” (Page 17), which he supported with Wendell Phillips’ quote: “Revolutions are not made; they come.” (Same Page). This is essential for our understanding of revolutions and violence. As for everything we have read so far, we cannot try to fit each scholars’ opinion into little boxes; it would be like when we check boxes in a “Race and Ethnicity” section in a survey. They can fit many boxes, or no box at all!

These are my reasons why I believe the points Skocpol made are valid and compelling. The points put our thoughts and opinions into perspective, and challenge us to look at violence and revolutions as very complex concepts that we would probably never find a specific definition, theory, or perfect example.

Reading this week’s text, I found Theda Skocpol’s to one of the most compelling texts we’ve read all semester because of her different perspective and insightfulness when examining the relationship between states and revolutions – social ones to be exact. Skocpol’s analysis concludes that social revolutions are rapid and basic transformations within a society, the state of that society and class structures. This specific perspective and insistence on structural conditions and state institutions is an account that was perhaps not necessarily neglected but passed over throughout the other authors we read from during this course.

Skocpol thoroughly differentiates revolutions from mere rebellions – which involve a revolt from subordinate classes but do not create structural change. Meanwhile political revolutions change state structures as opposed to social structures. She argues that what makes social revolutions unique is that social and political structures occur in a mutually reinforcing fashion and that these changes could occur through intense socio-political conflict.

Skocpol’s approach to analyzing Revolutions emphasizes the significance of internal pressures and state responses as key contributors (Skocpol, 15). This specific approach challenges the ideals set forth by earlier leaders which placed more importance on external factors rather than internal ones.

It is because of ideals like the aforementioned that I personally found Skocpol’s analysis and approach of the French Revolution particularly fascinating. In her analysis she emphasizes the significance of the state fiscal crisis as the underlying condition for Revolutionary forces to emerge (Skocpol, 10). This in particular I found thoughtful because this specific approach challenges notions set forth by the Enlightenment Era – notions like the idea that individuals/ leaders could be the only ones to drive a social event, like a Revolution – instead Skocpol challenges this ideal and emphasizes the structural factors as underlying conditions leading up to a Revolution, hence providing a more complete picture. Skocpol’s deemphasis of agency I assume has been a cause for massive criticism because with the specific type of analysis she creates she diminishes the role of individuals and ideology.

While I did find Skocpol’s text to be the most compelling one, I did find that although she primarily focused on the political and institutional dimensions of Revolutions, she did neglect the cultural factors of it that shape Revolutions as well. Despite this, Skocpol presented a new way to look at social revolutions and analyze them from a structural and state-centered perspective.

Overall, I really did find her text to be the most compelling one as I genuinely found myself delving into her uniquely different approach.

Great discussion, I agree a revolution needs a social structure change in a political structure change she also mentions that political revolution only transforms the state and not the social structure. I believe a revolution consists of both a social transformation and a political transformation. To me it’s the people and the way they interact with each other, and we can also add their ideologies is what makes the society.

In the reading this week I found one quote to be particularly interesting when discussing revolution, the reading says “What is unique to social revolution is that basic changes in social structure and in political structure occur together in a mutually reinforcing fashion. And these changes occur through intense sociopolitical conflicts in which class struggles play a key role.” The part that I find so compelling about this quote is that we are currently living this quote in the United States and one must question if we are going to soon be starting a social revolution in the states. The reason I suggest that a Social Revolution is possible is because when you look at the social unrest that the US is currently up against, you have to understand we are on the brink of losing it. The Black American community currently is being oppresed not only by the criminal justice force but also other social issues while half of America believes they’re overreacting. While all of this unrest is happening to the Black communities, much of the country is living paycheck to paycheck, not being able to afford the basic neccesities of life, can’t go to the doctor because it might completely bankrupt their family. I can name numerous issues and write an entire book on all the social issues going on in the United States but I want to get to the point. While all of these issues I just named are going on, Citizens will look on social media and see the rich 0.1% own all of the wealth, with 30 cars, 10 homes, etc etc, and they are currently struggling to find their next meal for their family. With all the being put together, it’s as easy as a simple math equation. The equation comes out to revolution. Sooner or later American’s will feel they have nothing left to lose and end up Revolting against the current system. It is natural in our ways to fight oppression when we have nothing left to lose.

Another quote that I agree with in this weeks reading is on page 12. The quote goes “Such a movement will not engage in the first place unless the existing social system comes into a crisis.” Using my American example again, this makes sense because for a massive social revolution to take place, you have to have enough citizens be willing to revolt against the system in place. This means the citizens really have to reach a point where they feel the only way to have a sovereign life is to revolt against the system where they have nothing left to lose. The fall of Rome happened because of the same type of current issues that the modern day United States is facing, it really isn’t to hard to imagine this happening in the United States when you look at the data.

Skocpol’s writing made numerous points I agree with, such as there being no such thing as an unsuccessful social revolution, however I mainly agreed with the setbacks past approaches carry. She makes it clear she is not reviewing past approaches but rather isolating what they all lack – “the overriding pur­pose of this chapter is not to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various families of theories of revolution. It is rather to take issue with certain conceptions, assumptions, and modes of explanation that they all, despite their evident differences, in fact share.” This allows her to single out three new principles that haven’t been addressed and understood: Non Voluntarist Perspective, International and World-historical contexts, Potential Autonomy of State.

The non voluntarist Perspective focuses emphasizes social conditions, not ideas or goals. At the same time, revolutions are tailored and inspired by their international environment therefore International and World-historical contexts matter. Revolutions are not entirely independent from one another. For example, the revolution in China was a result of the revolution in Russia. Finally under the concept of the autonomous state, the state is not an arena nor a tool by the dominant class. It is rather an agent with a degree of independence, it has separate interests. This last concept is quite innovative and moves past a lot of unnecessary class reductionism, it brings a more accurate mechanism to the model. The state, with its own interest, can be more willing to make concessions relative to other groups who also have noticeable power or leverage in society.

One thing I have a reservation about is the definition presented of social revolution: “Social revolutions are rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below.” This definition potentially filters out events which transformed the way society is organized and concentrates among the revolutions which eventually betray their core principles, as opposed to the definition of someone like Eric Hobsbawm. Although the American Civil War can be considered to have caused rapid change in the way society is organized, under Skocpol’s definition it is not a clear Social Revolution. Furthermore, those events obviously inside the definition are overwhelmingly revolutions which have a tendency to quickly betray their core principles such as the Chinese and Russian revolution. The condition of class-based revolts from below leads to these complications. Would the critical transformations of China under Deng Xiaoping even be considered a Social Revolution?

Skocpol’s reading is very compelling to her analysis between state and social revolution. State revolutions are those that change the structure of the state but do not transform social structures. While social revolutions are can “transform state organizations class structures, and dominant ideologies” (Skocpol, 1979, 3). Social revolutions have risen their ideals to get international impact. Many of these ideals such as the French Revolution’s “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” have reached places such as Latin America, India, etc. They all were after social and national liberation.

Additionally, social revolutions transform the structure of society within a country. Skocpol’s reading is very insightful I find it very compelling how she emphasizes that social revolutions must be analyzed from a structural perspective. “Marx understood revolutions, not as isolated episodes of violence or conflict but as class-based movements growing out of objective structural contradictions within historically developing and inherently conflict-ridden societies. For Marx, the key to any society is its mode of production or a specific combination of socioeconomic forces. of production” (Skocpol, 1979. 7). This was an emphasis on the importance of class struggle.

I find her ideas to be the most compelling out of all of the readings from previous weeks. She argues that political and social structures occur because of sociopolitical conflict, but social revolutions are class-based revolts. This week’s reading affects and reinforces my ideas about Revolution that I have developed in earlier weeks because she makes it extinct between revolutionaries in rebellions. As previously mentioned, revolutions especially, social are transformative of social structure. While rebellions according to Skocpol, “may involve the revolt of subordinate classes- but they do not eventuate in structural change. Political revolutions transform state structures but not social structures, and they are not necessarily, accomplished through class conflict” (Skocpol, 1979. 4). She affects my ideas because she claims social revolutions completely change every single structure in the country for nothing is left the same. She also talks about the structure of the state and how the reaction is important. In previous readings, they didn’t talk about the structure of the state because depending on the structure different outcomes can happen. For example, if the state can react rapidly then a revolution is more than likely to not happen.

Ultimately, Skocpol puts a big emphasis on, a complete change in a social structure where a new system is implemented. Also, class conflict is necessary for there to be a social revolution. Lastly, it is very important to differentiate social revolution from rebellion.

Referring back to the discussion in week 1 regarding our personal definition of revolution I would say that with the readings since then in combination with this weeks module has rounded out my understanding of revolution. Skocpol is able to more clearly define what I had tried to convey from the start of the semester.

The three most compelling ideas in my opinion are presented as the state being at least partly autonomous in relation to the goals of the dominant class (Skocpol, 30), the forces of revolution and their effect in the face of the international political economy (Skocpol, 39) and the need for success at least in social-revolutionary cases (Skocpol, 5).

Skocpol presents the state as being on the outside of the socioeconomic order in that it tries to function as its own entity and act in accordance with its own interests rather than in alignment with the dominant class (Skocpol, 30). This is compelling and shifts my perspective of what a state is because from my point of view as an American citizen it’s easy to say the state is “We the people” when it’s a part of our nationalist identity. But, broken down by Skocpol it allows me to see that the state takes on a shape of its own when attempting to serve the needs of its citizens on every point of the spectrum while maintaining order.

This also leads into how the international system affects the outcomes of revolution and other internal conflicts. Skocpol states that, “these phenomena occur in unique world-historical contexts that change over time, and they happen within international struc­tureen that tie societies to one another” (Skocpol 39). This is consistent with international political economy in that it cedes the domestic affairs of states participating in the international arena can impact regions far beyond their original starting point. Skocpol alludes to this being a subject later in the book when comparing the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions as influences on one another. Skocpol briefly mentions the “macro-structure” that is built by the intertwining system and how one action or event in one state can lead to a chain of events that indirectly leads to the same in another and thus the chain of events can be called a “macro-phenomenon” where each revolution is just a globally unified continuation of the original event wherein the French Revolution is often labeled as a starting point.

This further exemplifies and establishes that in agreement with Skocpol that, “…successful sociopolitical transformation­ actual change of state and class structures-part of the specification of what is to be called a social revolution…” (Skocpol, 5). With the success of the French Revolution and others, it is clearly seen on the world stage what the impact of a revolution that has fully brought societal change is, as it is synonymous with the word revolution itself. The same can be said for relatively unsuccessful revolutions effects on both the domestic and international system.

This week’s material takes the Marxist conception as the original and precise. It reveals a new concept of social Revolution as an actual emergent change of great complexity in the macro-structural and historical contexts, which occurs through intense sociopolitical conflicts in which intensifying class struggle plays a key role (Skocpol, p. 7), not merely a conflict or isolated episodes of violence. It is able to affect not only those abroad who would like to imitate them but also those in other countries who oppose revolutionary ideals and need to respond to the challenges or threats imposed by the new power. Revolutions change state organization, class structures, and dominant ideologies (Skocpol, p. 3), such as the existing power holders (Skocpol, p. 11). They can even change the mode of production with new social relations of production. They were also get influenced by the subsequent revolutionary theorists and depended on the multiple sovereignty as much as the formation of coalitions between both contenders’ sides, such as their control of substantial force. A revolution can be pacific or violent, depending on the flexibility (by reforms implementation) or intransigency (like in totalitarian tyrannies) of the ruling authorities, finally resynchronizing the social system’s values and the environment.

Thus, I feel compelled by this concept and, in my opinion, it also reinforces the previous concept that revolutions imply freedom told by Arendt and Kumar, but avoiding the discussion of war and of justifiable use of violence; once revolutions can change states, classes, and ideologists it is implicit the freedom of great part of the society, which takes a new road of developing in several orders: economic, social, and politic. Arendt and Kumar also recognize that Revolution changes in the traditional way, but always looking at the future and consisting of a cycle that arises and falls. That is why it is true what Elbaki Hermassi says: “The world-historical Character of revolutions means that they exert a demonstration effect beyond the boundaries of their country of origin, with a potential for triggering waves of revolution and counterrevolution both within and between societies” (Skocpol, p. 4).

However, I do not feel compelled by the Marxist theory that the Revolution is only possible through intensive and violent class struggle, such as unique ideological propaganda and terror imposed on the masses. Despite the generalized consideration of the growing mutual dependence on revolution and war, there are, throughout history, revolutions that took effect by nonviolent means, like in the Philippines, against Dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Mahatma Gandhi in India overthrowing British colonialism through civil disobedience in 1944 (Stiehm), keeping after the triumph the same power of transformation. Other examples of nonviolent revolutions were the one in East Germany against Erick Honecker in 1989-1990 and even the “pragmatic nonviolence” of Martin Luther King against racism in the 1960s (Stiehm).

Since this is our last post, I would like to thank you guys for sharing this class with me, and also, thanks to our professor for his teachings and guidance throughout the semester. Thank you all; I wish you all the best in your academic and professional careers 🙂

Hello Virgen! I enjoyed reading your response and felt like your opinion added to great insight to this discussion. I liked how you mentioned philosophers/authors perspectives from previous readings we had. Like you, I felt that Hannah Arendt had a good perspective on her definition of revolution and her analysis was similar to Skopcol’s. However, I felt like Skopcol primarily focused on the states role. Additionally, I liked Kumar’s perspective on revolution and how he considered the social and economic aspect of it because I feel like those two things are crucial when it comes to defining revolution and adds more complexity. I also agree with you in that the Marxist theory that a revolution can only happen if its due to violent class struggle and other violent means is not exactly true. All in all, I really liked your response and found it to be very informative!

The discussion that I found most interesting from this week’s reading centers on the structural view, international and global historical settings, and the comparative historical technique. The structural approach looks at how economic and social factors influence the formation of political regimes and how political powers may spark social revolutions (Skocpol, 15). Internal and external elements, such as the existing situation of the globe, were examined in this reading as potentially interacting with one another and contributing to the onset of revolutions. Ideas, ideologies, and foreign players were all covered in the documentary section that focused on the global and historical backdrop of processes. Understanding the similarities and differences between several social revolutions is the goal of the comparative historical approach, which was covered in detail.

The section explaining why France, Russia, and China were picked for this comparison is less attractive than the remainder of the text (Skocpol, 43). While this portion explained some of the backstory surrounding the uprisings, it needed a more in-depth analysis of the other chapters. During the debate section devoted to explaining why these specific countries were selected, less attention was paid to the causes of the revolutions in each of these three nations.

The reading completed this week on social revolutions enhanced my understanding of revolution. It provided a comprehensive analysis of the factors that might influence the spread of social revolutions and their potential outcomes. The reading underlined the need to consider the interconnection of political, economic, and social aspects while analyzing social revolutions. This perspective was shown to have the potential to shed light on the complex dynamics at play in social revolutions, such as the interplay between a society’s internal and external surroundings that yields opportunities for radical change (Skocpol, 40). Previously, I understood there was a need to examine how national and global contexts may foster or stifle the growth of social revolutions. There should be more discussions on the potential autonomy of the state in determining the path of a revolution and the need to adopt comparative historical perspectives to understand the complexities of different revolutions. Besides, comparing and contrasting social upheavals from different eras is essential. This week’s discussion emphasized the need to compare and contrast previous revolutions to identify commonalities and differences that may influence future revolutions’ success (Skocpol, 30). It explained how looking at many revolutions at once may help us grasp the interplay of factors at play in social change. One example of how this kind of reading could provide insight into the complexity of these events and the relative relevance of many contributing elements is by comparing and contrasting the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions.

Theda Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions presents an insightful analysis of the causes and nature of revolutions, focusing on the role of states and social structures in shaping revolutionary outcomes. Skocpol’s assertion that state institutions play a crucial part in influencing the dynamics of revolution is one of the text’s most compelling arguments because it offered insight into the challenges that come into play when trying to transform existing systems. She also argues that the strength or weakness of state power can have a significant impact on the outcome of revolutionary struggles.

After reading Skocpol’s analysis on revolution, I realized it offered a different perspective than the ones I’ve read before. For example, Hannah Arendt’s account of revolution emphasizes the importance of public action and the creation of new political institutions as central to revolutionary change. In contrast, Skocpol’s argument focuses more on the role of existing state’s role in shaping revolutionary outcomes. According to Theda Skocpol she states that, “Social revolutions are rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below… the coincidence of societal structural change with class upheaval; and the coincidence of political with social transformation (Skopcol, 1979 pg. 4).”

Furthermore, Skopcol’s account of revolution reinforced the ideas about revolution that I’ve developed from reading Hobsbawm. Eric Hobsbawm’s perspective was like Skocpol’s in that he emphasizes the importance of social structures in shaping revolutionary outcomes. Hobsbawm argues that revolutions are driven by the struggles of social classes, and that the success of these struggles depends on the ability of the revolutionary forces to mobilize and organize effectively. In States and Social Revolutions Skopcol writes, “class relations are always a potential source of patterned social and political conflict, and class conflicts and changes in class relations actually do figure prominently and successful social revolutionary transformations (Skopcol, 1979 pg. 13).” Skopcol argues that revolutionary change is often driven by the mobilization of subordinate groups who seek to transform social structures.

Based off these readings my definition and perspective on revolutions have changed to address the complexity of this topic. I believe that a revolution can be classified as a significant social and political event that ushers in a new political system and is marked by the creation of new institutions, social norms, and political structures. A revolution occurs when people’s grievances reach a critical point, leading to the collapse of the existing political order. A revolution can change society in ways that go beyond politics, such as in the social, economic, and cultural aspects.

Skocpol gives a complex and insightful view on the dynamics and causes of revolutionary transformation in her analysis of revolution. Her emphasis on how state institutions and societal structures influence the course of revolutions added to other authors viewpoints, such that of Eric Hobsbawm. Skocpol provides a compelling description of the way in which social movements can modify preexisting power structures and effect significant societal change by emphasizing the value of collective action and the mobilization of disadvantaged groups.

In “States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China”, Theda Skocpol argues that social revolutions are not mere products of economic or class contradictions, but rather complex political processes that involve the mobilization of mass armies, the transformation of state structures, and the creation of new social institutions.

The book opens with a theoretical framework that describes social revolutions as “rapid, basic transformations of society’s state and class structures, accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below” (Skocpol, 1979). Skocpol then applies this framework to three social revolution cases: the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution. In each case, she examines the pre-revolutionary social, economic, and political institutions, the role of peasant and worker mobilization, revolutionary elite strategy and tactics, and the changes in state power and authority that happened as a result of the revolution.

One of the most compelling arguments of the book is that Skocpol believes that social revolutions are not necessarily driven by the most oppressed or exploited classes, but rather by a diverse array of social groups who have both grievances and resources to participate in collective action. Skocpol identifies the role of the state as a critical factor in social revolutions, “Revolutions are made by people, but not in circumstances of their own choosing” (Skocpol, 1979). Skocpol’s primary argument is that social revolutions are driven by structural and historical circumstances rather than by intentional actions by individuals or groups. According to Skocpol, social revolutions take place when a crisis in state authority, a mobilized populace, and the creation of a formalized revolutionary movement produce circumstances that allow for a significant restructuring of the preexisting social and political order.

Another compelling argument of Skocpol’s is the analysis of the different paths that social revolutions can take. According to Skocpol, the outcomes of social revolutions depend on the strategies and tactics of the elites leading the revolution as well as the broader international context. For instance, the Russian Revolution resulted in the foundation of a communist dictatorship that aspired to revolutionize not only Russia but the entire world, but the French Revolution resulted in the consolidation of a powerful, centralized state that helped modernize France. On the other hand, the Chinese Revolution resulted in the establishment of a socialist state that mixed aspects of traditional Chinese culture with Marxist theory.

As the semester is nearing its end and I compare earlier texts to current ones, my ideas on revolution have not changed. To me, why revolution occurs has always been clear: people are unhappy or exploited and they have the means to fight against it. Revolution has the ability to occur in any given nation by any group of people. What makes it memorable and historical is the drive behind it, not the outcome.

Theda Skocpol’s arguments and conceptualization of Social Revolutions are very useful and compelling. She departs from most theorical scientists in this field and basically says that social revolutions feature two different processes at the same time. On one hand, it combines social class upheaval within the society, and on the other hand, it combines social transformation with political transformation. In this sense, “social revolutions are rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below” (4). Her classification of types of revolutions is practical and applicable because it helps to understand better different historical events and even modern ones. In regard to this she explains that Rebellions “may involve some revolt but they do not eventuate in structural change” (Skocpol 4). Political revolutions transform the structure of the state but not necessarily the structure of the whole society itself and these are not necessary accompanied by class conflicts. Finally, processes like industrialization can cause major economic shifts and social structural changes but they are not related to political, or class struggles by themselves. The key component to understanding Social Revolutions is that these bring about changes in the social structure and political structure simultaneously “in a mutually reinforcing fashion” (Skocpol 5).

In addition to the above mentioned, the author adds success as feature element to her definition of social revolutions (Skocpol 5) and perhaps this is the only questionable argument that I find in the reading. Per Skocpol for a revolution to be a Social Revolution it needs to be successful, there are no unsuccessful social revolutions or attempts of social revolutions, either the revolution crated the social and political changes that it intended, or it didn’t. I think this conception if a little narrowed, especially when compared to so many modern attempts of social revolutions that were not successful because of uncontrollable factors such as long-lasting tyrannies, so deep rooted and internationally backed up that it is almost impossible to break them (as it is the case if Venezuela).

Finally, it is valuable that the author compares different perspectives from other political theorists, she especially draws for Marx’s theory of revolution because as she explains on page 13 “class relations are always a potential source of patterned social and political conflict” (Skocpol), she relies heavily on Marx throughout the text because this is a very compelling and provable argument, which is why she uses France, Russia, and China to exemplify her conception.

Theda Skocpol’s compelling argument establishes the makeup of social revolutions through structural analysis and instantly disqualifies rebellions or political revolutions as events that have the capacity to actualize structural change. Skocpol explicitly states that “social revolutions are rapid, basic transformation of a society’s state and class structure…social revolutions are set apart from other sorts of conflicts and transformative processes above all by the combination of two coincidences…societal structural change with class upheaval…and…political with social transformation” (4). It is the structure of the system that makes revolutions possible.

While breaking down the reading, it was clear to see that Skocpol has a more three-dimensional and modern perspective on social revolutions. Rather than focusing on the mere feeling of discontent of a group of people, Skocpol takes into the equation the interaction between different factional interests, essentially shaping revolutionary outcomes. A statement, written by Wendell Phillips, that caught my attention as I was reading was “[r]evolutions are not made; they come” (17). I feel like the statement is a reflection of Skocpol’s structural analysis. Skocpol’s perspective on revolutions focused less on the anger of the people as the glue that groups individuals together or creates ‘mass-mobilization’, eventually developing a revolution, instead, she focused on the array of components that influence revolutionary transformations. In addition, Skocpol places an emphasis on modernization as an element that “…gives rise to revolution through changing the temper, value commitments, or potential for collective mobilization of people or groups in society…revolution itself creates conditions for… further socioeconomic development” (20). Unlike our past readings, there is stress on the significance of modernity and its influence on revolution over the years, ultimately, pushing away from Marxism’s theory of revolution. Another very important component that caught my attention was the importance of transnational relations and world-historical developments in Skocpol’s argument. Revolutions are not isolated developments that are caused by domestic conflicts or tensions, instead, they must be “…closely related in their causes and accomplishments to the internationally uneven spread of capitalist economic development and nation-state formations on a world scale” (19).

Skocpol’s understanding of revolution is more complex and humanistic, she doesn’t simplify revolutions in a two-dimensional manner. The reading helped me to better understand the intricacy of revolutions in general. The structuralist perspective on revolutions augments the significance of the state, not as a mere ‘arena’, but as an integral facet of a revolution. In addition, it accentuates the influence revolutions have worldwide.

Revolution has been characterized in ways which attach certain connotations to it. Whether it is violent revolution, political revolution, or many others, revolution itself has its foundation in what is attached to it. The revolutions -as seen in previous lectures- of for example King’s nonviolent revolution, the Maoist revolution, as well as the French Revolution all greatly differ from each other. In detail, each of these revolutions may have had some fundamental goal which through further examination can be found, but moreover, the societal structures, in their “interests of whatever socioeconomic or sociocultural” themes present, have their proceedings rooted in their “objective function…to preserve the existing mode of production” (Skocpol, 25, 28). Thus, revolutions to Skocpol are the overturning of these structures into ones whose interests are changed.

Her view of the state is uniquely different from a traditional Marxist view, which only theorizes that the means of production can only match the will of the dominating powers, while ignoring the potential autonomy of the state to become something which does not serve those interests. A “state-centered approach”, she says, is possible, and should not be ignored. Such approach -rather, the rapid transformation of state structures which its function is changed- is social revolution. Her way of viewing the existence of the state is certainly compelling, and her emphasis of class relations as the “materialized concentration” of the state pushes forward a structuralist view which challenges current ideas (Skocpol, 28).

As related to King’s ideas of nonviolent revolution, both Skocpol and King sought to change the structural relations -in one way or another- of the state, which ultimately transforms its function and purpose. However, Skocpol’s idea of the state as a manifestation of class relations yet autonomous is but one of many other structures which apply to the state, and King’s nonviolent revolution proves that the function of a state can be changed through the alteration of unique structures besides class relations. Even though race relations may better apply to society rather than the state, the state still -at that time- was a vessel for the dominating class to exert their power through their will, which at that time, was to implement racist policies.

Moreso, class relations were a significant area of discussion in race-relations, as during King’s time, certain groups were denied opportunities which may have propelled them further economically, and hence, the issue of race is now an issue of class. Rather, it can become another way; class relations are innately bound in state structure, whatever that structure may be. Additionally, class relations itself can exist only through the vessel of state structure, and that it is not one in and of itself. Class relations do not change on their own, they change through -as shown with King- the other state structures in which it is the goal of social revolution to change.

Overall, Skocpol’s ideas of social revolution have certainly altered my view of revolution as a whole, as the intricate and various types of revolution are better outlined, contributing to a broader yet specialized perspective on the topic. Notions of state autonomy can propel revolution to where its compatibility with the state’s existence lies not in its defense or permanence, but through its transcendence; its structures to be dismantled and built back again.

Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions” is a seminal work in the field of comparative politics, which aims to explore the relationship between states and social revolutions. The introduction of the book lays out the central questions that the author intends to address and provides a roadmap of the book’s structure.

Skocpol initially aimed to discuss that social revolutions are fundamentally different from other forms of political change, such as coups or rebellions. Personally, whilst reading, this is the principal idea that I found the most compelling. Specifically, on pages 4-5 Theda describes how Social revolutions involve the mass mobilization of ordinary people, and they seek to fundamentally transform the social order. Skocpol argues that social revolutions are not caused by economic or cultural factors alone, but rather they are the result of a complex interplay between structural factors and political processes.

I found this perspective interesting and complimentary to ideas I began to acquire throughout this entire course and I too found myself agreeing that there are inherent different kinds of revolutions and that not all manifest their desires for progress in the same manner. As I continued with the reading I found the claims that reinforced my initial beliefs within the discussion of revolutions and the multitude of variables that arise out of a state or society’s prospect of change. I initially described such multifarious facets to this conversation in my other discussion posts and enjoyed how she differentiates between the types of revolutions and emphasizes all factors contributing to social revolutions.

Ultimately, not just this week’s reading but the plethora of texts examined have broadened my point of view on the topic and I found that this piece in particular showcased a central underlying notion that should be emphasized in the discussion of revolutions (their past, present, and future), that being the idea that revolutions cannot be condensed into one definition, instead one – during their understanding and analysis of the subject – must seek to present an observant demeanor not ruled by a monochromatic perspective, remaining cognizant to the diversity of approaches and interpretations.

Among the things that seemed very sounded to me in his introduction was first his reasons for how and why revolutionary analyzes should be through her proposal comparative analysis.
The study of the revolution should be carried out through the comparison of other cases. Considering their similarities, aspects in which they are related and thus be able to understand a little better events that are not exact but that have a certain tendency or that end up under the same characteristics of the country or the time in which one lives. This author’s approach seems quite sophisticated, methodological, conceptual and theoretical to analyze these social and historical processes. “The units being compared are independent of one another… Comparative historical analysis is no substitute for theory. Indeed, it can be applied only with the indispensable aid of theoretical concepts and hypotheses” (Pg 43, Skocpol)

Also, when she presents the method that she considers to be available to bring explanations of revolutions in particularly sensitive historical cases. She calls it “comparative history” (Pg 36, Skocpol) which is used to track the history of two states, their institutions or civilizations. What it indicates is that the benefit of this type of study is that they show sociological models with their different national contexts but still viable to arrive at a good analysis. “Social revolutions as such can be treated as a theoretical subject; there is no inescapable requirement to formulate explanotory hypotheses only about categories with large number of cases.” (Pg 36, Skocpol) Here, she also reveals that it is not necessary to take many cases into account to arrive at a theoretical analysis and in its context, nor to focus on applying general concepts, it is enough to use the historical analysis of a few cases. That is why I consider these three countries in their historical processes and characteristics to be able to compare them in their revolutionary processes.

Another of the concepts that caught my attention in this reading was “states are actual organizations controlling (or attempting to control) territories and peopIe. Thus the analyst of revolutions must explore not only class relations but also relations of states to one another and relations of
states to dominant and subordinate classes. (Pg 31, Skocpol) Therefore, what she brings to this concept is that the approach must be made by understanding the intention or purpose of a state, to control its people and therefore its territory. So, it is important to consider the relations of the state both externally and internally. And of course how international circumstances affect socioeconomic structures internally.

Finally, but very important, another of the concepts that seemed interesting to me when she pointed out that “we can make sense of social-revolutionary transformation only if we take the state seriously as a macro-structure. The state properly conceived is no mere arena in which Socioeconomic struggles are fought out. It is, rather, a set of administrative, policing, and military organizations headed, and more or less well coordinated by, an executive authority. Any state first and fundamentally extracts resources from society and deploys these to create and support coercive and administrative organizations” ( pg 29, Skocpol) Because she shows key points from which to focus to make a comparative analysis of the revolution, the State. And presenting the state as what it is, what it is made up of and where to analyze it is key to choosing from each country and understanding this type of event or social phenomenon.

Many ideas, lessons, and perspectives can be taken from Skocpol’s texts. Still, its most insightful quality, with regard to all discussed in this course, is its ability to echo in on the readings we have collectively consumed as a class. From Marx to Wolff to Arendt, we see all their ideas superimposing each other in a fashion designated to the individual perspective.

However, when highlighting specific aspects to convey significance, I found that Skocpol’s emphasis on the masses spurred by circumstance was the bridge gapping all other ideas. This best fit my belief of “revolutions” being the product of an environment rather than the spontaneity founded by ideal men. As cited: “Societal order rests, either fundamentally or proximately, upon a consensus of the majority (or of the lower classes) that their needs are being met” (Skocpol 15). Here we can take a reference to Nepstads readings, which follow along the path of structural circumstances that allow for uprisings to take hold in the first place. Without a certain social climate and intricate specifics purging the stability of a political body’s foundation, no resemblance of challenge or change can be observed; or at least meaningfully. As we see time and time again throughout the weeks, there is always an emphasis on the “third estate”, if you will, that maintains all social order and regime standing. In discussions of violence and nonviolence, methods and practices, thoughts and theories, we consistently see the first in any explanation is the people. Marx argued that the mass urban proletariat would rise up against the elite bourgeoisie, Nepstad believed that the general consensus of the upset majority was the first push in revolutionary endeavors, and Arednt poised that the masses always maintained power since their support equaled the longevity of any regime. Skocpol’s position illuminates all of these ideas by filtering the words of aforementioned scholars into a single message that hands the meaning of change in the hands of those that, I would say, create their environment.

Must I also add, Skocpol indulges in the definition of “revolution” that subtly reveals the extent to which his writings drape our course discussions. Debatle to some indeed, but I feel that his distinction between “social” and “political” revolutions respawn the question of “what is revolution?” and beckons the classification of the term( Skocpol, 5). Tying in with the ideas of week one’s Kumar and Arendt texts, there is a reasonable discussion to be held that ponders what constitutes an event to be deemed an act of the revolutionary drama. Her emphasis on class struggle and its restructuring as a result of mass change, which I would add be either violent or non-violent, synced with my belief in the Krishan Kumar thought that argued that revolution was only designated its term when a total reincarnation of society had occurred. We tend to focus strictly on the power transfer aspect of political upheaval, however, the culture of our predecessors will always remain firmly entrenched in the soil of a ruined society. This is why Maoists sought it necessary to launch their cultural revolutions, and the radical French government to break down the nobility and royalty that dictated the societal positioning of the populace. When the oppressed burn the banners of “class”, and reorder the consumption of the vintage can a new standard be birthed under the term “revolution”.

This week we focused on Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions”, which ultimately provides an understanding to the relationship between social revolutions and states. This reading also examines the causes of the social revolutions. Theda Skocpol talks about how social revolutions are basic and fast transformations of a society’s class structure and state. It can change at any given time.

The part of this reading I found the most compelling is the structural perspective component of revolution. I found this section to be the most compelling because there is a lot to dissect and learn here. One small change in any and they are no longer the same but just similar. All four approaches to this, is the basics. “What seems most striking is the sameness of the image of the overall revolutionary process that underlies and informs all four approaches.” (Skocpol, 14). Revolutions are different from rebellions and from political revolutions, but which go hand in hand with social and political structure.

This week’s reading did not really change my idea of revolution I developed over the past few weeks, but rather expanded on it. I think it’s fascinating that there are so many factors into the different types of “revolutions”, but at the same time there is not much difference since they share a common base. Skocpol argues that social revolutions only occur under certain specific structural circumstances. Based off her definition of the different terms, I can see her point of view and agree. One of the reasons I say it expanded my view on my understanding of revolution is because it makes you think about what would happen if there were a time where a social revolution did occur outside of the specified conditions or if ever possible. Skocpol also explained the differences and similarities in a way that was easy to understand. Overall, I genuinely enjoyed this weeks reading.

In Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions,” the most compelling part was her discussion on the role of states in shaping the outcomes of social revolutions. On page 5, Skocpol asserts that “in all cases, state power was crucial in determining the specific form, outcome, and consequences of revolutionary upheaval.” (Skocpol 5). She argues that the pre-existing state structures in France, Russia, and China shaped the trajectory of their respective revolutions. For instance, in France, the revolution emerged from a weak state structure and aimed to establish a centralized and modern state, while in Russia, the revolution aimed to transform a strong, centralized state into a socialist state. On the other hand, the Chinese Revolution aimed to destroy the pre-existing state structure and establish a new one based on communist ideology.

This argument reinforces my earlier understanding that revolutions are complex events that involve various factors beyond the mere overthrow of a particular regime. The success of a revolution is not only determined by the oppressed and marginalized groups seeking to overthrow the existing power structure but also by the pre-existing state structures and the revolutionaries’ ability to mobilize the masses effectively. Thus, the outcomes of revolutions are shaped by various factors, such as the nature of the state structure, the extent of mobilization of the masses, and the ability to establish new political and social structures.

Moreover, Skocpol’s analysis of the French Revolution’s impact on the state is insightful. On page 10, she argues that “the French Revolution created an entirely new basis for state power,” as it established a centralized and bureaucratic state structure (Skocpol 10). This new state structure was crucial in the subsequent development of modern state power, which became a model for other European countries. Skocpol’s argument reinforces my understanding that revolutions can have far-reaching consequences beyond the overthrow of a particular regime. They can create new political and social structures that shape the course of history.

Skocpol’s analysis provides a valuable framework for understanding the processes of social and political change that accompany revolutions. Her focus on the role of pre-existing state structures in shaping the trajectory of revolutions challenges traditional Marxist interpretations of revolutions as the result of economic contradictions and class struggle. Instead, she emphasizes the importance of state structures, which serve as critical actors in the transformation of societies. This approach provides a nuanced understanding of revolutions that takes into account the complex interplay between state structures, social movements, and political change.

In conclusion, Skocpol’s analysis of the role of states in shaping the outcomes of social revolutions was the most compelling part of this week’s reading. It reinforced my earlier understanding of revolutions while also highlighting the critical role of the state in the success or failure of a revolution. Additionally, her analysis of the French Revolution’s impact on the state provided valuable insights into the far-reaching consequences of revolutions. Overall, this reading has deepened my understanding of the complex factors that influence the outcomes of social revolutions.

In Theda Skocpol’s “States and Social Revolutions she speaks on how theories doesnt focus on the important part of revolutions such as structural elements that causes thre to be a revolution to begin with. Most concentrate on how purposeful behavior causes revolutions but instead she analyzes revolutions from a structural perspective so that it isnt questionable.

One of the most compelling parts of the reading was Skocpol’s discussion of Marx’s theory and how the Mexican Revolution provided the country with the power to declare independence. It is interesting how it is one of the most industrialized countries after colonialism and the least vulnerable to revolutions by the military. This article starts by defining social revolution and which is described as an important political and social structure changes which take place immediately and promote one another. These changes result in long socioeconomic arguments, in and this is the reason why class tensions play a major part along with social tension. Marx viewed revolution as something simply centered around classes and it is a movement emerging from fundamental problems inside violent environments that are still developing and not as small acts of violence or conflict. For Marx, the key to any society is its mode of production or a specific combination of socioeconomic forces of production such as technology, division of labor, etc.

The account of revolution from this week’s reading reinforces the ideas about revolution I have developed in earlier weeks of the course because earlier in this course I believed that the process of social revolutions took time to make changes but in this book, it was stated that they are rapid. Indeed, it isn’t the only route to get something done or to be heard. Fundamental changes to the state and class structures of society are partially carried out by social-based movements. Even successful riots can involve the uprising of weaker classes and will not lead to any changes being made. It stated, “marx sees revolutions as emerging out of class-divided modes of production, and transforming one mode of production into another through class conflict.(Skocpol, 8).This shows that the social shift in structure and class causes social revolutions to be set aside from other conflicts as the processes are occurring. Political revolutions change the state structures but not social structures even though I thought it would mean it changes the society as a whole. Instead, social structures can result in industrialization without having to be the reason behind unexpected political events or changes.

An interesting part of the introduction of States and Social Revolutions, by Theda Skocpol, is her depiction of the various historical analysis on social revolutions and that the conflict over resources is not seen as violence, but instead a symptom or byproduct of a deeper kind of conflict.

We learn that the Marxist approach believes that capitalist production conflicts with social and class relations, which holds them back, like in the French revolution. The most intriguing part was analyzing the Marxist approach through the following quote: “The Marxist conception of class relations as rooted in the control of productive property and the appropriation of economic surpluses from direct producers by nonproducers is, in my view, an indispensable theoretical tool for identifying one sort of basic contradiction in society. (13) “. The examination of the French Revolution by Skocpol emphasizes that it served as both a template for many subsequent revolutions and the first of the great modern revolutions. This insight highlights the historical significance of the French Revolution and how it continues to shape how we perceive revolutions.

The aggregate psychological approach interprets peoples psychological dynamics and the origins of social revolutions. Examples of anger, resentment, frustration, aggression were used by Skocpol as a result of deeper conflicts, “a condition known as “relative deprivation.” (9). The systems/ value consensus approach examines the political institutions that exist and how they express shared values, and act in a way that benefits them. Skocpol states that “this image suggests that the ultimate and sufficient condition for a revolution is the withdrawal of this consensual support and, conversely, that no regime could survive if the masses were consciously disgruntled. (16). The political conflict approach emphasizes the revolutionary process which is carried out by organized groups, which also emphasizes the mobile interest of the community. This approach from Skocpol emphasizes the interests of revolution, which includes resources, power relations between groups.

Ultimately, a revolution must alter both the social and political structures in order to qualify as a social revolution. Skocpol names her method “Comparative historical analysis” and uses the case study of France, Russia, and China and how their politics or social structures typically alter as a result of revolutions. She claims that political revolutions do not necessarily result in class conflict and merely change the state, not the social structures.

In this week’s reading, I found Chalmer Johnson’s analysis of social revolution to be the most compelling and thought provoking. Johnson proposes that the purpose of a revolution is to change the current value set within a society and challenge the socialization influencing the way a group thinks and operates. Johnson claims the onslaught of a social revolution can be attributed to a dis-synchronization of societal contentment and the deterioration of the status quo (Skocpol pg. 12). When a new set of ideals is proposed through growing discontent with the current system or the introduction of new technology, people can become unsettled as their thought process is questioned. Once this discomfort grows, society begins to harbor resentment toward the current regime and look for change. This can put a social system at risk of crisis and thus a breeding ground for revolution. Johnson states that in order for the revolution to successfully implement the changes to the societal structure, it must include violence (Skocpol pg. 11). This will force either the current government to adapt and implement reforms to bring the society back into synchrony, or the government will crumble and be replaced by an entirely new system that represents the desired values.

I find Johnson’s analysis of revolution to be the most compelling because I feel it accurately represents revolution and its causes. It parallels Marxist thinking as the revolution can only occur through dismantling the socialization that forces approval of the current governmental system and proposing new ways of thought that call the current system into question. As both Johnson and Marx discuss, this is only possible when the population becomes conscious of what they are lacking. Johnson calls it dis-synchronization and Marx refers to it as the raising of class consciousness. Regardless, it is the inherent questioning of what the current governmental system is providing and proposing new ideas to reach higher levels of contentment within society. I do disagree with Johnson, based on readings from prior weeks, that the only way to achieve a successful social revolution is with the inclusion of violence. Previously, we have discussed many successful social revolutions that were nonviolent. I believe the power of thought and the unification of a population is much more powerful than weapons of war. Yes, violence is one way of resolution, but it is not the only way. The issue, as both Marx and Johnson mention, is getting the impacted class on the same page of revolting against the status quo in order to achieve greater equality within society. This does not necessarily need to be violent.

To begin with this week’s reading goes on to explain a definition of what a Revolution is, how it plays a role in different societies, what triggers a Revolution to take place, and who is most affected by it. The part that I found most compelling was the way Skocpol defines what a revolution is. The voluntaristic theories popular in the field of politics, according to Skocpol, leave missing an essential aspect of transformations. These hypotheses miss the fundamental elements that produce an unprecedented scenario because they concentrate on how purposeful behavior causes revolutions. Skocpol analyzes transitions from the point of view of structure to close this disparity. A revolution involves simultaneously a shift in social frameworks and governmental authorities. It connects back to when we first started the course and how we got to define a Revolution. According to Skocpol, “revolution is that basic changes in social structure and in political structure occur together in a mutually reinforcing fashion. And these changes occur through intense sociopolitical conflicts in which class struggles play a key role.”[1] I believe this definition is very similar to that which I mentioned in previous discussions. Taking into example the Chinese Evolution, which according to his definition was a social revolution since along with the transformation in government structures, every aspect of social structure also underwent transformation. Moreover, Skocpol’s concept is a radical reinventing founded on new analyses of the data that holds that governments are independent administrative structures that operate in their respective purposes. The groundbreaking indicate that endures is the one which effectively executes a comprehensive improvements scheme, according to the writer’s evaluation, which goes above the root causes of rebellion to include its effects. This claim assists in clarifying that the rebellions she investigated have proven to be so significant over time as well as why many are unsuccessful ones are hardly recalled in the present. “Consequently, analysts are inexorably encouraged to consider peoples’ feelings of dissatisfaction or their consciousness of fundamentally oppositional goals and values as the central problematic issues.”[2] This feeds into the ideology of Revolutions and why most of them take place. Citizen’s emotions are vital towards society, since most decisions happen for a feeling of dissatisfaction as she mentions in the reading. In conclusion, the most compelling aspect of Skocpol’s writing was the definition of what Revolution means, and how individuals act on it as an act of change.

I found much of Skocpol’s writing to be compelling. Her definition of social revolutions as “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures” (Pg.4) fits perfectly in line with many other definitions of revolution. She does not include the specific use or lack of violence as a method of revolution. However, this definition does differ significantly from the simple fact that she states that revolution occurs when significant changes to structures occurs in response to any kind of revolt, whether it is violent or peaceful. I would agree with her over other scholars in including this detail in the definition. Without significant change, there is usually little evidence that a “revolution” ever occurred and Skocpol would argue herself that you should not even call these events “Revolutions”. Skocpol goes on to discuss three theories that attempt to explain revolutions called “aggregate-psychological theories, systems/value consensus theories, and political conflict theories” (Pg. 9). She goes on to describe how these theories are somewhat useful in explaining how revolutions come about but they all miss key details which she believes could give a better explanation.

Skocpol’s writing has reinforced some ideas and changed other ideas about revolution that I have developed in earlier weeks. The idea that first came to mind while reading is the practice of nonviolent revolutions. I was glad to see that, while she does address the role violence has played in revolutions, she does not explicitly state that violence is needed for a successful social revolution. Previous readings showed me that nonviolent revolutions could be successful as seen in British controlled India by Gandhi, runaway and protesting slaves during the Civil War, and Martin Luther King Jr during the Civil Rights Movement. Other ideas that this reading reinforced was the need for state and social change as a definitive trait of a successful revolution. A revolution without change cannot and should not be labeled a revolution because it would better be described as a simple change in power. Some ideas that this writing had changed was the importance of looking into a country in order to explain its revolution. Skocpol did discuss that internal factors do play a role but there can also be numerous external factors that can also affect how, when, and if a revolution takes place within a country, as can be seem in this quote “political environments create tasks and opportunities for states and place limits on their capacities to cope with either external or internal tasks or crises” (Pg. 30). I had not considered how external factors like the actions of nearby and even distant countries could affect revolutions in another one,

I found this passage to be really important when it comes to putting perspective like Arendt, Marx, and Kumar together. In This weeks reading by Theda Skocpol on the States and Social Revolutions I found his perspective to be quite interesting. Skocpol emphasizes the significance of using social revolutions as a distinct form for political change, rather than a revolt.

He also states that social revolution is not only about overthrowing the current government but instead is to re-organize a society as a whole. He mentions “rebellions, even when successful, may involve the revolt of subordinate classes but they do not eventuate in the structural change. However political revolutions transform state structures but not social structures and they are not necessarily accomplished through class conflict and processes such as industrialization can transform social structures without necessarily bringing about, or resulting from, sudden political upheavals or basic political structural changes”(pg4) What I found very compelling is his approach seems to resonate with that of Martin Luther King Jr. from previous weeks. Martin Luther King Jr. beliefs aligned in the category of conscientious and pragmatic nonviolence.King believed nonviolence was the way to seek peace and justice. I also enjoyed Skocpol breakdown of different revolutions and how they resemble social revolutions.

This weeks reading has made me stick with my original opinion on revolution . Though I enjoyed the passage and questioning and explanations from Skocpol, I would still prefer to stick with my original understanding of revolution. I believe a revolution should mean transformative, political, economical, and social change driven by beliefs, living circumstances, and the right to assemble. This will also involve the overthrow of a current government or organization in hopes of meeting the needs of their citizens and country.
Throughout this course I have been able to gather so many views on what a revolution should mean, and the argument of violence versus non-violence. However, I still do believe a single definition of revolution will alway be up for debate, As we move forward the meaning will continue to change. I really enjoyed passages from Kumar and how he emphasized on revolutionary movements needing to be clear with citizens about the kind of society they are aiming to form once the movement is over.As well as Gandhi and his non- violence approach.

After reading Theda Skocpol’s introduction to States and Social Revolutions, it becomes intriguing to understand how Skocpol defines social revolutions as she believes they are rare, complex, and should be distinguished from other kinds of conflict and political changes. Skocpol defines social revolution as “rapid, basic transformation of a society’s state and class structures” (Skocpol P4). Skocpol believes social revolutions do not only transform society as a whole but more specifically, state and class in a way that combines with structural change and political transformation. Therefore, Skocpol sees social revolution as both a political and economic transformation in the structure of a society. Skocpol emphasizes the importance of not confusing social revolutions with other kinds of conflict and political changes such as industrialization and the American revolution. Thus, Skocpol notes three distinctions from social revolution such as rebellion, political revolutions, and broad base social and economic change. Skocpol sees rebellions, even those that are successful and involve the revolt of subordinate classes, as unable to result in structural change and do not transform the structure of society. Skocpol’s distinction between political revolution and social revolution is her conceptual point. “Political revolution transforms state structures but not social structures”. Furthermore, Skocpol sees other revolutionary processes such as industrialization as transforming social structures without bringing about sudden political and structural changes. Skocpol believes changes in political structures and social structures should “occur together in a mutually reinforcing fashion” (Skocpol P5) Skocpol believes social revolutions are uncommon processes that are incredibly complex and should be distinguished from other conflicts.

Skocpol identifies four early approaches to theorizing causes and dynamics to social revolutions such as a traditional marxist approach, an aggregate psychological approach, a value consensus approach, and a political conflict approach. The aggregate psychological approach is a way of interpreting revolutions that place emphasis on psychological dynamics and seek the origins of social processes such as anger, deprivation, frustration, and the causes of resorting to violence. This approach is not one she favors and views all approaches to have inadequacies yet encompasses these approaches to form her own comparative historical analysis.

Skocpol’s theoretical and historical approach is drawn primarily on the marxist approach and political conflict approach but goes beyond as she produces three major principles of analysis. Her first principle of analysis is a non voluntarist structural perspective, in which Skocpol believes we must look at complex social conditions and social structures in order to understand social revolutions. Ultimately she understands that revolutions do not happen through spontaneous voluntary mobilizations but because of conflicts and dynamics of social processes, conditions, and background structures. That being said, Skocpol argues one major flaw in theories of revolutions is treating revolutions as things that can be explained by internal dynamics and instead thinks you have to understand international dynamics and international structures. Furthermore, she sees it as a mistake to see the state itself as a tool and views the state as a serious actor and a decision maker with forms of power for or against revolutionary processes. “We can make sense of social revolutionary transformations only if we take the state seriously as a macro structure” (Skocpol P29). In other words, Skocpol argues in theorizing revolutionary processes we should see the state as more than an “arena” for playing out interest and other dynamics. The role of the state is fundamental and sets her analysis apart from other theories of revolution. Additionally, Skocpol’s emphasis on social revolution sets her apart from Ardent who emphases political revolution, comparing the American revolution to the ideal model as Skocpol sees the American revolution as a different thing. To be frank, the complexity and research conducted in Skocpol’s analyses is in depth but potentially overlooks the revolutionary process as a whole and focuses more on origins, causes, and dynamics of social revolutions therefore it is a different analysis from previous approaches that still offers valuable insight.

Primarily, this reading reinforces Nepstad, Marxism and the Maoism and reflects the basic revolt of a social class both the peasantry or the bourgeoise. Skocpol breaks down the states and social revolution and outlines Karl Marx theories of social revolution. Skocpol although challenging breaks down the key factors need for a successful revolt and overall social structure transformation. She uses the prime examples of the French Revolution and the mid- century Vietnam revolutions noting the importance of state organizations, class structures and dominant ideologies. Inherently, she notes the importance of revolutions not only restructuring states but also transforming nations. I find that Skocpol has a similar definition approach to the earlier authors revisited in the course. She states that “social revolutions are rapid, basic transformations in a society and its states, this primarily affects class structure and is ultimately caused by a social class-based revolt” (Skocpol 4). Comparatively speaking, Taylor in Maoism in the Andes also conveys Lenin’s classic argument that a revolutionary party cannot be built on the quicksand of ideological confusion; it was therefore necessary to “first divide and then unite” around a common programme, the guiding principle being: “better fewer but better” (Taylor 6). Skocpol also mentions Lenin and similarly conveys that the revolution is accomplished by class action in unity who are led by the self- conscious and rising revolutionary classes” (Skocpol 14).

Furthermore, Skocpol outlines and addresses the strong connection of state and social class structures when it comes to social transformation. She notes that a successful revolution marks the shift from previous production theories and ideologies to a new social relation in production. More importantly conveying the new social relations and new political ideological forms needed to bring in a new triumphant revolutionary class and overall different social development. Nonetheless, Skocpol apart from the other articles read this semester breaks down the macro-sociological theory. She dives into the large-scale approach of social systems within a state and the outlined the structural level of production. Skocpol focuses on the societal integration and overall physiology and pathology of a society when there are no crisis and further notes that social revolutions cannot be explained without systematic references to social structures and overall world- historical developed revolutions. Overall, I believe the importance and relevancy of this book connects with the prior readings and underlines the overall transformation of a society or nation when a revolution is successful. In my own words, it is important to know that although it can result in violence, it first starts in the mind and thought. It is a place of value and worth for the people at either lower- or middle-class levels and as Skocpol states then sets the stage of their development of material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production resulting in overall conflict. This collective action in unity with common ideologies and interests come together in pursuit of establishing a different social structure that favors their needs. It is almost like the greater the oppression the higher the possibility of revolution and in this case liberation.

I enjoyed reading your outlook towards Skocpol’s position on what it means to endure a social revolution. You’ve included important references to historical transformations that support her definition like recaps of the French Revolution and mid-century Vietnam. I found her critique of comparisons between “fundamentally similar cases” of revolution for France and Russia very interesting. On page 41 of States and Social Revolutions, the French Revolution was described as “bourgeois-capitalist” and “liberal-democratic” while Russia was noted as “statist-developmental” and “proletarian-communist.” While they shouldn’t be grouped together, changes from their “old regimes” can classify them as alike in nature. I appreciate your wording of how transformation starts with mind and thought no matter the result, like violence. What I like about Skocpol’s text is the emphasis of verbal communication always preceding any type of revolution. Overall, this was a great interpretation of States and Social Revolutions.

Social revolutions rapidly transform society’s status quo. I’m compelled by the way Skocpol breaks down how fundamental structural changes are typically carried out “by class-based revolts from below” with reference to other philosophers (Skocpol, 4). This explanation implies that when the minority comes together to challenge the majority, solidarity can rapidly recondition any social climate. Skocpol’s notice of Karl Marx’s theory of class struggles smoothly ties together her definition of what she sees drive basic revolutionary changes. She draws various connections to the texts that we’ve reviewed throughout our course so far which makes States and Social Revolutions a great finale. A society’s state is subject to change when the citizens it doesn’t serve gain awareness of the unfair division, inciting anger. Whether it be of religious, cultural, or socioeconomic differences, society will always be questioned by those it doesn’t serve. It’s when the negatively affected people acknowledge this and unify that the nature of society may change. Her framework of the causes, modes, and products of a social revolution have helped me better understand the most influential measures towards successful shifts. We’ve learned from many different interpretations of revolution from Arendt to Gandhi to Nepstad and each principle was directly or indirectly touched on by Skocpol.

The summary of Ted Gurr’s idea about relative deprivation was a great demonstration as to why people revolt. It’s unjust for anyone to experience “a gap between the valued things and opportunities they feel entitled to and the things and opportunities they actually get” (Skocpol, 9). Revolutions being grouped as an internal-war under the same umbrella as large-scale terrorism was an interesting explanation to read. At their core, both are mass-based and organized but really couldn’t be any more different in terms of pacifism and war. In my opinion, this hasty comparison suggests that peaceful revolutions are just as if not more effective than violent revolutions. Both are capable of success because they share the same basic strategy. Skocpol and Gurr describe how an imbalance in society fuels uprisings that affect everybody, even those with preexisting advantages described as “both masses and elite aspirants” (Skocpol, 10). This relates back to Marx’s theory of the proletariat versus bourgeois circumstance, just in different terminology. It’s fascinating to see how philosophies of social revolutions spread across a wide spectrum but share the same premise when it comes down to it. In simple terms, there can’t be a social revolution without an established oppressive authority and angry group fed up with the normalized mistreatment towards them.

The reading that I found most compelling was ‘Predicting Attitudes toward Violence’ by Monica Blumenthal. Blumenthal (1972) states that violence has been a vivid feature of American life in the past decades i.e., seen through “assassinations, riots, student disruption and violent crime which is increasing in proportion to the population”. The reason I found Blumenthal’s definition and approach to violence most compelling is because she outlines what events that characterize America as a violent place. She further outlines a model that was formed to predict attitudes towards violence. I also second what she says about measuring attitudes toward violence as it is a crucial venture. She also goes ahead to describe one feature of American modern life that is believed to expose people to violence i.e. the extent to which mass media exposes us to violence e.g. through crime stories.

I found it interesting how Blumenthal analyzes violence based on certain factors and forces for instance how people have different attitudes towards violence as the same individual that supports violence to maintain the status quo would not accept violence to for revolutionary transformation. On analyzing violence, she also states that it is crucial to consider whether the level of violence is as a result of opposing forces some which hold any violent act as unjustifiable and those that justify extreme violence e.g. simple cultural values against violence e.g. the Christian ethic “thou shall not kill”, and the basic cultural values in favor of violence e.g. the Bible influences the development of values that are anything apart from love for instance “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”.

The account of revolution from this week’s reading change, affect, or reinforce the ideas about revolution that I have developed in earlier weeks in the course as this week I have learnt of how the meaning of revolution truly came to be. I have learnt that various parts of the world had their own definitions of the term ‘revolution’. Kumar (1971) states that the term ‘revolution’ has no single meaning and that it is a European invention and that the meaning of the word varies in different parts of the world. Kumar (1971) states that for instance, the Russian definition of revolution varies from that of the French and is also different from that of America, Germany, Africa, Asia and Spain and it was not until the eighteenth century during the American and French Revolutions that the term got “its modern connotation of fundamental and far-reaching change” (Kumar 1971).

In our final discussion, week seven we are to discuss if whether violence is needed instead of a revolution. Our course work has been focusing on the previous Revolutions, and giving us an overview of what it lead to. This week we read Skocpol’s Thought in regard to the revolution. The most interesting part in week sevens reading was Skocpol’s definition of social revolutions “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below.” (Skocpol 4).

She states that in a social revolution there is a transformation of state organization, Class structures, and dominant ideologies. In other words, a revolution needs a social structure change in a political structure change she also mentions that political revolution only transforms the state and not the social structure. She also thinks the industrial revolution played a role that transforms social structure.” Social revolution makes successful sociopolitical transformation, actual change of state and class structure.” (Skocpol 5). Another interesting part of this weeks assignment was ” when Skocpol, mentions the French Revolution and the great impact it brought world wide. Some can say it was a step forward in the right direction, and brought great advancement. I mean look all that came from it Code laws, model of scientific and technical organization, and even the metric system (Week 2, pg 53). Yes, what we use to measure. I believe a revolution consists of both a social transformation and a political transformation.

To me it’s the people and the way they interact with each other, and we can also add their ideologies is what makes the society. You know before reading this week’s assignment, I just grabbed revolution as a large mass of people who lost their trust to a failed government. But after reading this week’s revolution continuation I was able to understand that there is more and it’s sad that I compared it to today and we are still experiencing So much today. And then asking for revolution because I am against violence, but we need to do better.

Skocpol’s also discusses the Chinese Revolution and the reason for the collapse, state breakdown and warlord rule (Skocpol 21). This viewpoint deflects emphasis from Mao and the Communist Party and instead emphasizes structural factors that allowed for the emergence of revolutionaries; its success is largely attributable to the disintegrated state institutions in China that allowed for their growth. (Skocpol 22).

States and Social Revolutions, written by Theda Skocpol, provides a thought-provoking examination of the nature and causes of revolutions, with a particular emphasis on the role of states and social structures in determining revolutionary outcomes. Skocpol’s argument that state institutions play a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of revolution is one of the most compelling arguments in the book, as it offers valuable insights into the difficulties that arise when attempting to transform existing systems. Furthermore, she contends that the strength or weakness of state power can significantly influence the result of revolutionary conflicts.Upon reading Theda Skocpol’s analysis on revolution, I came to appreciate its unique perspective which differed from other accounts, such as Hannah Arendt’s. Arendt stresses the importance of public action and the creation of new political institutions as crucial to revolutionary change, while Skocpol’s argument emphasizes the impact of the existing state in shaping revolutionary outcomes. Skocpol defines social revolutions as rapid and fundamental transformations of a society’s state and class structures, carried out in part through class-based revolts from below. She highlights the significance of the coincidence of societal structural change with class upheaval and the coincidence of political with social transformation (Skopcol, 1979, p. 4).

In addition, Skopcol’s analysis of revolution reinforced my understanding of Hobsbawm’s perspective. Like Skocpol, Eric Hobsbawm highlights the role of social structures in shaping the outcomes of revolution. Hobsbawm asserts that revolutionary movements are fueled by the struggles of social classes, and that the success of such movements depends on their ability to mobilize and organize effectively. In States and Social Revolutions, Skocpol also notes that class conflicts and changes in class relations play a crucial role in successful revolutionary transformations. Skocpol argues that revolutionary change is often initiated by subordinate groups who mobilize to transform social structures.

After reading Skocpol’s and Hobsbawm’s works, my understanding and view of revolutions have become more nuanced. I now define a revolution as a significant event that brings about fundamental changes in a society’s political, social, and economic structures, leading to the creation of new institutions and norms. It typically arises when people’s grievances against the existing political order become unbearable, resulting in the system’s collapse. A revolution can transform society in various ways beyond the political realm, including economic and cultural aspects. In her analysis of revolution, Skocpol offers a nuanced and perceptive perspective on the causes and dynamics of revolutionary change. Her focus on how state institutions and social structures shape the course of revolutions complements the views of other authors, such as Eric Hobsbawm. Skocpol provides a persuasive account of how social movements can alter existing power structures and bring about profound societal transformations through collective action and the mobilization of marginalized groups.

Political nonviolence has been an effective means of achieving social and political change throughout history. However, the question of whether it will remain effective in the future is complex and multifaceted. In this response, I draw on the readings from Nepstad to offer my own perspective.

Firstly, one of the main challenges facing political nonviolence in the future is the changing nature of conflicts. As Nepstad notes, contemporary conflicts are often characterized by a lack of clear lines between state and non-state actors, the use of new technologies, and the globalization of political and economic systems. In this context, it may be difficult for political nonviolent movements to effectively challenge oppressive structures and policies. Moreover, as the complexity of conflicts increases, nonviolent movements may find it challenging to mobilize and sustain the necessary resources and support.

Secondly, the effectiveness of political nonviolence in the future may also depend on the willingness of states and other actors to engage in meaningful dialogue and negotiation with nonviolent movements. As Nepstad highlights, many governments and other actors are often resistant to engaging with nonviolent movements and may instead use repression and violence to suppress them. In the future, as global power dynamics continue to shift, it is possible that authoritarian regimes may become more common, making it even harder for nonviolent movements to achieve their goals.

However, despite these challenges, I believe that political nonviolence will remain effective in the future. One reason for this is that nonviolent movements are often able to mobilize widespread public support, including from groups who may not have previously been politically engaged. This support can help to pressure governments and other actors to engage in dialogue and negotiation that can also make it more difficult for them to use violence to suppress nonviolent movements.

Another reason for the continued effectiveness of political nonviolence is the role of social media and other digital technologies in mobilizing and sustaining nonviolent movements. As Nepstad notes, these technologies have enabled nonviolent movements to overcome barriers of distance, language, and culture, and have also made it easier to coordinate and communicate with supporters. Moreover, these technologies have enabled nonviolent movements to document and share evidence of state violence and repression, which can increase public awareness and pressure on governments to respond.

In conclusion, while the effectiveness of political nonviolence in the future is uncertain, I believe that it will remain an important tool for achieving social and political change. However, as conflicts become more complex and the global political landscape shifts, nonviolent movements will need to be adaptable, innovative, and strategic in order to overcome the challenges they will face.

The success of political nonviolence in the past has been well documented, as evidenced by scholars like Sharon Erickson Nepstad and Erica Chenoweth. Their studies demonstrate that nonviolent movements have achieved remarkable successes compared to violent uprisings. However, assessing whether nonviolence will remain effective as political conflicts progress is essential. In this essay, political nonviolence has achieved remarkable success; however, its long-term viability will depend on its capacity to adapt and address new challenges as they present themselves. Nepstad delves deeply into nonviolent movements in her book Nonviolent Revolutions, outlining the key factors responsible for their relative success. Nepstad (Chapter 1) discusses how nonviolent revolutions typically rely on mass mobilization, unity, loyalty shifts, and strategic planning (Nepstad, Ch.1). Nepstad further elaborates on these factors in Chapter 8, stressing the significance of defections within opposition parties and international support (Nepstad, Ch. 8). Nepstad’s article “Mutiny and Nonviolence in the Arab Spring” delves deep into this period in history by showing how these crucial components contributed to nonviolent revolutions taking place across Tunisia and Egypt.

Chenoweth’s essay “The Future of Nonviolent Resistance” suggests that nonviolent movements will likely face numerous difficulties as they evolve (Chenoweth, p.3). Nonviolent movements are increasingly faced with state repression, fragmentation, and the rise of illiberal democracies. Furthermore, the rapid advancements of technology and the digital age present new obstacles for nonviolent movements as states can now employ sophisticated surveillance, control, and censorship tools (Chenoweth, p.7). Though these challenges may appear daunting, we should always maintain hope and remain optimistic about the potential of political nonviolence in the future. Our hope and optimism about political nonviolence will endure as long as we learn and adapt from our mistakes. First, Nepstad and Chenoweth emphasize the potential of nonviolent movements to adapt and innovate. Second, Nepstad emphasizes tactical innovation within these movements, such as humor to disarm repression (Nepstad, Ch.1). Furthermore, Chenoweth points out that technology can be an ally in these endeavors, with digital platforms facilitating better coordination, communication, and information dissemination for increased nonviolent resistance (Chenoweth, p.7).

In conclusion, political nonviolence’s success depends on its capacity to adapt and address emerging challenges. Nonviolent movements can remain successful despite a shifting political landscape by staying united, encouraging loyalty shifts, engaging in strategic planning, and employing innovative tactics. Nepstad and Chenoweth’s works demonstrate how nonviolent resistance has the potential to bring about significant transformation. With an appropriate strategy, nonviolent movements will remain effective regardless of future environmental changes.

What is nonviolence? It is a method to bring about a change in the political or social realm and doing it in a peaceful manner. It is the rejection of violence using a peaceful tactics. Gandhi and Dr King both were two very influential figures that promoted and believed in nonviolence. As with any fight there will be victories as well as defeats. Some victories include Dr Kings fight for civil rights, Cesar Chavez for better treatment for Mexican workers in California, The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in overthrowing a communist government and The East Germany Revolution which took down a communist regime. On the other hand, some defeats were, Tiananman Square Democracy struggle in China, Kenya’s struggle against Daniel arap Moi dictatorship. Nonviolence has a better chance in succeeding in a democratic regime. Authoritarian regimes are more incline to neutralize their opponents at any cost.

I do think political nonviolence will remain effective in the future as it has been in the past. There will always be individuals that believe in the movement. As bad as the world may seem there are plenty of morally upright individuals that do not believe in violence. We have seen a profound increase in nonviolent movement between 2000-2019. More people look to nonviolence as a successful means in accomplishing a change. Most are trying to avoid conflicts because of humanitarian repercussions “in the postwar era, wider segments of society have come to value and expect fairness, the protection of human rights, and the avoidance of needless violence. This normative shift may have heightened popular interest in civil resistance as a way to advocate for human rights”. (Chenoweth, pg. 72)

With the help of the internet more people can understand and studying the movement also witnessing other countries accomplish victory. This may give hope to those who were hopeless, inspiration to fight for their civil rights or a regime change. Even though nonviolence is more successful in democratic regimes, and there is a turn in many nations political environment who are digressing from democracy to Authoritarian leadership, I do believe that there will still be nonviolent movements. 2020 showed a decline in protest because of the virus which enable many to change policies that are oppressive. But the break may be a blessing in disguise as in this break gave activist time to reevaluate the environment and strategically come back more powerful. Activist may have sympathy over issues because of the virus and the trauma people endured. “The ongoing U.S. protests against racism and police violence are tied to the fact that African Americans have perished from coronavirus at much higher rates than whites—among other persistent social, political, and economic inequalities. Because the pandemic has already affected the lives of billions of people worldwide, these messages are likely to resonate with a broader base now than they did before the crisis.” (Chenoweth, pg. 83) Another reason I believe it will still be effective is that it is because of oppression why it started in the first place so once there is oppression there will always be protest.

After reading the analysis of Nepstad and Chenoweth in this weeks readings, I think that if nonviolent political movements are to continue, they need some new unique ideas. Chenoweth lays out in her article things that have changed, both on the movement side and the environments in which these movements are taking place, that have caused the decline of effective political nonviolence since 2010. A few examples of these are the heavy reliance on mass demonstrations, solely relying on digital organizing or publicizing, or governments being more prepared and able to adapt quicker to these movements. (Chenoweth, 78).  Of course, if a group is working to create a nonviolent movement, they can’t do much to change the environment that the government has created –  a grassroots group cannot change the fact that the US has retreated from the international scene, away from its role as global superpower. (Chenoweth, 76). They can however employ new tactics that will surprise their adversaries, such as using alternate methods for showing their frustration that will then be coupled with mass demonstrations, publicizing away from the high levels of surveillance that comes with social media, and staying away from violent fringes of their ideologies that could create a bad name for their nonviolent movement. (Chenoweth, 79). In Nepstads article “Mutiny and Nonviolence in the Arab Spring”, she claims that nonviolence groups are 46 times more likely to succeed if they can convince the military or law enforcement to defect, making it a critical factor in determining failure or success. (Nepstad, 337). She proves this point by citing three cases of the Arab Spring, political revolts in Egypt, Bahrain, and Syria, and explains the differing cases of police loyalty and how that affected the outcome of their movements, as well as why the police chose either side. (Nepstad, 344). If a political movement in the future used this evidence and found a way to sway the loyalty of the military or law enforcement, it would help the movement be more successful. Nepstad also explains two types of nonviolent movements, the Gandhian model and the electoral model. The Gandhian model includes six ways citizens can withdraw support to the regime so that it will eventually collapse and have no choice but to change. The electoral approach is based on voter participation, and election security and honesty.  (Nepstad, chapter 1). I think that the electoral approach will become more influential that the Gandhian model in the future for two reasons; The first reason is because Gandhian is studied and worshipped as one of the most influential – or the most – nonviolent leaders in the world. Many people and governments are aware of tactics he used which faces the problem about of not surprising the government/government adapting to the movements. The second reason is because the electoral approach has already begun to infiltrate strong democracies (the US presidential elections, or the Brexit vote for example). Both loosely followed the steps of an electoral nonviolent movement.

Political nonviolent movements have the potential to remain effective in the future if groups continue to find new methods for dissenting, moving away from recent trends like social media, mass demonstrations, violent fringes, and the Gandhian model. Coupled with the ability to make law enforcement defect from the regime, these movements have high chances of success.

The question of whether political violence will continue to remain effective in the future is hard to determine but from research, it has been shown to have become less effective in producing regime change in the most recent years, although more effective than means of violent uprisings. The main issue with this question is whether we are excluding violent revolutions from the discussion. Violent campaigns have been more unsuccessful than non-violent campaigns, making non-violent campaigns seem more effective overall, but even given the success compared to violent campaigns, non-violent campaigns within themselves are failing to succeed in the ways necessary to bring about successful regime change and democratization. The first main reason for this decline in effectiveness is the pure size of modern campaigns. Chenoweth explains this in her article, stating that, “in the 1980s, the average nonviolent campaign involved about 2 percent of the population in the country where it was underway. In the 1990s, the average campaign included a staggering 2.7 percent of the population. But since 2010, the average peak participation has been only 1.3 percent, continuing a decline that began in the 2000s. This is a crucial change. A mass uprising is more likely to succeed when it includes a larger proportion and a more diverse cross-section of a nation’s population.” (Chenoweth,78) This decrease in campaign participation is a major issue in the declining effectiveness of non-violent revolutions. You must have a dramatic mass movement to bring about regime change. Not only with the decrease in participation, but the type of participation that gained mass movements true progress in the past was also the technique used, which has not been developed or used as much in more modern instances. Mass movements such as general strikes and stay-at-homes, which can disrupt an economy dramatically, are not as prominent today as just general street protests, which last a day or two at most.  Along with the day protests, we have seen a spike in civil-resistance movements becoming violent, reversing the progress the campaign has made. We can see this example here in the US with the January 6^th incident. What was supposed to remain non-violent swiftly turned into an anarchic, chaotic, disastrous scene, eradicating any social progress that may have actually occurred, if any. Chenoweth gives a statistic, “From the 1970s until 2010, the share of nonviolent movements with violent flanks remained between 30 and 35 percent. In 2010–19, it climbed to more than half.” (Chenoweth, 79) This increase in non-violent campaigns turning to incite violence has only repressed their progress and demeaned their causes. This decline in effectiveness has everything to do with the newly adopted nature of non-violent campaigns, versus the organization and tactics of historically successful campaigns. COVID-19 putting even more pressure on the nature, administration, participation, organization, and execution platforms available to progress non-violent campaigns.

Given this decline in non-violent campaigns bringing about change in more contemporary times, we can see certain tactics being employed internationally to attempt to de-escalate abuses of power, which still seems ineffective in certain cases. We can see this with the current war in Ukraine. The international sanctions and moral pressures from the international community have only achieved so much if anything. Although, not necessarily a revolution, I feel the war has brought about faults in Russia’s autocratic nature, Putin’s power abuses, and the violent campaigns that have been made against Ukraine. To side with Chenoweth’s finding cited in Nepstad’s Preface, stating that internationally imposed sanctions mostly harm the success of non-violent campaigns but nearly double the winning in violent campaigns. (Nepstad, International Support and Sanctions) This finding may help to explain why violent wars, international war funding, and imposing economic sanctions will be more successful in the future in bringing about regime change and deterring destructive politically abused power. It is only a matter of time before the truth will be told of whether the violence which has incited another territorial war in Ukraine will succeed with pure hard power or if non-violent civil disobedience, sanctions, and international pressures will be the way to bring about regime change and dissolve autocratic regimes across the world.

The revolutionary potential of nonviolence has worked throughout History, so I consider it will be effective in the future as it has been in the past. Although it methodologically originated with Mahatma Gandhi in 1919, he was profoundly influenced by Leon Tolstoy initially through his book “The Reign of God is in You” in 1894 (which also influenced Martin Luther King). King was influenced by Henry David Thoreau and his essay “Civil Disobedience” in 1848. Thus the roots of this doctrine are located long back, which is why I consider it will succeed forward. Several examples of its efficacy include:

The Philippines’ “bloodless” revolution in 1986 against Dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
The fall of the Eastern Germany regime of Erich Honecker in 1989.
The removal of Augusto Pinochet in Chile in 1990.
The main factors for the beginning of the struggle were national grievances against the state, removal of the support of the elites to the government; people angered enough with the regime’s injustice and its incapacity of solving social and economic problems, united opposition in a rebellion ideology, mobilization of involved organizations like religious groups, labor unions, and university clubs in offering support, (finances, communications, and recruitment), coordination and direction (Nepstad, p. 6-7).

This movement tends to succeed in political transformation (Nepstad, p. xiv) through different methods of challenging the authoritarian regime (Nepstad, p. 124-125), such as non-cooperation, protests, demonstrations, mass strikes, boycotts and the subversion of the loyalty of government supporters, which sometimes results in mutinies by the police and military forces. The military and police forces constitute a significant factor in the success or failure of the movement since they perceive the strength or decline of the dictatorship by the support or rejection of the international community, by the degree of their own financial problems or by political benefits. they receive from the regime (Nepstad, p. 337-338). There are other influential factors such as the degree of repression. Authoritarian leaders use methods to maintain control such as state brutality. They also resort to public outrage by criminalizing the opposition. However, many times what can mean a reason to fight can strengthen the dictator. Measures such as international sanctions against a regime can sometimes favor the movement, other times they generate support for the dictator, because it is perceived as a foreign interference in the sovereignty of the country and this ultimately harms the non-violent movement (Nepstad, p. 18).

On the other hand, civil resistance can be manifested by other means, such as mass emigration. In East Germany, mass emigration led to a shortage of factory workers, health care providers, transport operators, and communication specialists. Leaving the country is a means of demonstrating the level of disagreement, however, this is not such an effective measure (Nepstad, p. 126-129).

Even in the near past, as in 2019, several nonviolent movements provoked the fallings from the power of dictators like Omar al-Bashir in Occidental Sudan, Abdelaziz Bouteflika in Algeria, and the governor of Puerto Rico. Similar occurred in Lebanon, Iraq, and Bolivia (Chenoweth, p. 69). In the future, increasing in nonviolent movements is expected due to its widespread perception (thanks to Internet expansion and overpassing government control of the information) as a legitimate and successful method for creating change (Chenoweth, p. 71-72). Society is increasingly concerned and focused on protecting human rights, fairness, and avoidance of needless violence. Despite the influence of the pandemic in the shunt-down of nonviolent groups in several countries (like the United States), these groups are stocktaking, regrouping, and planning for the next phase of protracted struggles for democracy and rights, which arose again with the last mass protests (Chenoweth, p. 80). Thus, the movement will not stop in the near future.

For background, a campaign is said to be effective if it achieves regime change. This definition is adapted to move into empirical discussion and create a consistent standard. According to the figures shown in “The Future of Nonviolent Resistance” trends suggest nonviolence will not be as effective as it was in the past. Though relative to the success rate of violent campaigns, it is still strong as ever. The relative data point is actually more crucial than meets the eye. Any theory as to why the success rate of nonviolence campaigns have fallen also has to explain the fall in the success rate of violent campaigns. Therefore, the theory that nonviolence has already worked where it can work and that governments have adjusted to nonviolent movements face an uphill battle. It is likely attempts at regime change in general have already worked where it can and governments, perhaps through a change in environment, are more equipped to deal with any type of regime change attempt. They can use modern surveillance against both violent and nonviolent campaigns. I am not sure how movements will be able to convince the military to join their side, if the current regime is monitoring all main channels of communication. It can also be from the side of the movement, technology changing our lives may perpetuate a bias toward stability. People can feel they do enough via slacktivism, potential recruits are not as experienced in the physical realm as before, and internet circles can provide the populace with a sort of escapism. Chenoweth’s point about movements’ tendency to over-rely on mass demonstrations while neglecting other techniques—such as general strikes and mass civil disobedience—that can more forcefully disrupt a regime’s stability is pretty spot on. However, it might serve a better purpose as a way to make nonviolent movements more effective rather than explain the fall in the success rate. A case made in the reading was that COVID could impact the success and future of nonviolence as more people take a step back and experiment with new practices surrounding the method. Maybe worker non-cooperation seen during the crisis could bring in vital power to them as stated by the author, or the complete opposite happens and other actors depose them of power because they have been made aware of a mechanism that could bring unpreferable consequences. This is not just restricted to the narrative of the workers vs owners, parents could have come to some conclusions on teacher unions depending on their actions during the crisis. Customers aren’t really happy about not getting their services. Overall, I see nonviolence being less effective in absolute terms but still pretty effective relatively.

In my view, political nonviolence will continue to be effective in the future, but its effectiveness may vary depending on specific contexts and circumstances. This is because its track record of success makes nonviolence likely to remain effective. In her examination of non-violent movements ranging from the year nineteen hundred up until two thousand and six (2006), Erica Chenoweth determined that such endeavours had a higher likelihood for success than those involving violence specifically, double the chance (Nepstad 342). Also, peaceful movements had a better chance of bringing about transitions towards democracy and accomplishing lasting transformations. The implication is that nonviolent resistance inherently offers certain advantages over violent resistance.

Various elements can affect how effective nonviolence is. Sharon Erickson Nepstad argues in her study of the Arab Spring that whether nonviolent movements succeed depends largely upon military defections or loyalty. While military defections were instrumental in ousting Mubarak from power in Egypt, they stayed true to their loyalty towards Assad’s government and aided them by quelling non-violent movements within Syria (Hinnebusch et al., 477). The absence of a complete triumph for Bahrain’s peaceful protest could be linked with internal divisions among its armed forces. How effective nonviolence is may be influenced by key actors attitudes and actions, specifically those in the military.

The amount of repression that a movement faces might affect how successful its nonviolent methods are. Syria was studied by Nepstad, who found that if non-violent movements are brutally oppressed by regimes like Assad’s, then they may end up turning violent instead (Nepstad 340). This shift in tactics can actually harm their goals rather than help them achieve success. Nonviolent resistance’s effectiveness might depend on how much oppression there is and what techniques are used by those in power to stifle disagreement.

The efficacy of political nonviolence may be influenced in the future due to changes in power dynamics and evolving political conflicts. The effectiveness of nonviolent resistance movements could be maintained through strategy and tactic adaptation, according to an article written by Erica Chenoweth regarding their future amidst rising state repression and technology. Social media, along with other innovative methods, can be used to effectively mobilise and sustain nonviolent resistance movements.

In her article about the future of nonviolent resistance, Erica Chenoweth emphasises that it requires adaptability when dealing with changing political conflicts and power dynamics. Technological progress and government oppression pose unique tests as well as chances for nonviolent resistance movements in today’s world. Social media usage, along with digital organising and other innovative methods, are effective strategies to mobilise and sustain nonviolent resistance movements in the future.

Through social media platforms and technological advancements, political nonviolence can be made more effective. The power of social media platforms lies in their ability to facilitate communication as well as coordination and mobilisation efforts. Information dissemination and campaign organisation on a large scale are made possible by these tools, which are used by activists (Groshek et al. 345). The use of social media enables nonviolent resistance movements to quickly disseminate messages and visuals globally in order to generate support. Mobilisation and coordination of protests were significantly aided by social media during the Arab Spring. Additionally, it raised global awareness about these movements.

I believe that as we move towards the future that non-violence can still be a viable form of influencing the government and population at large to bring about change. With the example of the United States and being marked by a rise in gun violence over the last two decades I think the sentiment towards using violence as a means of change is highly frowned upon because of the negative actions that have affected the entire perception of how it can be used. Therefore, we turn back to non-violence, this can be seen as thousands of students in Tennessee gathered at the capitol and others across the country did the same in solidarity.

Furthermore, with the same example in mind, the United States is at a unique position with maintaining the right to bear arms, it makes it very hard to maintain an attitude of non-violence as Nepstad described in chapter 8 but I think could also be overcome with religious support. From my understanding of what Nepstad wrote in chapter 8 regarding what the deciding factors are, the structural implications in effect for the country as well as the loyalty/mutiny of security forces. With structural forces in mind as I said the right to bear arms is a large part of why non-violence must be the answer, without it there would most likely be civil war or at the very least rebellion ending in massacre. The security forces in power such as the police and military have historically been loyal to the state and you’d be hard pressed to find a large group that would be willing to directly disobey and mutinies against state orders.

That being said, it would take careful strategic planning to bring about a strong movement as well as cooperation from cultural and political leaders with the same goals and ideology. The government now is also aware of the situation and any digital attempts to organize are often flagged by the CIA or FBI and out down. But in regards to the causes of revolution outlined in Chapter 1 of Nepstad’s book, it seems that the majority of the factors are there.

The United States is not the only example as we can see across Europe that work strikes are taking place in an attempt to change the system. With the most evident case being in France where largely non-violent demonstrations are taking place. While the president refuses to listen to the people, in my opinion it is still effective as it has gained worldwide recognition and further support. To my knowledge the entire security force has not stepped down but there has been examples of the police stepping down in solidarity.

If the same were to happen in the US I believe we would be able to see a massive turn of events and shift in power. And the possibility of a non-violent revolution still remains the most plausible in terms of being agreed upon by a unified populous.

In “Mutiny and Nonviolence in the Arab Spring,” Nepstad argues that the effectiveness of political nonviolence depends on several contextual factors, including the type of regime, the level of repression, the availability of resources and allies, and the resilience of the movement. These factors make it difficult to predict whether political nonviolence will be as effective in the future as it has been in the past.

One of the factors highlighted by Nepstad is the type of regime faced by the pacifist movements. Nonviolent resistance was most effective against authoritarian regimes that lacked popular support and legitimacy. However, peace movements are struggling to win meaningful victories against entrenched authoritarian regimes with significant popular support, such as China and Russia. Another important factor is the level of repression. Repressive regimes often use violence and other means of intimidation to repress peaceful movements. In such cases, nonviolent resistance can be difficult and risky, making it less effective. Peace movements can be more successful in less repressive regimes, where the state is more willing to negotiate and compromise.

The availability of resources and allies is also an important factor. Peace movements need strong public support, including allies in the media, civil society and the international community. However, the availability of these resources and allies can be unpredictable, and peace movements can struggle to sustain long-term support. Finally, the resilience of the movement is essential for the success of political nonviolence. Peace movements must maintain a high level of internal cohesion and organization, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. They must be able to adapt their tactics, including protest methods, to changing circumstances.

In conclusion Nepstad’s article suggests that the future effectiveness of political nonviolence will depend on the ability of peace movements to deal with these contextual factors and adapt to new challenges. Although nonviolence has been successful in the past, there is no guarantee that it will continue to be as effective in the future. However, as Nepstad notes, peace movements can increase their chances of success by building strong networks of allies and maintaining high levels of resilience and adaptability.

This question ultimately comes down to it being situational because different types of structural revolutions may require violence while other Revolutions will require non violent actions as a whole. I’ll use America as an example because in a way this country is in need of a massive revolution in terms of systematic change. While I don’t believe we need a violent revolution at all, I believe this country is in dire need of a peaceful revolution, and this isn’t just from the current POTUS in office. This is from the complete two party system as a whole. So using the US two party as a whole as a need for revolution, I have to say yes that a nonviolent revolution would actually work just like past history, but it will definitely be a lot harder.

When taking current situations into context and making the realization that a nonviolent revolution in today’s day and age would be harder than past situations. With my United States two party system revolution example, you have to look at the facts that everytime an opposition such as a third party gains some momentum, the two main parties end up banding together and destroying ther third parties chances at ever gaining any traction in the political primaries. So where does that leave us in terms of how a nonviolent revolution would succeed in modern day America? Taking a page out of Ghandi’s stratregy and from this weeks reading, It is quoted as saying “Refusing to use their skills to promote and sustain government activities.”. Theoretically if the United States decided to revolt from the two party system as a whole we would have to drain every single main party affiliated leaders out of office, and by doing that we would have to completely tank the economy so the elites that are paying off the leaders in power wouldn’t be able to keep them in power if they are struggling financially. America is such a complex situation politically where one has to argue that this wouldn’t even be possible in the first place because of the Media grab that corporate America has on half of the nation.

Skipping forward to a more technologically advanced society one I don’t believe any form of Revolution will be possible because of the amount control that the elites will have on society by that point where it would be arguably impossible to start any revolution in the first place. How do you start a revolution if your citizens are being monitored by the govrernment with every move? It’s even debatable that it would be impossible to start as revolution in todays day and age because the current government already knows our every move because of our cell phones. So to the question being asked, do i believe that its possible to have a nonviolent revolution in the future? No I don’t with technology advancing the way it is.

Using the lecture and readings, discuss the key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought.  In your own words, why was Maoism not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America?  What was Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology, and what led to this belief?  Make sure you note some specific examples and references from the readings.

Something that lead to one of the biggest differences between Maoism and Marxism is that Mao felt Marxism would not work in China. Marxism is all about the working class – the proletariat – protesting their unfair treatment from the upper class – the bourgeoisie. China didn’t have a working class though, they had rural farm workers, known as the popular masses. So, Mao ‘made Marxism Chinese’ (Kang, 15). He used two main strategies, guerrilla warfare and cultural revolution (Ning, 9), in order to achieve ‘revolution through the countryside’. An additional difference is that Marxism was mainly an economic theory, but Maoism expanded beyond that, eg. the cultural revolution. The two ideas shared similar emphasis on class struggle. 

Maoism was not the popular belief in most Latin American countries because they already had an example: the Soviet Union. The USSR’s relationship with Cuba demonstrated regional communism that lead the influence in the region. With this successful relationship, other countries were following the USSR’s version of communism not China’s. There were however small student groups all over the Americas that focused on communist thought including Maoism, but most of these were not prominent (except of course the Peruvian movement). (Gomez). 

Latin American went through a phase of enlightenment which featured mainly anti colonial or anti Spain ideas. (Martz, 60). There was a period of romantic liberalism that stemmed from the French and British, but it was short lived in Latin America. Martz writes, “The years of Romantic Liberalism in the hemisphere, in short, were characterized broadly by the search for a new basis to a truly American order of things. This meant different emphases from different men.” (Martz, 63). Privilege and elitism were still a main social problem. But the dominant ideology in the region for a period of time according to Martz was positivism. Positivism fixed economic, political, and social problems such as remaining colonial issues, and was described as the the most important philosophical movement in Hispanic America. (Martz, 64). This theory spread across the whole continent as ” a new instrument for the attainment of immediate national political goals.” (Martz, 68). At the beginning of the 20th century, many new theories developed in the region on either side of the political scale and with a range of impact and influence. There was a form of existentialism, Neo-Thomism, and humanism mixed into one, socialism and Marxism, and even far right fascism, individualism, and materialism. (Martz, 70).

The standard Marxist focus on industrial workers was not applicable to many parts of the world. Mao Zedong, a Chinese communist, developed a form of Marxism which was compatible with his country. The variant was called Maoism, though this term wasn’t used inside China. This is because Mao himself did not like it, rather preferring Mao Zedong Thought as Niang claims. His version focused on rural peasants rather than the factory proletariat. Furthermore, he attempts to make Marxism “non-western” and universal. He heavily romanticized the countryside and emphasized the revolution needs to be fought for even after a successful takeover due to the Bourgeois influence over culture, this led to giant mistakes later on such as both The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution where millions perished. In fact, you can even see the impact of The Great Leap Forward on time series data of the word.

Although purposely constructed to fit a place like Latin America, it failed to initially gain ground in the region especially compared to the Soviet model. The Soviet model had the head start. It began earlier, had influence over Cuba, and was perceived as a success due to its industrialization. The industrialization and growth of the Soviets can be critiqued on numerous grounds however, such as the counterfactual and input accumulation. First, counterfactual estimations show the actual path of Russia to be lower. This makes sense due to industrialization not being particularly impressive compared to both the pre-1913 trend and Japanese occupied Korea. Second, growth theory literature suggests Soviet growth was purely based on input accumulation. Meaning it could not grow past a certain point. Anyways, Marxism already had made some marks on the region. Martz article “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought” names many Marxist Latin American authors who played a role like Juan Marinello, Blas Roca, and the Machado brothers of Venezuela. These authors were more on the Soviet spectrum. For Maoism, one author that would play a special role would be Jose Carlos Mariategui from Peru. This particular author’s writings were quite similar to Mao, focusing on the common worker who was not in a factory but rather the countryside. He additionally wrote about how the economy of Peru was set up, with a form of feudalism having a significant presence. Mariategui and Mao would eventually inspire the most well known maoist group in the region, Sendero Luminoso. At first, like Lewis Taylor describes in his article, Sendero was not expected to become huge even in Marxist circles: “I was further underwhelmed by my initial encounter with the PCP–SL when respected friends who had a detailed knowledge of the Peruvian left intimated that ‘Sendero’ was not a serious outfit. The prevailing view among activists was that a combination of dogmatism, unsophisticated social analysis and adherence to a maximalist program seemingly divorced from current realities placed the party firmly on the exotic margins of Marxist politics in Peru”. SL quickly rose and began planning both military operations and terrorist attacks. Taylor notes few people realized at the time, during their early meetings, the fate of millions of Peruvians would be decided. SL would commit atrocities like slaughtering infants (Lucanamarca massacre) and detonating car bombs (Tarata bombing), eventually being defeated by the Peruvian state and evolving into drug trafficking.

Mao Zedong formed the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) who supported Chinese nationalism and was an anti-imperialist. He was the founder of Maoism which is the guiding ideology for the Communist Party. He was of peasantry descendant and wanted China to focus on the people. He was determined to purge China of any remaining capitalism, so he came up with Maoism, which is a leftist political thought designed mainly for the Chinese, it is a revolution that thought of peasants as true rulers. When we speak of peasants we are thinking of farmers and Mao thought of them having the true power to the system. This revolution is of the countryside that focused on peasantry instead of the proletariat, a rural revolution versus an urban.

Marxism was founded by Karl Marx. This ideology is also a leftist political thought, a practice of socialism where a worker revolution will replace capitalism with a communist system. It’s a struggle between the Bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the Proletariat (working class). Maoism is derived from Marxism-Leninism but with a twist to it. There is a difference between Maoism and Marxism, in the sense that, Maoism is not about the proletariat but about the peasants. Proletariat is for the industrial working class and Maoism is about the farming peasantry class. With Marxism a working class is needed to sustain it.

Though Maoism was essentially for the Chinese people it spread to the west. Many different places adapted to this ideology like Peru for example, they had a Maoist organization. While Latin America was practicing leftist movements, it was not practicing Maoist. The majority of Latin America gravitated to Marxism. They gravitated to Marxism because of Cuba and how successful it was. Latin America was led to this belief in Marxism because of the increase in inequality between the rich and the poor. The famous problem of capitalism is inequality. The wealthier citizens benefited more than the poorer. “Oligarchical interest by large continued to monopolize public affairs, increase economic wealth was not accompanied by its equitable distribution, and individual interest remained narrowly selfish.” (Martz, pg. 69) While Latin America was struggling with this, they saw Cuba and how successful it was doing practicing Marxism. Cuba was the inspiration to Latin America because of its success and relationship with the Soviet Union, which influenced many countries in the Caribbean and Central America. Because of Cuba’s who is also a Latin country, was success with Marxism, Marxism was more practical to them versus Maoism.

Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America, most likely because of the surrounding ideas that were presented. Such ideas were how the Maoist political thought is certainly reflected amongst the world to a certain extent. Such extent  was important on the idea of how it had been portrayed within the world, and especially on what issues were surrounding it in many parts of the world that led to many differences.

Maoism had emphasized the approach from China as an idea of revolution which is a global idea of revolution (Kang 2015 ) ‘’Maoism was a global theory of revolution in both the developed western countries and the underdeveloped third world countries.’’ (Kang 2015)Maoism had the tendency to have an idea that approached a radical sense of view from point of Chairman Mao Zeong in where human rights are not humane to any extent which unfairly causes lot of inequality that leads to death of innocent people, and difficult living conditions just for multilateral purposes of society that was heavily relied on farmers.’’Latin America has always needed a unified Latin America in order to support one another’’ (Gomez 2023), due to how The United States of America has the correlation to support those countries in Latin America, due to the United States being able to support those countries that don’t support communism because it supports human rights.  ‘’North America has made Latin Americans in large measure dependent upon their distant neighbors for much of the method and content of that part of their social sciences which is not of indigenous origin.’’ (Martz 1966). The tendency of Latin America had evolved tremendously around the world with the involvement of Cuba and the Soviet Union that resulted to contradict China’s views due to Soviets success.

Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology was the idea of where it was related the period of positivism, according to Martz in where it focused on ‘’the failure of constitutional democratic forms, the absence of economic prosperity, the increasing social tensions arising among classes and in some cases among races, and the unending frustrations of church-state relations.’’ (Martz 1966) Positivism tends to relate to the living standards for many latin americans in which it can fix many economic, political, problems in their society. ‘’With its slogan of order and progress, would encourage a moderate and graduate approach to national problems.’ (Martz 1966) With the problematic issues that had been occurring, had correlated to the people from Latin America to focus on such issues in order to perceive new life beginnings.

Maoism was not a popular idea within the Latin American region due to what was entailed, and the influence of the United States, Soviet Union and its beliefs, as well the diffusion of the Cuban society that  took necessary action within the world that it had become influenced. As Well positivism was an idea in South America that was characterized within the dire need that it entailed for the people.

The key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought are different by nature. Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought are both rooted in the broader ideology of Marxism, which seeks to critique and transform capitalist societies to establish a classless and stateless society. However, there are key differences between Maoist political thought, which emerged as a specific branch of Marxism under Mao Zedong’s leadership in China, and general Marxist thought. Marxism is all about the working class – the proletariat – protesting their unfair treatment from the upper class – the bourgeoisie. China didn’t have a working class though, they had rural farm workers, known as the popular masses.

Maoism, as a revolutionary ideology, did not gain widespread popularity in Latin America for several reasons such as: contextual differences, focus on peasantry, geopolitical factors, pragmatic and tactical considerations, and political repression and state violence. A perfect example as to why the Maoism ideology did not gain widespread popularity in the Latin American region was because of the Soviet Union. In some Latin American countries, leftist movements faced severe repression, state violence, and human rights abuses by authoritarian regimes supported by the United States during the Cold War.

Latin America has seen various leftist revolutionary ideologies gaining prominence at different times in its history. Some of the dominant leftist revolutionary ideologies in Latin America include Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and various forms of nationalism. The history of exploitation, oppression, and marginalization of indigenous peoples, peasants, and workers in Latin America has led to the rise of revolutionary ideologies that aim to challenge and overthrow the existing socio-economic and political structures. Latin America has long been characterized by high levels of social and income inequality, making it the world’s worst region for income inequality. Social movements and popular uprisings play significant roles in establishing  these ideologies.

It’s important to note that revolutionary ideologies and movements are complex and multifaceted, influenced by a wide range of factors.

Maoism builds upon Marxist ideas, but diverges greatly from the ideology it has its roots in. Marxism was designed for industrialized societies with a large proletarian class, while Maoism sought to be the solution for communists in agricultural societies lacking a significant proletarian class. The ideology was conceptualized by and named after Mao Zedong during the Chinese Civil War. Mao was a communist influenced by Soviet communism and Leninism, but after the death of Stalin and changes enacted by Nikita Khrushchev, he felt a new system was needed. Mao argued that China, and many other countries, did not have a proletarian class to mobilize towards revolution, and instead must focus on the agricultural people to fuel the communist revolution. Mao’s system was also thought to help poor, feudal, and agricultural systems modernize. Aside from focusing on the agricultural working class rather than industrial working class, Maoism also differs from Marxism in its push towards cultural revolution rather than focusing just on economic and political revolution. Mao was successful in sparking the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China between 1966 and 1976, which caused deadly damage to human life and the Chinese economy, now known as a “ten-year turmoil” (Ning 2015).

Just as with most communist thinkers, Mao hoped for his ideology to spread worldwide. Mao believed his concept for a farmer-peasant led communist revolution would be more relevant to non-western poorer countries, especially those wishing to rid their society of imperialism, but unfortunately Maoism never spread too significantly outside of China. In the case of Latin America, some states were too industrialized to desire Maoism, but there were also many states that were not very industrialized, but had already been influenced by Soviet communism for so long. Long before Mao conceptualized his communist system, Soviet communism was already spreading and taking root around the world, and in Latin America in particular. Much of Latin America saw the success of the Cuban Revolution and its influences from Soviet Marxist Communism, and sought to follow that example. With there already being a successful communist uprising with Marxist and Soviet influences, that became the dominating influence rather than Maoism, which did not offer a successful regional example.

While Maoism did not overtake Marxism or Leninism in Latin America, it did have some influence, particularly in Peru. During the Sino-Soviet split, while much of Latin America leaned towards Soviet forms of communism, Peru saw a rise in significant political actors with influences from Maoism. Author and politician Jose Carlos Mariátegui sparked the shift towards communism in Peru. Mariátegui argued that capitalism will not work for Peru, but rather than supporting a communist revolution led by the proletarian class, he looked to Incan agrarian communism and felt support from agricultural workers in modern Peru would provide the best path to communist revolution. These ideas from Mariátegui laid the ground for Abimael Guzman to form the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) with deep influence from Maoism. Guzman and the Senderos saw Maoism as the best system for Peru, and rose to such prominence that they almost overtook the central government between 1989 and 1990. However, when Guzman was captured in 1992 the Sendero Luminoso lost its stability and ultimately deteriorated, marking the end of the largest Maoist movement in Latin America.

Maoism adopted the same base principles as Marxism and achieved a level of global significance that no other Chinese thought has (Ning, 3). Maoism sought to implement Marxist theory into China’s own cultural revolution and used such to overthrow the government and implement the People’s Republic of China. However, there are key differences between Maoism and Marxism. Marxism is the revolutionist language of the Western world, whereas Maoism adopts these ideas and applies them to the Third World. For instance, Marxism encourages the rise in class consciousness among the proletariat in order to revolt against capitalism and the inequalities among the classes. Maoism used this same idea, but because China did not have a capitalist society there was no proletariat to rise up. Instead, Maoism used guerilla warfare among the peasantry as their form of class rebellion (Kang, 15). Further, Marxism pushes for the dismantling of class hierarchy, where there is no singular job that is “better” than the other and there is no hierarchy to determine who fits into what class. Maoism claimed these same ideals, but instead when pushing the idea of class consciousness and ridding the hierarchy, Maoism implemented a hierarchy of its own with Maoist bureaucrats and army officials at the top (Kang, 16). Anyone who did not support this new system was to be persecuted for defying the peasantry proletariat. Maoism was definitely influenced by Marxism but did not value equality and harmony among the classes, and instead prioritized a shift in power to a new bureaucracy.

Maoism was the Marxism for the Third World, including Asia and Africa (Ning, 2). Parts of Latin America attempted to adopt Maoism, such as Peru. The Communist Party of Peru used Maoist policies in their own fight for peasantry revolution (Taylor, 15). However, this did not become widespread because most Latin American countries favored the communism coming from the USSR at the time and their path to proletariat revolution. In Latin America, the most favored leftist revolutionary ideology was positivism, which stemmed from the anticolonialism spread throughout the region (Martz, 63). Positivism highlighted the use of observation and the scientific method to create a society with rules of engagement and interaction. This ideology provided a logical response to confront the ills of Latin American society, such as the lack of democratic institutions and low economic prosperity. The way this would be achieved would be by ridding colonial heritage and then move into progress (Martz, 65). This was so popular because a widespread desire in Latin America was to remove the colonial presence and heritage and return back to the native and indigenous culture.

Marxism and Maoism are two distinct yet very similar political ideologies that tend to follow the same economic passage yet in different circumstances. In Marxism the proletariat are the workers who live in urban environments and are very poor working in factories and living in those conditions. In Maoism the revolutionary class were the producers of the society the rural peasants that worked in the fields and produced the food for the nation. China was a feudal system that had not had an industrial revolution like the western nations in Europe so the idea of an urban proletariat was never applicable to China. This leads to another large difference in the ideologies and that is that Maoism does not care much for industrialized technology because Mao thought that the new industrialized technologies would give means for workers to be further exploited by the managers. Finally, Maoism was heavily influenced by Chinese culture and their history such as Sun Tzu whereas Marxism was more heavily influenced by the writings of westerns thinkers of the enlightenment.

Latin America came from a history of colonial powers dominating the region and installing provincial governments that were similar to the western governments in mainland Europe. So, when political revolutions and fights for independence started to happen, they were more heavily influenced by European thought. Martz stated, “Marx, Spencer and Comte were intellectually dominant figures in Europe, the latter two also helped to set the tone for a kin of thought which received wide acceptance in Latin America” (Martz 64). Therefore, it was a natural progression for the Latin American nations to be influenced more by Marxism since they could relate and install the ideology much easier than Maoism. Latin America was no stranger to developed cities due to the European influence hence Marxism made more sense and caught on in their revolutions more often than Maoism. Marxist revolutions were also more successful in Latin America, and they became the model for example the Cuban revolution became the model revolution for all the communist revolutions in Latin America. Essentially the rest of the revolutions just followed in the footsteps of the Marxist revolution because it was deemed successful, so instead of deviating the rest followed suit. Therefore, Marxist revolution was a much more popular option in Latin America than the Maoist alternative.

On the other hand, while Marxism was the dominant leftist ideology in Latin Americas because of their European influence Maoism became the dominant left-wing ideology in Asia. This is due to culture being heavily influenced by China and life there being feudal. Taylor stated, “Rural society at this juncture remained dominated by a hacienda system that was ‘feudal’ in the Andes” (Taylor 20). Therefore, due to the difference in circumstances and the steps for revolution Maoism was much more popular in feudal Asian countries rather than the more developed Latin American countries with proletariat populations.

As we view the topic of communism from a collective point of view, we might find ourselves draping all historical “red” states as being of relatively similar mindsets, systems, and practices; however, at closer inspection, with the help of historiographical texts and sources, we can see that this is certainly not the case. When taking a dive into the broad context of communism, we find brands of its molded ideas that form the discussion around its erected distinctions such as traditional Marxism, Leninism, a combination of the two, and Maoism (Mao Zedong Thought) which acts as a “sinification” of the two previous indications.

When lining up these brands we find considerable differences in their structure, although they maintain similarities based on the writings of Marx, they nonetheless primarily diverge in their understanding of revolution and culture. Firstly, and most importantly, would be the belief as to where the revolution beings. In Marxism-Leninism, the thought resides in the belief that the proletariat middle class, oppressed by the Imperialists and Bourgeoisie, would rise up and lead the charge. However, in the case of China, there happened to be no significant body of a classical proletariat to fulfill the aforementioned process, and this led to an emphasis on the potential of the plebian population who could assume the revolutionary role. This is the cornerstone of “Mao Zedong thought” that distinctly separates itself from other brands of Marxism. By constructing a revolutionary base at the grassroots and rallying the masses in the countryside can the movement encircle the bourgeois cities and strangle out their defense. Moreover, the agrarian peasant populations control the means of production via food and wield with themselves the collective oppression and struggle that helps form the cultural identity required to build the foundation base necessary to launch the revolution. Secondly, with the triumph of the revolution, Mao Zedong Thought focuses on eradicating the remaining Bourgeoisie culture. Separate from Marxism-Leninism, which retains certain aspects of capitalism and its productive forces to maintain socialism, Maoism purges these inhibitors to the economic base by launching a “cultural revolution” that seeks to filter out any resemblance of capitalism, Bourgeoisie thought, imperialism, and any possible threats to the state that could reignite class struggle and oppression. In essence, it can best be explained as the erection of a new state devoid of any indication of precursors to separate itself from all others in order to form a new communist state.

As Maoism began solidified in China, it can be wondered why in other parts of the world it didn’t play such a critical role in the influence of other revolutions; particularly in Latin America. The reason for this outcome can be primarily seen in the shortcomings of Maoist movements, and the influence of the Cuban example built on a Marist-Leninist platform. In addition, the general mindset in Latin America leaned toward the Soviet ideology and this could have been due to the increased industrial and economic development which spurred questions of oppression and class. Furthermore, the decline of a positivist thought pattern that focused on a scientific method style with an emphasis on pragmatism without the need for theology could have fueled the communist minds who sought a planned approach towards economics and the political state.  Even when Maoism was adopted by groups such as the Peruvian “Shining Path”, they focused too heavily on the action aspect of revolution rather than nurturing a revolutionary base built on the masses. This had the possible adverse effect of drawing people away from the movement as it was seen as being detrimental to local stability as crops and food had been taken to fund campaigns. Moreover, the intricate abundance of diversity in Latin America made it difficult to establish a base as the culture surrounding ethnic class and status made the struggles of population groups varied. Unlike in China, the masses all had the collective struggle of oppression which made the formation of a national unity easier; as opposed to Peru which had a plethora of ethnicities that made this goal highly difficult. In addition, after the success of the Cubans, the example/benchmark had been set for other communist movements in Latin America who saw their method of success as the tried and tested method which succeeded. Moreover, the Cubans with the support of the Soviets were able to export their revolution to other nations which made their brand more popular than Maoism which was better suited to the specifics of the Chinese circumstances.

This about the competing approaches to defining “violence” that the authors from this week’s texts discuss and present. Which approach (or definition) do you find the most compelling, and why? Which do you find the least compelling, and why? What factors do you think are the most important in deciding between competing definitions of a concept like “violence”? Discuss with reference to specific aspects at least two of this week’s four texts.

We have multiple Authors having their input on what they consider the definition of violence. Among these Authors, I would say that Arendt’s definition is most compelling to me. She defines violence as an instrument use when power fails. She states that “Violence is by nature instrumental; like all means, it always stands in need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues.” (Arendt, pg. 51) She sees violence as destructive where it can destroy power. “Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power.” (Arendt, pg. 53) I like the fact of her thought of violence diminishing power and never enhancing it. Though she has not given a clear-cut definition on violence you can see where she is going with it. And where she is going with it, I align more with it.

I found both Wolff and Galtung’s definitions not compelling. I will start with Wolff. Wolff’s definition on violence was to me more a definition for coercion versus violence. He stated that “Violence is the illegitimate or unauthorized use of force to effect decisions against the will or desire of others.” (Wolff, pg. 606) As stated earlier I think that definition best suit coercion. My opinion violence is a behavior that involves physical force that is used to hurt or cause damage or even kill an individual.

Galtung definition was not compelling in the fact that it was too broad. He feels that it could operate in a physical and psychological way. It could be intended or unintended. It can be negative influence or positive influence. In my opinion if you are going to inflict violence on someone, I don’t see how it can be unintended. Your whole intent is to cause harm or damage even death. He states six distinctions to violence which I feel is dividing it up into too many categories to the point where it becomes complex. There are too many choices of what violence is. A straightforward one definition is not given but multiple definitions are given. He divides it up into personal and structural and the further divides the person into different groups and the same for structural. So, violence is intended or not intended as well as manifest or latent. Then under personal, it can be physical, psychological, with object and without object. The same is broken down on the structural side. This is too broad a definition. The definition of violence should be straight forward to the point and not having multiple avenues to head which causes confusion.

I find Wolffs argument on violence the most compelling because his constructivist like approach shows how an individuals own ideologies and opinions change their personal definition of violence. Examples from the text include “Thus, murder is an act of violence, but capital punishment by a legitimate state is not.” (Wolff, 606), and also found on page 606, his explanation that if someone steals your wallet forcefully it is violent, but if someone scams you out of the same amount of money online, it is not labeled the same way. An example outside of the text is that I believe a woman should have the right to chose an abortion and it is violent to force her to have a baby that can cause more harm than good. Obviously on the other hand, people believe it is violent to abort a fetus. These contradictions about what is violent/nonviolent stem from opposing political or moral beliefs. Finally, the quote “If ‘violence’ is taken in the strict sense to mean “an illegitimate or unauthorized use of force,” then every political act, whether by private parties or by agents of the state, is violent, for there is no such thing as legitimate authority.” (Wolff, 608) comes from an anarchist position, but also influenced my views on how we think about authority and the violence they can cause (think of the example above about the state authorizing a punishment – the death penalty). 

I disagree with Galtung’s definition of violence because it is too broad (Gultang, 168). I do not think that by influencing someone there is violence present. (I do see that this word has taken on a new meaning since this was written so it would be useless to  use a counter argument that says Alix Earle is not committing an act of violence against me simply because she is an influencer). I also do not think that there needs to be a definition. Everyone has a sense of what violence is, but as Wolff pointed out, people will make their own definitions. 

That being said, when given such an ambiguous term like violence it is important to be wary of the slippery slope of broadening the term (Gultang was not wary). People should not be able to inflate the word violence to apply to any unfortunate thing that happens to them; it’s not violent to have a sassy cashier at the grocery store, and the last thing we need is some Karens dramatizing their slight mistreatment. A strict definition of the term violence will go unnoticed; violence is what people make it to be. That is why Wolffs argument is so insightful, because it addresses that the word is given meaning through someones beliefs, not the other way around. 

After reading the texts from this week, think about how the political ideas of Gandhi and King fit into the dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” that Stiehm presents. Do you see them aligning clearly with one or the other category? (With both? With neither?) In other words, do you find Stiehm’s distinction useful for understanding Gandhi and King, or would you prefer a different conceptual/theoretical approach?

Discuss with reference to specific aspects of the texts from this module by Gandhi and King, citing your sources as appropriate.

You are NOT expected to draw on outside sources; the texts from this module are sufficient.

Stiehm’s dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” provides a valuable framework for analyzing the political ideas of Gandhi and King. However, Gandhi’s and King’s perspectives on nonviolence are nuanced and cannot be fully classified into either category.

Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence, or “ahimsa,” was rooted in his Hindu faith and moral convictions. He believed in the power of nonviolent resistance to bring about social change. Still, he also recognized that violence might sometimes be necessary for self-defense or the defense of others. In his essay “Non-violence and Self-defense,” Gandhi writes, “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”

King also believed in the power of nonviolent resistance, but his approach was more pragmatic. He recognized that nonviolent action could effectively achieve social change but acknowledged that it was only sometimes the most practical or viable option. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King writes, “Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist…But the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. The end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.”

Stiehm’s distinction between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” is based on the idea that nonviolence can be practiced for either principled or strategic reasons. According to Stiehm, “conscientious nonviolence” involves a deep commitment to nonviolence as a moral principle. In contrast “pragmatic nonviolence” is a strategy adopted for its instrumental value in achieving political goals.

When considering the political ideas of Gandhi and King, it is clear that they both espoused a principled commitment to nonviolence. Gandhi, for example, saw nonviolence as a “universal law” that should be applied to all aspects of life (Gandhi, 2010, p. 79). For him, nonviolence was not just a means to achieve political ends but a way of life grounded in the idea of ahimsa, or non-harm.

Similarly, King saw nonviolence as a moral principle grounded in the Christian faith. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King wrote that nonviolent resistance was “not a method for cowards; it does resist” but that it was also “the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (King, 1963).

However, while both Gandhi and King were committed to the principle of nonviolence, they also recognized the strategic value of nonviolence in achieving political goals. Gandhi, for example, used nonviolence to mobilize the masses and create political pressure on the British colonial government in India. King also saw nonviolence as a way to expose segregation’s moral contradictions and create a crisis that would force political leaders to take action.

In this sense, Gandhi and King can be seen as practicing a form of “pragmatic nonviolence” in addition to their commitment to “conscientious nonviolence.” Their commitment to nonviolence as a moral principle was always at the forefront of their political strategies.

After Analyzing, Stiehm (1968) distinguishes “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence.” Conscientious nonviolence is an absolute moral principle that must be upheld at all costs; pragmatic nonviolence refers to strategic approaches used when they are believed to be the most efficient means for achieving specific goals. By studying Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s political ideologies, we can determine how they fit within this dichotomy and assess its usefulness for understanding their doctrines. Gandhi’s political principles can be seen to align closely with principled nonviolence. In his writings, he emphasizes the significance of nonviolence as an overarching moral principle rather than simply a tactical approach. For example, Gandhi once wrote, “Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of brutes” (Gandhi excerpts, p.2). Furthermore, Gandhi emphasizes nonviolence as “the greatest weapon at man’s disposal,” more vital even than even “the mightiest weapon devised by man” (Gandhi excerpts, p. 1). These statements demonstrate Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence as an overarching moral and spiritual principle that should guide human action regardless of immediate effects

King’s political ideas demonstrate both principled and pragmatic nonviolence. For example, in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King emphasizes the value of nonviolent direct action as a tool for social change, asserting that it “seeks to create such an emergency that a community which has long refused to negotiate is forced to confront this issue” (MLK – Letter from Birmingham Jail, p. 5). This suggests King views nonviolence as a strategic approach towards achieving specific objectives similar to Stiehm’s concept of pragmatic nonviolence. King acknowledges both the moral and spiritual advantages of nonviolence in his “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” noting that it “avoids both external physical violence as well as internal spiritual violence” and helps us “to understand the enemy’s point of view, hear his questions, know his assessment of ourselves” (King – Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, p. 4). Thus, while King recognizes its strategic value, nonviolence also shapes his worldview and is an essential aspect of his moral compass.

In conclusion, Stiehm’s distinction between principled and pragmatic nonviolence can help us better comprehend Gandhi and King’s political ideologies as it captures key aspects of their philosophies. King’s ideas also exhibit elements of both types of nonviolence, providing a more nuanced understanding of the concept. While Stiehm’s dichotomy provides an accessible starting point in comprehending their perspectives on nonviolence, further conceptual/theoretical exploration may be needed to appreciate all complexities involved and better understand how moral conviction meets strategic action in their approaches towards social change initiatives.

Gandhi’s model of nonviolence has a bit of both conscientious nonviolence and pragmatic non violence in his methods. His conscientious path is shown through his moral clarity about issues such as Indians leading India, the force of the soul, and uniting castes and religion under an independent and non violent India. (Gandhi, 17). He is doing these things because he believes they are the right way to be done by a moral and ethical standard. His pragmatic side however is shown through one of his main ideas that the support of the masses is what keeps the British in power and if that support were to be taken away, British power would fail. Obviously in order to gain independence from the British they need the masses to be committed, but violent uprisings would be hard to persuade and easily squashed by the highly equipped British. So in this case, non violence is the most effective way to change the hearts of the masses of Indian people. This also fits in with the Stiehm’s idea of pragmatic non violence being radical democracy because so many people will be using their voices for such a revolutionary change. (Stiehm, 28).

Martin Luther King Jr follows a clear path of conscientious nonviolence in his fight against segregation during the Civil Rights Movement. This is seen through his emphasis on love and civil disobedience, but is most strongly shown through his religious background. King was the pastor of a Memorial Baptist Church, he studied theology in school, and he was a lifelong devout Christian. He spent his life reading, studying, and preaching Christian morals and ethics. This is one of the strongest indicators that he was choosing his path of non-violence because it was the right thing to do, not because it was the fastest, easiest, or most successful. Also, while outlining important aspects of nonviolence, King declares that “A basic fact about nonviolent resistance is that it is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice.” (King, 95). His analysis of this point is very spiritually based which proves how his devotion to God leads his conscious decision of nonviolence. Conscientious nonviolence believes that conflict can be solved by increasing communication and understanding between the two rival ideologies (Stiehm, 27) which King demonstrates while writing a letter that defends his movement from jail to critical clergyman; proof of increasing communication to reach understanding. As further evidence, we can look at another Civil Rights leader Malcolm X who did chose violence and he was very successful. This in turn proves that King was very consciously choosing nonviolence for moral reasons.

I do find Stiehm’s distinction useful for understanding Gandhi and King but only because this question is very ‘classroom based’. As someone who has participated in non-violent protests, conscientious or pragmatic non violence doesn’t seem to play an important role in the real world. Though Stiehm brings up the concern that these can cause tensions, tensions are inevitable when people have different ways of solving things; and a variety of solutions is a good thing. Overall, King and Gandhi are herded into the same group as leaders of nonviolent movements who have chosen their respective methods for whichever reasons; either way, they were successful in staying nonviolent and achieving their desired change.

Think about the way Hobsbawm characterizes revolution (and think back to Arendt and Kumar too, if you found their approaches compelling). In view of these approaches to understanding what revolution is, do you agree with Marx and Du Bois that the American Civil War should be understood as a revolutionary process? If so, what aspects of the Civil War best exemplify “revolution” as a category? If not, what distinguishes the Civil War from other conflicts that were revolutions?

This is intended as a very open-ended discussion prompt. You do not have to draw on all of these authors to support your own analysis, but you should engage with at least a couple of them in articulating your own ideas.

I do agree that the with both Marx and Du Bois that the American Civil War did in fact follow a revolutionary process by the definitions provided to us by Hobsbawm, Arendt, and Kumar. 

Hobsbawm highlights four main points in the French Revolution; first, the French Revolution was a political AND social revolution, social meaning it affected things such as property laws and social classes (Hobsbawm, 56). Second, the middle class, or the bourgeoisie class, became the leaders of the revolution and their social interests became the driving force of the main cause. These interests were also supported by the masses or the lower classes. (Hobsbawm, 58). These interests, as expressed in Hobsbawm’s third point, were influential demands such as individual rights and freedoms. (Hobsbawm, 57). Finally, Hobsbawm, as well as Arendt and Kumar, argues that the French Revolution sets the pattern for all other revolutions to follow in its footsteps. (Hobsbawm, 55). By applying the circumstances of the American Civil War into these four points we can see how that war should be considered a revolution. 

Marx argues that the Civil War began as social and then gained political legitimacy as time went on and the war changed. He explains this by writing that the North did not start the war with the intention to abolish slavery, but originally as an economic issue about how the South should continue their work on plantations (either by expanding territory or abolishing slavery). As the war went on, the interests changed to revolve more around the complete abolishment of slavery. (Marx, 38). Next, Du Bois writes that the strike of slaves leaving the plantations and joining the Union Army had a string affect on changing the attitude about the abolishment of slavery which proves that the social interests of the masses leads the main causes of war or revolution. (Du Bois, 67). The third point is clear – these interests that slaves were fighting for had to do with individual rights and freedoms. Finally, the last point which has been argued repeatedly by every piece we have read, states that every revolution follows the pattern of the French Revolution in a way that actions by leaders lead to the mobilization of the masses that leaders cannot control. In the case of the Civil War, the beginning of the war is the ‘action of the leaders’, the strike of the slaves from the plantations and into the Union Army is the ‘mobilizing of the masses’, and the result that the leaders cannot control is the changing of the meaning of war to be about the abolishment of slavery coupled with the fact that the North eventually wins. 

Hobsbawm, in his book “The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848,” characterizes revolution as a moment of discontinuity and restructuring. He writes, “A revolution is a great event in the life of a society…it is the result of a long period of development, and involves a fundamental change in the structure of society” (Hobsbawm 3). According to Hobsbawm, a revolutionary process involves the overthrow of an existing order and the creation of a new one, which may entail political, social, and economic transformations.

Similarly, Arendt argues in her book “On Revolution” that revolution is a process of mass action, in which ordinary people rise up against oppressive regimes and assert their freedom and autonomy. She writes, “The outstanding characteristic of the revolutionary event is action…action is the one activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter” (Arendt 35). For Arendt, revolution is not simply a political upheaval but a fundamental transformation of social relations.

Kumar’s perspective on revolution, as presented in his book “Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times,” is multifaceted. He argues that revolution involves social, economic, and cultural change, and that it can be either utopian or anti-utopian in nature. Kumar writes, “The idea of revolution is inherently utopian…But the concrete social and economic circumstances in which revolutions occur are anti-utopian” (Kumar 2). For Kumar, revolution is a complex and contradictory process that involves both the pursuit of a better world and the struggle against entrenched interests.

Marx and Du Bois both argue that the American Civil War should be understood as a revolutionary process. Marx, in his essay “The Civil War in the United States,” contends that the conflict represented a struggle between two economic systems: “The war…was a struggle between two historical stages of the world’s industry – the slave system of the South and the wage-labor system of the North” (Marx 1). Du Bois, in his book “Black Reconstruction in America,” analyzes the role of African Americans in the reconstruction of the South after the Civil War, arguing that their participation was crucial in achieving emancipation.

I agree with Marx and Du Bois that the American Civil War should be understood as a revolutionary process. The Civil War represented a fundamental restructuring of American society, as it abolished slavery and transformed the political, social, and economic landscape of the country. The struggle between the North and the South represented a clash between two different economic systems, and the abolition of slavery represented a major victory for those who sought to end the institution.

Furthermore, the Civil War was a moment of mass action, as ordinary people rose up against the existing order and fought for their freedom and autonomy. African Americans played a crucial role in the war effort, both as soldiers and as activists, and their participation was essential in achieving emancipation.

In conclusion, the American Civil War should be understood as a revolutionary process, as it involved a fundamental restructuring of American society and the overthrow of an existing order. The war represented a struggle between two different economic systems, and it was a moment of mass action in which ordinary people fought for their freedom and autonomy. By analyzing the Civil War through the lens of revolution, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and contradictions of this pivotal moment in American history.

Question 1
The Progressive Era lasted from:

1960 – 1969
1890 – 1920
1933 – 1836
1901 – 1909

Question 2
5 / 5 pts
____________ created and passed by a legislature was considered inferior to the judge-made common law for most of America’s history.

Criminal law
Administrative law
Statutory law
Common law

Question 3
5 / 5 pts
____________ has come to dominate the American legal system.

Federal law
Statutory law
Common law
Criminal law

Question 4
5 / 5 pts
During their first year, most law school students are immersed in the common law system.

True
False

Question 5
5 / 5 pts
Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller proclaimed the superiority of legislation in 1908.

True
False

Question 6
5 / 5 pts
Two ways in which the courts impede or thwart social legislation by the industrial conditions of today include:

illiberal construction and federal power
express language and legislative demand
narrow construction of constitutional provisions and narrow attitude toward legislation
through alien element and state provision

Question 7
5/ 5 pts
Which of the following is NOT one of the four ways in which courts might deal with a legislative innovation?

They might receive it fully into the body of law to be reasoned from by analogy the same as any other rule.
They might not make it a rule to be applied or a principle from which to reason and not hold it as an expression of good will.
They might refuse to reason from it by analogy and apply it only directly.
They might refuse to receive it fully into the body of law and only give direct effect to it.

Question 8
5 / 5 pts
Which of the following represents the orthodox common law attitude toward legislative innovations?

They might not make it a rule to be applied or a principle from which to reason and not hold it as an expression of good will.
They might receive it fully into the body of law to be reasoned from by analogy the same as any other rule.
They might refuse to receive it fully into the body of law and only give direct effect to it.
They might refuse to reason from it by analogy and apply it only directly

Question 9
5 / 5 pts
American courts are restrained by doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.

True
False

Question 10
5 / 5 pts
Common law was believed superior to legislation because:

it was common among the people.
it was a custom of judicial decision.
it was customary and rested upon consent of the governed.
it often characterized American lawmaking, both judicial and legislative

Question 11
5 / 5 pts
When it comes to legislation, the new principles are in ______________, the old principles are in _______________.

legislation, common law
common law, legislation
the legislative, the executive
theory, practice

Question 12
5 / 5 pts
The best known saying about legislation is attributed to _______________.

United States President Woodrow Wilson
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
England’s Queen Elizabeth II
German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck

Question 13
5 / 5 pts
James Madison had hoped that American legislators would master three ‘fundamental competencies’ EXCEPT:

Patriotism
Justice
Partisanship
Wisdom

Question 14
5 / 5 pts
A legislator’s sympathy for the circumstances of all their constituents including opponents and strangers best reflects:

Justice
Partisanship
Wisdom
Patriotism

Question 15
5 / 5 pts
_________________ and ______________ insisted that legislative institutions in a free society must teach their members to govern well.

Roscoe Pound, Alan Rosenthal
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton
William N. Eskridge, Phillip P. Frickery
James Madison, John Stuart Mill

Question 16
5 / 5 pts
Which branch of the U.S. Government is responsible for making laws?

The Legislative Branch
The Department of Justice
The Executive Branch
The Judiciary Branch

Question 17
5 / 5 pts
The Legislative Process of American Government mainly unfolds in what institution?

The Presidency
Congress
The Courts
Supreme Court of the United States

Question 18
5 / 5 pts
Congress’ TWO most basic functions are:

Legislation and Representation
Authorization and Appropriation
Legislation and Authorization
Representation and Authorization

Question 19
5 / 5 pts
The American Legislative Process unfolds in a ___________ legsilature.

Multicameral
Bicameral
Unicameral
Republican

Question 20
5 / 5 pts
There are ______________ members that make of the U.S. Congress.

535
295
435
100

1890 – 1920, Statutory, Statutory, T,f, narrow const, not they might receive, refuse to reason,f, customary and rested, legislation & Common, German chancellor, partisanship, patriotism, james madison & John Stuart Mill, legislative branch, congress, legislation &representation, bicameral, 535

After reading the texts by Kumar and Arendt, think about what you find compelling, and what you remain unconvinced by, in their discussions of how “revolution” should be understood. Then, drawing on the readings, propose in your own words a definition of what “revolution” should mean. Drawing on specific examples from the texts, explain how your proposed definition is related to their arguments; explain why your definition is better than other ways we might use the term; and give some specific historical examples of events or processes that count as revolutions, according to your definition, and others that don’t. 

The Complex Nature of Revolution

Revolution is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that involves political, social, and economic changes (Lerner, 1958). It often arises from long-standing grievances and inequalities that the ruling powers have ignored or suppressed (Arendt, 1963; Higonnet, 1989). Revolutionary ideas and ideology are essential in inspiring and motivating people to take action and fight for change (Koselleck, 1988; Popkin, 1980). However, revolutions’ causes, dynamics, and outcomes depend highly on specific historical contexts and conditions (Palmer, 1959; Skocpol, 1979). While some argue that revolution is an inevitable or necessary stage in historical development (Marx & Engels, 1848), others question this view and emphasize the importance of non-violent means of social change (King, 1963). Moreover, revolutions cannot lead to more just and democratic societies. They can have positive and negative consequences depending on how they are conducted and what kind of society they aim to create (Tocqueville, 2003; Zaretsky, 2011).

Based on the discussions in Arendt and Kumar’s texts, revolution is a nuanced and context-specific approach necessary to understand the complex and varied phenomenon of revolution. While certain generalizations and theories may help provide a framework for analysis, it is essential to consider the historical, social, and political conditions that give rise to revolutionary movements and their outcomes. Therefore, an alternative definition of revolution might be that it is a fundamental and far-reaching change in the structure or organization of society, which involves a shift in power relations and a reconfiguration of social, economic, and political institutions. This definition emphasizes the transformative and radical nature of revolution, which implies a break from the past and a new direction for the future. It also suggests that revolution involves a redistribution of power and resources, which can lead to conflict and upheaval, as well as the possibility of creating a more just and equitable society.

This definition aligns with the discussions in the provided texts, which highlight the multi-dimensional and context-specific nature of revolution and its potential to bring about significant social change. For example, in “Revolution – Inventing Revolution: American and French Revolutions,” Palmer (1959) argues that the American Revolution was a transformative event that created a new political order based on democratic principles of popular sovereignty and individual rights, which was unprecedented in the history of the world.

Similarly, the French Revolution aimed to overthrow the old order of the Ancient Régime and establish a new society based on liberty, equality, and fraternity (Arendt, 1963; Higonnet, 1989). Both revolutions involved a profound reconfiguration of social and political institutions, including creating new constitutions and legal systems, abolishing feudal privileges and hierarchies, and establishing new representation and government.

Examples of events or processes that count as revolutions according to the alternative definition are the industrial revolution and the Civil Rights movement. The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries involved a profound transformation of the economy and society, as new technologies and forms of production led to the growth of factories, urbanization, and the rise of the capitalist system. This revolution involved a fundamental change in the structure and organization of society and a redistribution of power and resources. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the United States involved a profound shift in power relations and a reconfiguration of social, economic, and political institutions as African Americans and their allies challenged the system of racial segregation and discrimination in American society. This movement involved a fundamental change in the structure and organization of society and a redistribution of power and resources from the white majority to the black minority.

On the other hand, the Protestant reformation and the American War of Independence would not count as revolution. Although the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century involved a significant change in religious beliefs and practices, it did not involve a fundamental change in the structure or organization of society, nor did it result in a redistribution of power and resources. Although the American War of Independence of 1775-1783 involved the creation of a new political order based on democratic principles of popular sovereignty and individual rights, it did not involve a fundamental reconfiguration of social, economic, and political institutions, nor did it result in a significant redistribution of power and resources.

Starting with Kumar’s text, I found it compelling that he labeled revolution as a European invention. This was a new concept for me, but I do agree with Kumar that Europeans created the idea of revolution and through trade, missionaries, and imperialistic conquest this concept was spread throughout the world. (Kumar, 2113). I also resonated with the fact that revolutions are typically related to the political left as opposed to the political right; which of course makes sense since the left is more of a future based ideology whereas the right is more nostalgic. I was not fully convinced of his point that the French Revolution is the revolution. Kumar writes “The French Revolution is the model revolution, the archetype of all revolutions. It defines what revolution is.” (Kumar, 2117). If another, better, revolution happens would that one become the new ‘definition of revolution’? What if it looked nothing like the French Revolution, would the definition change to follow the new model? Is as successful revolution less of a revolution if it doesn’t follow the French model?

In Arendt’s text “On Revolution”, I was compelled by the idea that having rights is in itself a right as she explains on page 41. Arendt writes that “equality as a birthright was utterly unknown before the modern age.” (Arendt, 40). I grappled with the ironic idea that before the modern age there are no examples of revolution yet also little laws of equality. Since the birthright of equality that Arendt speaks about has become common – in the modern era – there are plenty of examples of revolution. As with Kumar’s text, Arendt spent lots of time praising the French Revolution yet the questions I posed earlier still apply.

If I had to define revolution, I would make it much broader than either of their definitions or explanations. I do not believe that only one model of revolution should be followed to be labeled as a revolution. Revolution should include a change in government (whether that be leader, party, regime, etc)., that is the result of a conflict that has been approached by either a violent and/or diplomatic solution from the people who are advocating on behalf of perceived oppression against a group of people.

My definition is very different from both of the readings because it accepts many more things into the term revolution than either Kumar or Arendt allowed. My argument is related to Kumar’s because it follows a ‘leftist’ perception that the revolution is in response to oppression of a group of people which is a leftist ideology. My definition is related to Arendts because it includes the possibility that revolution can occur diplomatically not just violently which relates to her points that war and violence are changing and have the possibility to disappear. (Arendt, 13). My definition could include the 2020 President Election as an example of revolution; a dramatic change in government that included both violence (storming the capital) and diplomacy (democratic voting process) to resolve the perceived threat against a group of people (in this case the group of people is all Americans who felt threatened by Trump as president).

Revolution is freedom and in light of Kumar’s reading, I resonate with the astronomical conception of political change. Furthermore, the article gives a deeper meaning and purpose of revolution. Specifically, noting that revolution justifies freedom and is based on revelation and the cosmic revolution of Christ’s coming.  I believe like Kumar that the term and meaning of revolution is beyond this physical realm called earth. It derives from a deeper meaning, an intrinsic concept that is living and breathing and cycles out the present physical or secular dominant of our human existence. Revolution as it evolves is a heavenly city of freedom and the return of identity to creation.

Moreover, I do not believe that my understanding is better but proves factual.  As we can see that there is an astrological universe that holds mankind and all that dwells within and therefore can see that there are earthly realms and heavens which are moving consistently and obviously preordained to move in cycles and revolutionary seasons.  In other words, seasons are not limited by time but all add up to a predestined result. Similarly, Hannah Arendt writes season are geared to the “affairs of men on earth, it could only signify that the few known forms of government revolve among the mortals in eternal recurrence and with the same irresistible force which makes the stars follow their pre-ordained paths in the skies” (Arendt 1990).

Nonetheless, this heavenly gift of revolution continues to send the spirit of freedom to create and birth history. For example, the greatest account of revolution is the French Revolution (1879-1881) which reverted to the initial freedoms of mankind and overthrew laws that countered them. Another example would be the English Civil War which was thought to be the very first revolutionary war that resulted in the removal and death of the monarch king.  Another revolutionary war was the bloody protest in Russia, where the Russian people gathered in hundreds to demand freedom and human dignity in their labor conditions. Apart from the text, in my opinion some of the greatest movements of revolution are Nat Turner, Abraham Lincoln and our very own Civil War, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were accounts of evolution and the revert of unity between humanity on earth.

Generally speaking, the commonality in these historic events which resulted in war was the path to restoration and the return to the human laws of nature based on the spirit of freedom for both humanity and the creation that God intended. Overall, both readings brought justification of revolution and its response which is war. Revolution is the response from humanity when enslaved and as Arendt notes it was and always has been a form of freedom and as St. Augustine of Hippo put it, “a great migration of souls”.  Lastly, very well put in the text that both war and revolution is an interrelationship, a mutual dependence and the end of war is revolution. A revolution is caused the desire attain freedom and seek what is just.

Arendt’s understanding of a revolution is one where there is a new experience an experiencing of being free. Beginning something new. Kumar’s understanding of revolution is, radical transformation. A new world. In my opinion the most compelling Arendt had was, “in order to rule, one had to be born a ruler, a free-born man in antiquity, a member of the nobility in feudal Europe, and although there were enough words in premodern political language to describe the uprising of subjects against a ruler, there was none which would describe a change so radical that the subjects became rulers themselves.” (pg. 41) this to me is a product of revolution where there is a change in the political structure of not just nobility but every man having the chance at political involvement. Arendt least compelling to me is, “the modern concept of revolution, inextricably bound up with the notion that the course of history suddenly begins anew, that an entirely new story never known or told before.” (pg. 28) The fact that it is has to be new and never seen before for it to be revolutionary.

With Kumar, what I found most compelling is “it was individual rights, a free civil society and a liberal constitution that were the centerpieces of the programs of 1989.” (pg. 10) These are typically the cornerstone for a revolution in my opinion. Kumar’s least convincing argument, “fairly or not, it is the French, not the American Revolution that has come to be seen as the inventor of the modern concept of revolution.” (pg. 6) The American revolution has as much power in the invention of the modern concept of revolution. The American revolution was a war of liberation. Liberation as Arendt stated, “revolution as we know it in modern age has always been concerned with both liberation and freedom.” (pg. 32)

My definition of a Revolution is a movement that is able to command a change in the current political and social structure. It is a change from unjust to just whether violent or non-violent. My definition is related to both Kumar and Arendt texts. Arendt stated, “is it too much to read into current rather than hopeless confusion of issues and arguments a hopeful indication that a profound change in international relations may be about to occur, namely, the disappearance of war from the scene of politics even without radical transformation of international relations and without an inner change of men’s hearts and minds.” (pg. 14) From Kumar’s article, “it was the action of human will and human reason upon an imperfect and unjust world to bring into being the good society.” (pg. 7) My answer is better in the fact that it is not restricted to violence and war and newness. Some examples of events are the East German Revoltuion October 9,1989, a non-violent protest that led to the take down of a communist regime. I think the Haitian Revolution which was the most successful slave rebellion in the Western region.

I believe a revolution is when a country’s social environment shifts and the political structure does not handle it well. Current conditions will cause to be discouraged, which impacts their core values and beliefs. In the book, New Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Krishan Kumar defines revolution as a shift in political ways. In explaining, he reviews the theory and reality of European revolutions, while Arendt sees revolutions as attempts to reshape the society meaning a new beginning along with an idea of freedom. My proposed definition relates to their argument but I don’t believe that my definition is better since Kumar and Arendt’s interpretation of revolution is similar to my definition of what revolution is but I wouldn’t say how I described it is better. I see it as a shift and individuals not accepting the change while they both see it as not just a shift in history but also freedom. According to Arendt, the true aim of a revolution consists of the appearance of a free public realm, where freedom would be guaranteed for all. The modern conception of revolution is to create a completely new system of government that resolves social issues. There are different types of revolutions such as the American revolution, the French revolution, the Haitian revolution, and the Spanish-American war of independence. 

What I found compelling was Arendt opposing the theory that Christian is what started revolutions. On page 25 of on revolution, it states “A few words need still to be said about the not infrequent claim that all modern revolutions are essentially Christian in origin, and this even when their professed faith is atheism. The argument supporting this claim usually points to the clear”.  Arendt mentions the claim that all modern revolutions are primarily Christian in the beginning and on page 26 she goes on to say,  “the separation of religion from politics and the rise of a secular realm with a dignity of its own, is certainly a crucial factor in the phenomenon of revolution. Indeed, it may ultimately turn out that what we call revolution is precisely that transitory phase that brings about the birth of a new, secular realm. But if this is true, then it is secularization itself, and not the contents of Christian teachings, which constitutes the origin of revolution.” This shows that she thinks It’s possible that revolution is a temporary thing that brings in a new, larger society, and that transformation itself rather than being told Christian teachings is what caused the rise of revolution. The current definition of revolution is to create a completely new system of government that, traditionally, aims to solve the public issue. Arendt claims that the modern understanding of revolution involves the idea that history is reinvented and that this era aligns with the idea of freedom. 

Based on the texts by Kumar and Arendt, I truly believe that Kumar test of Revolution is compelling, due to how Kumar has elevated the thought of Revolution within different aspects of point of view, such as how its related within classical conceptions, and how Kumar emphasized the dealing of the French Revolution was indeed part of a revolution. ‘’The French Revolution is the model revolution, the archetype of all revolutions. It defines what revolution is.’’ (Kumar 2117) I find it very interesting that Hannah Arendt looks at how the French Revolution is not characterized as a successful revolution, in where she characterized it as ‘’of defense and aggression.’’ (Arendt 17) Based on readings, I strongly propose that the definition of ‘’revolution’’ should be the act of relation towards human rights, in which a collective number of individuals fight against aggression within an idea in pursuing a better life for society. As mentioned by Kumar, the French Revolution tended to be ‘’established the classic pattern of revolution.’’ (Kumar 2217) The revolution by the French demonstrated that they all tended to fight towards what’s right, in order for themselves to be equal, and live their lives freely. It demonstrates that the voice of society, when together, can put aside any fight towards the benefit of human basic rights. The effort committed by the people of France demonstrated that as a society we must come together to undergo a revolution in the right context. ‘’It showed, by its own example as well as its attempt to export its revolution, by its ideas as well as its armies, what it is a society must do to undergo revolution. In this sense the French Revolution was not simply the first great revolution.’’ (Kumar 2117) Revolution demonstrates the will of others to come together to benefit the general outcome of life and expectancy of society. With such characterization led by the French people, it has shown the world the defining moment of revolution which has led to many more. It tended to open the eyes of others, to put up a fight against what’s against the will of society. The world has become stronger from the anger by the French people that characterized the French Revolution. ‘’All revolutions subsequently were indebted to it. It was from the French that they borrowed their concept. It was the French Revolution whose practice they attempted to imitate-even when they hoped to go beyond.’’ (Kumar 2117) Such concept of revolution truly demonstrates the concept of human rights, in which it correlates heavily within how revolutions have taken place such as The French Revolution, in which it gives a broad example to the world of the idea.

Both Kumar and Arendt offer insightful perspectives on the concept of revolution, exploring different facets of this intricate and multifaceted phenomenon. Kumar emphasizes the transformative character of the revolution, noting that it involves a rupture with existing order and the construction of an entirely new society based on different principles. He suggests that the revolution is altering rulers or policies and altering the structures and norms that underlie social relations. Arendt emphasizes the political dimension of revolution, seeing it as a time of democratic renewal when people challenge oppressive regimes and claim their right to self-rule. She stresses the significance of public action and participation in this process of change, contending that collective action allows individuals to regain political agency and create new forms of government. Both perspectives are compelling in their own right, yet to truly define revolution one must incorporate elements from both Kumar’s and Arendt’s perspectives. From Kumar, I focused on its transformative and systemic nature; that it involves changing leaders or policies while fundamentally reorganizing society. With Arendt as my guide, however, I have observed the political dimension as people challenge oppressive structures and assert their right to participate in government.

Therefore, I propose that revolution be defined as a radical and transformative social and political process in which individuals come together to challenge oppressive structures, norms, and institutions and create new forms of government and social relations based on principles such as justice, equality, and freedom. This definition emphasizes both its systemic nature while emphasizing its political dimension as well as stressing the importance of collective action and democratic participation. This definition of revolution is superior to other ways we use the term. It avoids reductionism, seeing revolution as a simple shift of leadership or policy; instead, it emphasizes its profound and systemic transformation of society. Furthermore, it stresses its political dimension – emphasizing democratic participation and collective action – as well as upholding principles like justice, equality, and liberty which are at the core of most revolutionary movements.

Examples of revolutions considered revolutionary under this definition include the American Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Russian Revolution and Latin America Revolution. In these instances, people mobilized to challenge oppressive structures and create new governance and social relations based on justice, equality and freedom. Conversely, events such as coups or regime changes that do not involve a fundamental transformation of social or political structures may not qualify as true revolutions.

CLASS TEXTBOOK NEEDED

POS 4182 Midterm Exam

1. Write a five-paragraph essay on how Florida’s Southern heritage impacts on the state politics?
2. Write a five-paragraph essay on why Florida may or may not be a bellwether state after the 2022 election?
3. Write a five-paragraph essay on the question is Florida a red, purple or blue state?
4. Write a five-paragraph essay on how Jeb Bush and Ron DeSantis strengthened the power of the governor?
5. Write a five-paragraph essay on the power of the speaker of Florida House.
6. Write a five-paragraph essay on why Florida is important in presidential election.
7. Write a five-paragraph essay discussing how the mass in-migration to Florida of nearly 300,000 new residents into the state each year impacting on Florida politics?

POS 4182 Final Exam Review 

Write a 8-10 page essay on the importance of the Everglades in Florida politics.  

Due- Monday April 10th by 11:59pm

Your paper should fully address the following questions:

• Using Michael Grunwald’s book The Swamp, explain how the developers of Florida viewed the Everglades and tried to conquer it?
• What were the ecological consequences?
• What were the political forces that created the political will to restore the everglades specifically how did Republican and Democrats come together to create the biggest ecological restoration project in history?
• What lessons from Everglade’s restoration are important to remember for environmental restoration and the battle against global warning?