Having recently (March) completed my OLLI class on the history of revolutions and posted twice on the topic of Revolutionary Era (110824 and 010325), I wanted to address an angle omitted in the latter and which loomed ominously over my effort to focus on the history of revolutions in the course: “Are we having a revolution in the USA today?”
My regular readers will know better than to expect I will pin myself down to a clear and simple answer on this fraught topic.
The first point to be made is that it all depends on what you mean by “revolution.” For some, revolutions can only happen according to the historical/moral arc described by Karl Marx and since elaborated by Lenin and numerous others. Rooted in several aspects of the Great French Revolution (1789 and all that) and exemplified by Russia (1917), China (1949), and Cuba (1959), these sharp and dramatic events mark the assumption of power by the “people” and the construction of a socialist state for their benefit. However, scholars over the past 250 years have utilized dozens of specific definitions. I define a revolution as a conflict between two or more major domestic power groupings, leading to the forcible transfer of power over a state and resulting in significant changes in the nature or structure of the state and society. Such events need not, in my view, follow a Marxian path, or one leading to a democracy. They need not be sudden ruptures, nor is widespread violence required. Within this framework, there are a wide range of configurations of power groupings, ideas, and circumstances that have led to revolutions in the past and it’s easy to imagine more variants. I would include, for example, Iran (1979), England (1689), China (1912), among others.
There are many kinds of “big” political change that thus fall outside this definition, including protests and riots, coups d’etat, invasions, some civil wars, and foreign invasions. January 6, 2021 wasn’t a revolution (it failed). Nor would the winner of the pending civil war in Sudan (not likely to change the nature of the state and society),
Second, it is useful to distinguish between “revolutionary situations” and “revolutionary outcomes.” We obviously can’t have any sense of the “outcome” of the current political upheaval in the US; it is (as they say) “too early to tell.” We know historically that many revolutionary situations don’t produce revolutionary outcomes; the wave of uprisings in Europe in 1848 and the Arab Spring of 2011 are good examples. Generally, however, revolutionary situations are characterized by multiple contenders for control of the mechanisms of a state, each with significant support from domestic power centers, and marked by an unwillingness or inability on the part of the incumbent state/ruler to suppress the contenders.
The current situation resembles, both in terms of its style and its political vector, the situations in Italy (1922) and Germany (1933). In both historical cases and in the US today, legal and constitutional processes were followed by which a leader was elected with a radical agenda. Historically, this was followed by that leader, using formally proper procedures, dismantling the constitutional structure of the state to a point that more extensive changes in both the constitution and laws could easily be made and, eventually, there were only marginal constraints on the power of a centralized, personality-driven state.
So, even if there are striking historical parallels, the question remains whether this counts as a revolution. In contrast to the classic examples, in Italy and Germany the violence utilized to assume control was incidental not determinative, although it was deployed as an instrument of control following the change in the state in order to ensure extensive changes in society. Similarly, the “losing” power centers had effectively surrendered prior to the broad social changes taking place. (As an aside, it’s worth noting that both Italy and Germany (as well as Japan) each underwent a modernizing “revolution from above” in the second half of the 19C.) If we can get past a rigid reliance on Marxist models of revolution, these examples fit the definition set out above.
More fundamentally, however, we can see that the definitional question doesn’t really matter (except to future historians). The impacts on our country and are world are already profound and long-lasting. Great damage has been done, not only to individuals harmed by the loss of rights, jobs, and subsidies, but to the stability of a world-view deeply embedded in our citizenry and the leaders and citizens around the world.
Now we have no way of knowing how this “revolution” will unfold or whether it will “stick.” The Great French Revolution went through half-a-dozen stages before it reverted to a monarchy under Napoleon. The Russian Revolution of 1905 looked successful—for a year or so—and then was rolled back. The uncertainty could as easily lead to a more authoritarian/populist state or anarchy for a while or a counter-revolution by progressives. Give me another decade and call me back then for an update.
Beyond all this, I take the underlying meaning of the question of whether we’re having a revolution as less a question than as an expression of anxiety. By whatever definition, we’re not used to having revolutions in the US and, while we like to strut in the revolutionary mantle of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington et al., we’re really a pretty conservative culture. We have a hard time getting our heads around the idea that WE are susceptible to a revolution. Those who pose the question are asking for reassurance that whatever this is, it will turn out well.
On that score, I have no idea (only hope). Those who would be counter-revolutionaries would be well advised to get into gear. This is not a time for burying one’s head in the sand. The boys of 1776 recognized that they were “all in.” They pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” They meant it. We’re glad they did and that it turned out pretty well.
My regular readers will know better than to expect I will pin myself down to a clear and simple answer on this fraught topic.
The first point to be made is that it all depends on what you mean by “revolution.” For some, revolutions can only happen according to the historical/moral arc described by Karl Marx and since elaborated by Lenin and numerous others. Rooted in several aspects of the Great French Revolution (1789 and all that) and exemplified by Russia (1917), China (1949), and Cuba (1959), these sharp and dramatic events mark the assumption of power by the “people” and the construction of a socialist state for their benefit. However, scholars over the past 250 years have utilized dozens of specific definitions. I define a revolution as a conflict between two or more major domestic power groupings, leading to the forcible transfer of power over a state and resulting in significant changes in the nature or structure of the state and society. Such events need not, in my view, follow a Marxian path, or one leading to a democracy. They need not be sudden ruptures, nor is widespread violence required. Within this framework, there are a wide range of configurations of power groupings, ideas, and circumstances that have led to revolutions in the past and it’s easy to imagine more variants. I would include, for example, Iran (1979), England (1689), China (1912), among others.
There are many kinds of “big” political change that thus fall outside this definition, including protests and riots, coups d’etat, invasions, some civil wars, and foreign invasions. January 6, 2021 wasn’t a revolution (it failed). Nor would the winner of the pending civil war in Sudan (not likely to change the nature of the state and society),
Second, it is useful to distinguish between “revolutionary situations” and “revolutionary outcomes.” We obviously can’t have any sense of the “outcome” of the current political upheaval in the US; it is (as they say) “too early to tell.” We know historically that many revolutionary situations don’t produce revolutionary outcomes; the wave of uprisings in Europe in 1848 and the Arab Spring of 2011 are good examples. Generally, however, revolutionary situations are characterized by multiple contenders for control of the mechanisms of a state, each with significant support from domestic power centers, and marked by an unwillingness or inability on the part of the incumbent state/ruler to suppress the contenders.
The current situation resembles, both in terms of its style and its political vector, the situations in Italy (1922) and Germany (1933). In both historical cases and in the US today, legal and constitutional processes were followed by which a leader was elected with a radical agenda. Historically, this was followed by that leader, using formally proper procedures, dismantling the constitutional structure of the state to a point that more extensive changes in both the constitution and laws could easily be made and, eventually, there were only marginal constraints on the power of a centralized, personality-driven state.
So, even if there are striking historical parallels, the question remains whether this counts as a revolution. In contrast to the classic examples, in Italy and Germany the violence utilized to assume control was incidental not determinative, although it was deployed as an instrument of control following the change in the state in order to ensure extensive changes in society. Similarly, the “losing” power centers had effectively surrendered prior to the broad social changes taking place. (As an aside, it’s worth noting that both Italy and Germany (as well as Japan) each underwent a modernizing “revolution from above” in the second half of the 19C.) If we can get past a rigid reliance on Marxist models of revolution, these examples fit the definition set out above.
More fundamentally, however, we can see that the definitional question doesn’t really matter (except to future historians). The impacts on our country and are world are already profound and long-lasting. Great damage has been done, not only to individuals harmed by the loss of rights, jobs, and subsidies, but to the stability of a world-view deeply embedded in our citizenry and the leaders and citizens around the world.
Now we have no way of knowing how this “revolution” will unfold or whether it will “stick.” The Great French Revolution went through half-a-dozen stages before it reverted to a monarchy under Napoleon. The Russian Revolution of 1905 looked successful—for a year or so—and then was rolled back. The uncertainty could as easily lead to a more authoritarian/populist state or anarchy for a while or a counter-revolution by progressives. Give me another decade and call me back then for an update.
Beyond all this, I take the underlying meaning of the question of whether we’re having a revolution as less a question than as an expression of anxiety. By whatever definition, we’re not used to having revolutions in the US and, while we like to strut in the revolutionary mantle of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington et al., we’re really a pretty conservative culture. We have a hard time getting our heads around the idea that WE are susceptible to a revolution. Those who pose the question are asking for reassurance that whatever this is, it will turn out well.
On that score, I have no idea (only hope). Those who would be counter-revolutionaries would be well advised to get into gear. This is not a time for burying one’s head in the sand. The boys of 1776 recognized that they were “all in.” They pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” They meant it. We’re glad they did and that it turned out pretty well.
RSS Feed