
21H.001: How to Stage a Revolution - rms
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/CourseHome/
======
mahmud
Such huge potential yet such underwhelming delivery. Just read their "Reading
List" and was unimpressed by it:

[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/...](http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/index.htm)

It's mostly academic, capitalist/liberal pseudo reflection and philosophy. And
more than half of the people on that list are the dullest, most conservative
and anything _but_ revolutionary. The leftist literature has far more
explosive, pin-point, HOWTO material.

Instead, read Gramsci, Camus, Marcuse, and Arendt for the philosophy. Then see
Battle of Algiers and read the revolutionary struggles and biographies of Che,
Trotsky, Mao.

Just studying Marxism is an individual act of revolution. The mental impact on
one's mind, when you finally _get it_ , is irreversible. "Class Consciousness"
is a revolutionary virus of the mind.

~~~
Tichy
Hm, maybe, but I would actually be most interested in how to overthrow
communist regimes. Almost all dictatorships in recent times I am aware of
started out with communism or socialism.

Also, how much philosophy is really needed? I wonder how to overthrow a regime
with a huge police force and secret police everywhere. Are there even any
example where this happened without external forces? Maybe Rumania? In any
case, it seems to be more a practical problem than a philosophical one.

~~~
asciilifeform
> I would actually be most interested in how to overthrow communist regimes.

It is actually very easy - just get yourself a place on the CIA payroll. This
will take care of funding for propaganda, bribes, and parties for the right
locals. It will also arrange a speedy getaway should your plan fail. Do your
best to create and gather up "dissidents." Hype the bright capitalist future
with stylish American pants for everyone which will surely come. Provoke
demonstrations at every opportunity, inciting the local regime to violence;
or, if the latter has become sclerotic and emasculated, you can stage an
"orange" revolution using herds of bored college students. After you're done,
invite your moneyed friends to buy up whatever is left of the country's
industry and natural resources.

This recipe has an excellent track record in the former Soviet block.

~~~
drags
It's more accurate to say that this had little to no track record in the
former Soviet sphere. The US had essentially no involvement (often to the
despair of Soviet bloc citizens) in any of the three major uprisings (1956,
1968 and 1980-89). In fact, in the last of these (the period of instability
beginning with the Gdansk Shipyard occupation in Poland, kicking up in 1988
and continuing through the "Year of Revolutions"), US reaction was initially
completely curtailed by the lack of a coherent Reagan policy on Russia/Poland.
People were speaking freely, striking on a regular basis and eviscerating
censorship, and the US couldn't decide whether providing increased economic
assistance to Poland in exchange for continued toleration of the political
situation might be a threat to detente/whether detente was really the best
solution at all. It wasn't until later in Reagan's presidency that Gorbechev
handed him an effective Russian policy.

Another thing that I think it's hard for the modern observer to acknowledge,
given the benefit of hindsight, is the incredible ambivalence the Western left
felt for some of these revolutionary movements. Many leftists of the 1968
generation _wanted_ some form of socialism to work, and there was always a
hope that an East Germany or Czechoslovakia could slowly reform into an
authoritarian, yes, but competitive working-class social welfare state. The
Polish uprising especially seemed to throw leftists off guard; here was a
revolutionary movement dominated by conservative, Catholic traditionalists who
wanted things to be _like they were before the war_. This wasn't in the
discourse of the Democratic (by which I mean the party) mainstream, but it was
a major element of leftist political thought of the time, and it's not hard to
see how that could rub off on the measures and rhetoric American
administrations were willing to take.

In short, the US was pretty much a nonentity when it came to "interference in
the internal affairs" of Soviet puppet states. The "hardline" right was all
talk and no action in deference to the longstanding policy of detente, and the
moderate/radical left was too focused on criticizing American nuclear policy
and too ambivalent about the broad-based dissident movements focused on
individual liberties springing up in the Soviet bloc to push for intervention.

~~~
asciilifeform
You have many good and interesting points, but

> The US had essentially no involvement (often to the despair of Soviet bloc
> citizens) in any of the three major uprisings

How do we know this? There is an ocean of still-classified documents from that
period.

> the US was pretty much a nonentity when it came to "interference in the
> internal affairs" of Soviet puppet states.

In its official foreign policy, perhaps.

Talk to someone who reads the Russian-speaking blogosphere. This statement is
heavily disputed there, for a wealth of excellent reasons (and not limited to
the fact of just what kind of people benefited most from the overthrows.) The
skeptics I'm talking about aren't on the level of the "9-11 truthers," either
- the feeling that the US and its Western European lackeys deliberately
undermined the USSR and its allies runs deep, and is not without foundation
(see the Afghan War, for example. Or find someone who has heard Voice of
America from the period. There is no shortage of evidence, if you care to
look.)

~~~
drags
Sorry, you are correct about US intervention in Afghanistan. I intended to
limit the scope of my response to the Eastern bloc, not the entire Soviet
sphere. Poor choice of words on my part.

The reason I can be pretty sure there wasn't much US involvement in Eastern
bloc revolutionary movements is that these movements time and again followed
one of two patterns: A. "Reformist" 1\. Trusted, committed Party members have
falling out with Party Secretary, who is heavy-handed/incompetent/annoying.
2\. These Party members (usually Politburo) force out the Party Secretary and
promise to get the worker's state back on track. 3\. These new leaders (to the
surprise of everyone) actually become _popular_ by forcing out the hated
leader and promising reform. 4\. The non-elite classes (i.e. those not in the
Party) get a little too excited in the midst of this public euphoria, and
start calling for cheaper meat, less overbearing local Party hacks, freely-
elected union representatives. 5\. The Soviets march in.

B. "Dissident-led" 1\. A small group of self-proclaimed dissidents publicly
and repeatedly denounce the regime. 2\. Because of this, they lose their
(usually) intellectual, white-collar jobs, guarantee no secondary education
for their children, endure frequent jail stints and get assigned back-breaking
physical work. 3\. Nevertheless, they refuse to back down, and instead
continue their public activities. 4\. The economy gets bad/a rally is
organized for a slain WWII hero, and 10k-15k people strike/protest/rally in
the streets of the capitol city. Anti-communist chants inevitably occur, and
someone gets shot. 5\. The shooting, and the Party's embarrassment about it,
encourages more people to protest and gives them a reason to protest. Soon as
much as 1/4 of the population is in the streets on any given day. 6\. The
Soviets march in/Gorbachev writes off the Eastern bloc.

Neither of these patterns is especially useful/conducive to US interests. The
first severely damages right-wing interests; here is an example of the people
of a Soviet puppet state showing trust and affection in their political
leaders. If it had worked -- if Hungary or Czechslovakia had transformed into
something closer to Sweden or even Yugoslavia -- the meme of socialism as
perpetrator of evil would be tarnished. It's also difficult to generate
political enthusiasm by more than a few hundred people. That just doesn't
happen, no matter how much money/support you give.

The second pattern is even more difficult to produce. Anyone willing to be
bought off is a rational actor, and in 1977 nobody believed the Soviet Union
was going to disappear anytime soon. Why would you give up all earthly
comforts for a future that would likely never come?

------
plesn
The true revolution changes social relations, changing people in power is
quite superficial and it is foolish to blindly believe in it.

Revolutions is the usual sense happen when current structures are so rotten
that something else is needed, then some other form of social organisation
prevails, often not really what was expected at the beginning (think russia in
1917 vs. russia after the civil war in 1921).

But it is our role as humans to modify the world at our scale, to modify our
ways of interacting with others and doing things to make the world a little
better. Think of the changes between the middle age and now... there's so much
room to do much better... At a bigger scale, for me, the next point is
introducing more participative democracy in companies, especially big
companies (they are truly the most prominent fascist-like organisations
there...)

------
quizbiz
This past year, senior year of high school, my history teacher based his
curriculum on teaching us how to stage a revolution. He asked us to plan a
revolution of the school, consider what/who needs to be revolted against, and
how. It was entertaining at first and it made learning the Russian Revolution,
the revolution in Argentina, and others more relevant but my teacher seemed to
be bent on the fact that we should actually revolt against our government as
soon as possible. I consider(ed) it nonsense.

I'll try to stay away from a political debate and focus on the psychological
argument. That Political revolution in the United States can be done within
its current system, through election and democracy, and as bad as things are,
there is no need for a cataclysmic shift. As I see it, democracy is
evolutionary, it continuously evolves, checks and balances are self correcting
just like natural selection. I'm all about learning practical stuff and I just
don't see where this fits beyond in establishing a critical mindset.

Please broaden my mind.

------
andreyf
Dup! <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=310818>

------
jdale27
I hear the final project's killer.

~~~
ynniv
Don't you mean "revolutionary"?

