As we have seen throughout history, human beings in their very nature are constantly evolving and seeking something different and exciting. Therefore, as we have seen in various parts of the world, no matter how strong a regime may appear to be, eventually the people rise up and are ready to do anything to bring about change. This change usually takes place in some form of a revolution which brings together ordinary citizens from all over as they are inspired to be a part of this journey towards change. Through this journey, the comradery and the belief of a better tomorrow attracts people because this a time where people from all walks of life feel connected and part of something that is bigger than them. However, it is ironic that most of the time when people finally achieve the change they had have fought so hard for and dreamed about, they often realize that things go back to being the same and those who have acquired power fall into the same habits of their predecessors. Considering this, we see that change is indeed inevitable because human nature attracts as to this flashy and thrilling idea of change but often times we are disappointed as we see that the same patterns keep on reoccurring with just different actors. This sort of irony that comes out of revolutions is what I find extremely fascinating when studying about revolutions because of how hard we fight during them but end up going back to our old ways.
Revolutions
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I think your post brings up several of the above questions, which are clearly large, amorphous and difficult to answer, yet are necessary to at least investigate if we are to study revolutions. It seems that there is an inherent assumption that revolution must bring about change, yet many revolutions, as you point out, retain characteristics of what existed before, so it becomes a question of how to measure (even quantify?) change, if there is in fact any change. There also seems mcdvoice to be an assumption that revolution automatically involves regime change – that is, the ouster of the head of state. Is that always the case, or are there instances in which there has been a “revolution” without regime change?
Drift Boss is a mesmerizing driving experience that requires skillful steering and quick reactions.
Thank you for sharing the Information.
WalgreensListens Survey
While your logic holds true when operating under the assumption that all revolutions end in the installation of another autocratic regime, I think your argument struggles to conceptualize the possibility that the result of a revolution can yield a result other than a return to despotism. Certainly many revolutions fall short of their ultimate goal and produce similarly horrific post-revolutionary governments (despite most revolutions consisting of revolutionaries with distinctly different visions for a post-revolutionary state). However, on occasion, revolutions do succeed in establishing a radically different post-revolutionary state. Most famously perhaps, the American Revolution completely shattered the pre-revolutionary colonial system.
As you note, while in many circumstances the ambitions of a revolution fall short and another strongman ruler simply replaces the old one, I think it is important to leave room for the possibility of positive change that can occur from revolution.
While there is some human attraction to change, it also seems like people are more drawn towards revolution when they live under oppressive (or unfavorable) regimes. Even if people aren’t the most effective at bringing about change once a revolution occurs, we won’t (and don’t) get stuck in an endless cycle of revolutions if we don’t revolt during a good regime.
What constitutes change? How “big” does change have to be for a mass upheaval to be considered a revolution? Is it possible that some “revolutions” fail in that they do not bring about change? What about “failed” revolutions? Is it possible that a “failed” revolution can bring about more change than a “successful” revolution in the long run? Does there need to be change for such an event to be considered a revolution, or does a revolution simply require a sudden intense burst of mass mobilization, mass politicization of the populace, and mass participation? Does each revolution have a set of common characteristics, outcomes, and patterns? Ultimately, how do we define a revolution? Is there an agreed upon definition? Does the definition vary between those who experience “revolution” and those that observe or study it?
I think your post brings up several of the above questions, which are clearly large, amorphous and difficult to answer, yet are necessary to at least investigate if we are to study revolutions. It seems that there is an inherent assumption that revolution must bring about change, yet many revolutions, as you point out, retain characteristics of what existed before, so it becomes a question of how to measure (even quantify?) change, if there is in fact any change. There also seems to be an assumption that revolution automatically involves regime change – that is, the ouster of the head of state. Is that always the case, or are there instances in which there has been a “revolution” without regime change?