Cuba and Chile

I find it difficult to compare the Cuban case to that of Chile given the different circumstances that existed within the two nations. I do think, however, that the varying circumstances that each country faced, ultimately influenced the level of success that each country could experience. In Cuba the revolution was consistently viewed as a movement that would fail, allowing the movement to grow and become successful before there was more complete intervention by the more conservative forces within Cuba. Additionally the revolutonary forces seperation from the urban areas and isolation within the Cuban mountains, prevented the government from being able to fully destroy the Cuban revolutionary forces. The slow, stated, non-violent strategy of the Allende government can be argued presented the neccessary circumstances for the revolution to fail. That’s not to say that it was the cause for its failure, but the conservative forces were given time to respond and the exposure of Allende and his supporters allowed for the military to intervene in a way that was successful in deposing Allende and his supporters from power. Therefore while the response by the military to Allende’s program was not guaranteed, he left his movement extremely vulnerable by not arming a wing of its supporters and being slow to enact any of his proposed reforms.

Is Revolutionary Art still Revolutionary once labelled as such?

I think the concept of counter-revolutionary culture is interesting in the context of film, music, and television. Many times that art is viewed as revolutionary it is quickly appropriated and cast into the mainstream, whether it be art, television, or movies. Therefore it seems that all forms of art are always trying to outrun the quick monetization and conversion towards popular culture or ultimately accept the fate of their of being thrust into the popular culture.

Technology has somewhat freed artists from certain constraints in terms of limits placed on them by structures such as record labels. Platforms such as SoundCloud and the relative ease through which individuals can edit music allows music artists to produce music with greater freedom than ever before.

I also find the concept of revolutionary art interesting because of who deems the art revolutionary at different points. Are critics who ultimately establish the consensus of revolutionary art part of the elite or are they considered organic intellectuals that can determine whether art is truly revolutionary. Therefore is art revolutionary only until the point it is deemed as such?

The false notion of the inevitable revolution

It is easy to retrospectively place causality on events when analyzing them retrospectively. Therefore, I believe that in many cases when analyzing the cause of a revolution it is easy to say factors X, Y, and Z existed and therefore the revolution had to occur. We have observed, however, that a great degree of revolutions success hinges on a series of unlikely events occurring in the proper sequence and resulting in a series of favorable outcomes that contribute to the ultimate occurrence of revolution.
Many revolutions do not even begin as such, many of the individuals involved in the movement attempting to pressure the institutions on which their society is founded to correct a failing within the system. As seen in the American and Haitian revolutions their ultimate goal was not to overthrow the current institutions. In other instances, the events seem even more unlikely, such as in Iran where this moment of viability was reached, following the culmination of various events. Before this moment of viability, however, the prospect of revolution was unthinkable, until the moment when it wasn’t. A key event in the Cuban revolution was the suicide of a leader within the opposition party after watching a dip in his poll numbers following an unsubstantiated claim about his opponent. Therefore I believe that this concept of inevitable revolution is one that seems faulty, given the seeming randomness of events that seem to occur surrounding a revolution. It does allow for the prospect of interesting counterfactuals in which one considers would the revolution have still occurred if a certain event had not happened when it did.

Is Living Under an Autocratic State “Calm” Living?

There seem to be two elements of revolutions that are always in conflict, the appeal of and hope for change and the fear of what comes next. It can be difficult, however, to identify when the appeal for revolution finally overtakes the fear of change. The fear of change, not of the institutional response to revolution, is ultimately the only element precluding revolution since the majority of individuals will not even consider revolution unless it seems inevitable. The question then becomes what causes individuals to choose revolution if they are so afraid of change and chaos?

Revolutions themselves are chaotic, but humans do not seek chaos. As stated by Kapuscinski: “if we find ourselves in such a situation (dramatic/chaotic) we look feverishly for a way out, we seek calm and, most often, the commonplace.” I would argue that those living under autocratic, dictatorial, or colonial rule (and maybe more specifically those who choose to engage in revolution) do not find their current state of being as calm and nondramatic. If anything living daily with the fear and uncertainty of being targeted by those in power is not a state of calm or commonplace living as described by Kapuscinski. This ultimately may manifest itself in a breaking though not always resulting to revolution. This breaking point, in certain cases and under the right circumstances, can lead to a unifying sentiment of change that results in revolution. This sentiment and choice to engage in such a rare collective action is what, ultimately, makes revolutions so fascinating especially given the intensity of this collective sentiment and in its quick disappearance.