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.
\nMany 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\u2019t. 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading