What makes a revolution?

What makes a revolution? Throughout this course we have studied numerous revolutions and their respective causes and outcomes. Can we generalize revolutions by attributing one event or situation as a cause. Earlier in the year it was my thought that many contributing factors combine to create a revolution. Perhaps economic crisis, seizure of land, oppressive rule, maybe a disgruntled and influential leader who galvanizes a group to take action against a power? No. Now, having looked at countless revolutions, i think, using ample evidence, i can prove that a revolution only requires one, simple, overlooked thing. A revolution simply requires unhappiness.

For the purposes of length i will only examine the Chinese revolution, the Indian revolution and the Industrial revolution. Let us proceed from most violent to least violent.

The Chinese revolution of 1911 was simply the result of the people's widespread belief that their government, currently the Qing, was corrupt and weak. Wikipedia best sums up the cause, saying, "The revolution was motivated by anger at corruption in the Qing government, frustration with the government's inability to restrain the interventions of foreign powers, and the majority Han Chinese's resentment toward a government dominated by an ethnic minority; the Manchus," however, lets delve a little deeper. China was being highly influenced and in some sense controlled by foreign influence. Opium, sold to China by Britain, had addictive to the entire country which resulted in a generally slow and sluggish atmosphere. Increase in Opium trade led to China more and more depending on Britain for their "needs," being Opium and trade flow. Their reliance led to British intervention in areas considered Chinese affairs. The government was inefficient and corrupt. The lack of an "able" emperor caused high government officials to become incompetent and in turn promote incompetent low officials. This process spiralled downward causing the entire government to suffer the harmful effects. High officials also received "gifts" from low officials who took government money and placed it into their own pocket through the implementation of high taxes. The taxes caused the people of China to suffer economically. China's society became incredibly poor, cultivation of land was limited and no massive industrial projects were created by the government to counteract the terrible economic conditions. A sense of unhappiness swept across the nation which resulted in the Wuchang Uprising, a revolt led by China's intellectuals, who took it upon themselves to lead the peasants. The uprising was a success and resulted in the establishment of a provisional military based central government over a fragmented country. Simple unhappiness from masses of people simply results in change.

The Indian revolutionary movement which took place from the mid 19th century to the early 20th century, was a backlash at British rule of India, where Indians were considered inferior and charged with little or no rights. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is credited with organizing the non-violent rebellion, through the application of Satyagraha , however acted not on his own accord but rather as a voice for the people who wished to be granted equal rights and more importantly for India to become an independent nation. British dominance and their oppression towards the people of India became commonplace by the mid 19th century. By their domination of the subcontinent, British officials grew abusive of local customs; holding parties in mosques, dancing to regimental music on the terrace of the Taj Mahal, using whips or canes to force their way through crowds and mistreating natives in a harsh and cruel manner. Popular disgust became evident with the creation of organized movements, an emergence of leadership targeting British rule. From 1885-1905, Indian nationalism took the shape of an Indian political organization. Minus failing to recruit Muslims, the organization was composed entirely of Indians fed up with British rule. After World War 1, Gandhi arrived in India and began a series of non-cooperation acts. Along with a mass of Indians, he successfully slowly began chipping away at the giant pillar of British rule. Facing strong acts of adversity such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre or Amritsar massacre, an incident where thousands of peaceful protesters were massacred in the Indian city of Amritsar by British militants. To get a sense of this act of cruelty, here is a video from the movie Gandhi, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgRLqBZuMQ. Non-cooperation reached a climax within India and resulted in the adoption of a constitution, on the 26th of January 1950, which declared India a republic and no longer under the dominion of the Crown. Popular unhappiness at foreign rule will simply result in swift change, if violent, and slow change if non-violent, especially if the numbers of unhappy people far outweigh that of the rulers.


The last revolution we shall observe is the Industrial revolution in the United Kingdom from the 18th century to the 19th. This revolution simply demonstrates how people's unhappiness with their technology and how that resulted in not only genuine inspiration and creation but a revolution of technology all together. The industrial revolution primarily focuses on the shift of manufacturing into large factories. This began with textiles and the mechanization of iron making techniques and use of refined coal. Specifically transport around the pre and during the beginning stages of the revolution were incredibly limited to horse pulled carriages and carts, simple boats and other, now primitive means of transport. Humans not only had the means to advance themselves technologically with the increase of factories and materials for manufacturing, but humans were unhappy with the way they lived. They had grown tired of their primitive means of transport and for that matter everyday life. They needed a total advancement of technology. A movement which would increase efficiency in everyday life. The industrial revolution was their ticket to the future. Immediately, with the creation of machine tools, an enormous effect on society was seen. The gigantic production of machine goods led to the implementation of them within the workplace. This effect spread to all of Europe in a process known as Industrialization . With the creation of the internal combustion engine as well as steam powered boats and trains, transportation allowed people to roam further around the world more efficiently and more easily. The industrial revolution was the result of the people's unhappiness with ineffective and old technology. This resulted in a complete change in all technology and in turn a enormous revolution which still goes on today.

Unhappiness leads to change which then leads to a revolution.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Ruhollah Khomeini was the religious leader throughout the Iranian revolution who over threw the oppressive Shah regime. Khomeini lead a successful revolution by the means of galvanizing the masses and has been referred to by Shia scholars as, "champion of Islamic revival." Although exiled to Iraq and, once there, exiled again, Khomeini encouraged the people to overthrow the Shah regime and as a result, created a strong religious and political following from abroad. One could argue that Khomeini was successful simply because the Shah became oppressive and finally the people just needed a new form of government that was not the Shah. However i think that Khomeini was so successful in his efforts simply because he was a devote religious leader and, through his advocacy of traditional Islamic beliefs, captured the minds of the majority of Iran during the oppressive time.

As Khomeini was seen as a key religious figure, his exile created a new image for him, a martyr. On June 3rd, 1963, Khomeini delivered a speech at the Feyziyeh madreseh during which he severely attacked the Shah and warned him that is change was not brought to the current social situation in Iran, the people would, "offer up thanks for his departure from the country." Immediately after this speech, the Shah arrested Khomeini and took him to a Qasr prison in Tehran. News of Khomeini's arrest spread like wild fire through the major cities of Iran and masses of angry demonstrators faced tanks and militants. For six whole days the nation was in utter outrage at the Shah's action. Adding to the distress of Iran's social situation, the people's anger took over swept through the entire nation and Khomeini became seen as a martyr for the anti-Shah movement.

Khomeini was then exiled to Iraq where he still managed, through cassete tapes smuggled into the country, to spread his anti-Shah beliefs and create an entire mass of support for his campaign. Khomeini was seen as a hero, a fallen warrior for the movement against the oppressive Shah. The fact that he was a religious leader adding significant aid to his popularity as the majority of the population were heavily religious. Together these aspects combined to place Khomeini in the hearts and minds of the people. Together these aspects fulled a nation into overriding their oppressive government.

The Chinese: Precocious or Rash?

As we have been studying, before 1914 when Chinese nationalists movements were not large enough to challenge their Western imperialist rulers, China lived under Western rule. As it states in the textbook, Civilization and Revolution, "Asian nationalists favored modernization and eventually adopted Western techniques and ideas" (872). If this is the case, evidently the question that arises is, why did China go to such lengths to break free from Western rule even though they adopted and believed in the customs and ideas that the West held?

The result is two possibilities. First the Chinese were wise, they saw that Western imperialist rule would eventually result in abuse and the West would take advantage of their "colony". Second the Chinese were stupid at attempting to break away from Western rule first because they would have adopted their ideas of modernization more quickly, which would lead to advancement in technology, allowing them to increase national defense and they would have the aid of a powerful territory through ruff economic, political and social times.

I believe the latter of these possibilities is true. China was stupid in breaking away from the West. If China had of stayed with the West they would have improved their national defense, allied themselves with a powerful nation and rapidly improved such areas as science and technology. The cons are simply that the West could possibly begin to enforce harsh rule. The advantages in this specific case completely outweigh the disadvantages. China would be better protected from foreign invasion with the aid of their rapidly advancing technology and the aid of their powerful ally. Their economy would also increase rapidly, due to specific jobs opening up for technological and scientific positions. New technology would also result in industrial expansion and growth, while easing life for the common citizen.

It is also critical to note that if China remained under Western rule even for a short period of time, if the West began to take advantage of China by invoking harsh rule leading to them seizing land and resources form the Chinese, the introduction of new technology and population within China would be enough to rebel against the powerful enemy. They would be able to break free from the West and still have benefitted from allying with them.

Mao's Mass Movement Theory

Could Chairman Mao's belief that all you need for something to change is the mass of the people? What other revolutions have taken place at the will of the mass of the people. Lets Examine.

In Mao's article, The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains written in June 1945, he states, "First, we have decided on the line of our Party, which is boldly to mobilize the masses and expand the people's forces...If they stand up and dig with us, why can't these mountains be cleared away?" (The "three constantly read article" of Mao Zedong Handout) As you can see in this article Mao tells the story of an old man who wishes to dig up two mountains. An old wise man thinks this man is foolish and when he questions how he expects to dig up the mountains, the man replies, "When i die my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons and then their sons and grandsons and so on to infinity." This logical in theory makes sense, enough man power and eventually after an incredible amount of time, the mountains could be dug up. This metaphor clearly expresses Mao's view on what mass movement can do. As we have seen studying his reign, it worked quite well for him. However can it be applied to all situations?

Tak world war two for example, Hitler had almost all of Germany behind him, he began a mass movement of people all nurtured under this one idea. He accomplished what most leaders dream of accomplishing. He conquered most of Europe and as well as parts of Asia. His masses took him great leaps and bounds however, this example is only one of two which occurred during this time. As a result of Hitler's regime, British, American, Russian(Soviet Union) as well as many other European country's forces joined to overthrow Hitler and save Europe. The masses under them successfully ousted most of Hitler's regime and successfully brought Europe back from the brink of total captivity.

This though only two examples clearly expresses Mao's view on how mass movement can truly accomplish all. Mao's thoughts i feel to be correct due to the outstanding record that leader's possess once gained the support of the masses.

A day in the life

Shanghai, 1967.
Wednesday, April 14.
Low-low Yuang

"Today i was cured by the meritorious Chairman Mao. My life long hearing and speech impediment has vanished under the swift effort of our glorious leader, Chairman Mao. Before today, sounds were nothing to me and as a result, i could make none. However yesterday i underwent an incredibly risky medical operation to cure me of my impediment. At first i was scared, i thought perhaps i would die. However the thought that the entire process had be planend out by our beautiful Chairman Mao gave me much solace. Once i awoke, i laid my eyes, ears and words onto my mother who was standing over me. I immediately fell to the floor, beneath our giant painting of Chairman Mao. I almost shouted the words, "OH GLORIOUS CHAIRMAN MAO, THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!" As tears fell down my mother's face, i comforted her and in turn myself, with the kind words that had not left my lips since i was 2."

This is what i heard on the radio today, a glorious and triumphant story of Chairman Mao's efforts to help and cure a deaf-mute from her crippling disease. As i listened to this little girl's story, i found myself in amazement. Amazement for our wonderful leader and his magical abilities. I thought long and hard on how Chairman Mao could possibly cure this little girl's deafness. Acupuncture was the means in which Chairman Mao cured this girl, however it was his genius combined with the loyal country which follows him wherever he journeys. I consider myself so blessed to live in this wonderful country lead by this truly amazing leader, if he can cure this girl's deafness and muteness, there must surely be no end to his power.

America's role in the Egyptian Revolution

Following up on our class discussion, i thought it interesting to explore the idea of America's involvement in the Egyptian Revolution, specifically whether to interviene or to let the revolution take it's course.

Egypt has always been a valuable ally and vice versa is also true, America funds a major part of the Egyptian military. For 30 years American has aided Egypt with 1.5 billion dollars which went into military training, military equipment and in short the country's defense. Even to mention that on top of that, Egypt received a nearly 1 billion dollar subsidy annually from 1979 is to fully bring to fruition America's role in the protection of this ally. America's non-involvement in this revolution would lead to some major reexamination of the relationship between the two countries. However this could potentially have just cause.

Hosni Mubarak's actions with this money were less than heroic to say the least. Using this power for his own intentions he jailed 100,000 Egyptian nationalists and assigned his police force to torture many more. He also rerouted a lot of the "ally money" into private bankaccounts for his wife, sons and some of his close businessmen. These actions could easily justify a neutral stance on the revolution even a stance against the revolution would not be absurd.

In retort to these negative stances on Egypt's revolution, this very revolution is about freedom, a value that the country of America was built upon. It is guaranteed in the declaration of independence. To go against this very ideal is to become hypocritical and to double back on our own beliefs. Is this acceptable? As a country can we knowingly and willingly sacrifice our own ideals just for the economical and military benefits?

I believe in this case it is more than this. This revolution is about freedom, but more importantly it is about breaking free from a dictator. A dictator that puts his own agenda before the very country he rules. In this case, i feel as though to become a hypocrite is a minor price to pay for what is right.

The changing face of the workplace

Why did the industrial revolution change the way people worked so dramatically? Why did the owners feel it necessary to tighten rules on workers? Before the revolution famers had worked at their own pace without many rules and still turned out very successful. So why did owners feel they needed to have such a tight grip around their employees?

I think the main reason why company owners instigated this style of strict labour was simply because they needed the sense of control to successfully elicit the respect which has become such a major part of our modern workplace.

Employees respect their bosses, if the boss asks you to do something, you do it, without question. This idea would not have become such a prominent part of our society if owners hadn't enforced these strict working environments. It is now such a natural part of our workplace that employees now know what to do and what not to do. For example, instigated by industrial revolution factor owners, strict rules were placed to show employees their place within the workplace. The strict rules have now evolved into common knowledge. People don't show up to work in improper attire or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, people, for the most part, thanks to the rules put in place, know how to behave in the workplace.

The strict working environment was used as a way to acquaint people with the idea of new control. A new method of work, new system of control for the working class, a simply way to insure profit and success.

This is why i believe this strict working environment was so necessary companies held doubt about ways to insure profit and good business. So it was logical that strict rules were written that protected the companies business.

Do you guys agree with this? It seems to me the only real reason to change the working environment and make it well controlled
and successful. What would have changed if this hadn't happened? The fundamentals of workplace etiquette would be completely different. Social interaction would change and possibly people wouldn't work well together.