The Revolutions 1917 and 1789:
The question of whether or not a violent revolution is justified or not is a subjective one that is judged differently depending on where one finds oneself in reference to the political spectrum. Even contemporary progressive conservatives would undoubtedly dissuade the notion that violent revolutionary change is ever justified or needed, while others, such as those living in regimes that were set up through revolutions or violent upheavals, could not conceive of anything but violence for the establishment of what, at least they perceive as, a more just society. In addition to the political perspective, justifications for revolutions are also subject to cultural views. Most French citizens for instance (save of course for the Monarchists) see the French Revolution as the triumphant and necessary overthrow of tyranny while many British citizens, looking kindly upon their own constitutional monarchy, may be put off by the seemingly unnecessary brutality of the great terror. Similarly, in modern post-Soviet Russia there are still those who hold to the old revolutionary ideals that glorified the Bolsheviks as the saviors of the Russian people, while most Wester
n democracies have seen the second 1917 revolution (the anti-democratic Bolshevik revolt against the Kerensky government) as an unnecessary bloodbath. Putting aside the subjective views of both cultural and political extremes, an inter-subjective standard of some kind of criteria may be said to exist. One may base such a standard's criteria on the very simple and all-encompassing notion of utilitarian progress under which any change that betters the situation of the majority is justified. Under such a standard both revolutions could conceivably be justified if it could be demonstrated that their outcome resulted in a situation more favourable to the majority. The Russian Empire in 1917 was in many ways similar to France in 1789 in that it was an extremely autocratic state with all power concentrated in the hands of the ruling monarch and a very tiny aristocratic class that constituted only a small percentage of the entire population, a state that was exhausted by war and on the verge of collapse, drained by an inefficient bureaucracy and anachronistic agricultural practices. The existing governing body (the Duma) was merely symbolic, the lack of universal compulsory education, lack of investment and industrialization and other factors precluded the formation of strong middle class capable of negotiating some power away from the central government. No personal freedoms existed and the authority of the state was protected by the army and a brutal secret police. The Bolshevik revolution, however, did not bring about a system that was much more free or equal than that it demolished. Russia became a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under
Some common words found in the essay are:
Russian Empire, French Revolution, National Assembly, Catholic Church, Justifications Violence, Napoleonic Wars, Nicholas II, Regime France, French Republic, American Revolution, utilitarian progress, bolshevik revolution, french revolution, short term, situation majority, 1789 revolution, governing body,
Approximate Word count = 1117
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
