Speaking of that, anarchist philosopher Mark Lance mentioned a downside to this compartmentalization. He claims that successful revolutionary movements pretty much always resulted in societies which were massively less progressive (democratic, egalitarian) than the movements themselves which brought about the change. He doesn't know of a counterexample. Sometimes the post-revolutionary society is even regressive compared to the pre-revolutionary one.
[WS:] That does not surprise me a bit. In fact this is what a social scientist would expect. Revolution dissolves quite a great deal of institutions and social controls, letting rogue elements of society to take advantage of the chaos. These rogue elements quickly overtake the progressive ones that started the revo, and thus revolution eats its own children.
Oftentimes the unleashing of the rogue elements is a part of the revolutionary strategy and a populist rhetoric. Since revolutionaries generally do not have the manpower and resources to fight the state apparatus, even a seriously wounded one, face to face, a rational strategy is to pull the rug from under it, by :mobilizing the masses" which is the code word for sanctioning the rogue elements trashing the normalcy of the social life. This has two effect. First, it further erodes the regime in power by forcing it to expend its resources and taking repressive measures. Secondly, it creates a sense of general threat and chaos, which forces the population to yearn for peace and order, and to welcome anyone who can guarantee that peace and order. This is quite crucial in pushing the population from abandoning the social order they know, even if it was a flawed one, for accepting a new an unknown one - which is the centerpiece of any revolutionary strategy.
If the rogue elements could be easily brought under control after the progressive revolutionaries take over state power, that strategy would work, but it is seldom the case. More often than not, it is the rogue elements that take over state power and get rid of the progressive revolutionaries. There are several reasons why this happens.
The rogue elements are naturally more prone to pursue rogue tactics to achieve their goal, and in the situation of raw power struggle those who can unleash most raw power win.
Second, progressive revolutionaries are seldom united, and sectarian bickering erupts at any time.
Third, the revolutionary turmoil and the destruction of social order leaves few institutional means of resolving conflicts and disputes. Even the smallest differences can quickly lead to open conflict and violence. This escalating circle of conflict and violence pushes many "good people" to cross over to the "dark side" and become rogue elements themselves.
My rule of thumb for a revolution is "Do not make a revolution with people you would be afraid to invite to a dinner or to whom you would be afraid to entrust the care of your home. If you do, do not be surprise that that take over your home and mercilessly kick you out of it." This rule is a sort of the old biblical wisdom proscribing throwing pears before swine with heavy dollops of social interactionism.
Wojtek