--- Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Wojtek Sokolowski <swsokolowski at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [WS:] He must have been smoking some really good
> > stuff. All revolutions were made by
> intellectuals:
> > Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot... The proles
> > were just tools in their hands.
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
>
> Lots of uprisings in Russia were led by peasants and
> Cossacks (a subset of peasant). Does Emil Pugachev
> count as an intellectual? I doubt he knew how to
> read.
> (He wasn't very successful though.) Bogdan
> Khmelnitsy?
>
[WS:] I did not say uprisings or rebellions - which are indeed a dime a dozen in human history. I said revolutions.
Peasant rebellions are indeed a dime a dozen in the history of Europe, and Asia too. They are really not much diffrent from common banditry or millenary movements. They are functional equivalents of modern gangs - a bunch of armed guys with more or less shared common group identity centered around common activity (usually criminal, but not always) or a charismatic figure (or both.)
It takes far, far more to launch a revolution. A revolution requires replacing the existing social order of a complex society with a new one. That translates into: (i) a tactical success in the battle field against the professional troops commanded by the status quo, and (ii) winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the population.
The significance of the latter cannot be overestimated. As I argued on this list time and again, people need a compelling alternative before they renounce what they already have. They need a clear and compelling vision of the new social order before they reject the status quo. A few flashy slogans will not do - you need a full fledged vision, a compelling plan.
Furthermore, you need that vision not just to attract followers to the initial phase of the revolutionary unpheaval, but far more importantly - to maintain the popular allegiance to the revolutionary cause AFTER the revolution. That requires the ability to run a whole gamut of social institutions - from marriage to to territorial governance, administration of justice, management of public resources, and international relations - any anything in between. People need to see that the new social order is EMBODIED in every fabric of everyday social life to buy into it and internalizae it.
These revolutionary tasks simply cannot be accomplished by a bunch of country bumpkins with guns and led by some charismatic figure. The bumpkins with guns may be good for the cannon fodder in the battlefield, but they are more or less useless after the dust of the battle settles. Without a revolutionary vision, they may gain their 15 minutes of fame but then dissappear into common banditry and finally end up squashed like rats by the establishment forces. This is how all historical rebellions ended.
A revolution requires leadership - not just of single charismatic individual but the whole class of them, capable of filling various instituional functions in a complex society. Filling those roles with bandits and bumpkins is a sure recipe for a failure of the revoutionary project, as evidenced inter alia by the Pol Pot revolutionary project.
So, Andie, I am not throwing a bombshell here. This is a bona fide argument - no enlightened _collective_ leadership (organic intelletuals, vanguard party, etc.) no revolution. All that you get without such leadership is banditry or millenary movements.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/