My Recent Lecture at Gramscian Institute For Global Studies.
To appreciate the revolutionary-inclinations of the western democracies is to appreciate the concept and practise of ‘democracy’; the government of the few on many. It is thus, these few who define and who can bring the revolution at the top, or below. The western democracies are coup de grace, one establishment section replacing another, as the citizens/masses are largely passive participants in their governmental affairs. This is the critical focal point of our analysis here: it is the elites within the ‘democracies’ that can define and originate change, and never the masses, as it is across more popular democratic societies.
Today, western world, and democracies, are battling the voices for changes. This is not something new across this region, nor is it something quietly divorced from the behavioural patterns of the past. To appreciate, not the nature nor the causes (as these are well-known and of similar characteristics), but, the final products or effects of these new radical revolutionary cries and activities, one needs to appreciate the socio-cultural and political histories of this region, in terms of its constituents, as independent entities and focus of analysis.
What does this mean?
It means, we are going to briefly examine the chances or the absence, of such, for a revolution to be successful within each state, in accordance to it’s past behavioural histories with such particular socio-political trends, the centre of origins and the final ends.
Lets begin with the Old World of Europe.
The chances of a revolution are positive-probability. However, one needs to understand that, this behavioural political action has never really taken place in such a state, and only ‘revolutionary behaviours’ that can be accounted can be said to have come from the top, within the ruling elites/the establishment, not the masses; for example, Bismarck towards the Unification and Hitler’s Third Reich. The masses revolutionary attempts failed, and this was not really the ”people revolutionary attempts”, of the Red Brigades of Baader Meinhof.
Thus, in Germany, one might state correctly that the chances of a revolution is 35-45 per cent to succeed, if originated from the masses, with the masses support, and greater percentage probability of 90-100 if it comes from within the establishment, that from the top and within the ruling class.
No need to go on with this, as we all know the background and the world-renown French passion of the masses, who have been at the centre of French politics and histories; from pre-France-Statehood, to the monarchs, revolutions of the Directory, to the crisis of pre-war, to even present as an headache for the European Politics within the EU.
In short, in France, the probabilities of a people’s Revolutionary success are Very High: 80-100.
3. The Soft Under-Belly of Europe/The Mediterranean States:
In Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal, the overall assessment one can deduce from the past facts is that, conditions vary greatly and dependent mostly on the environmental characteristics of the times; the depth and impacts of the grievances, and even if good, it tends to be ”tribal”, in a sense, one faction dominating the ‘people’s revolutions’ not a nation en mass .
In short, the chances for revolutions within these states need to be re-examined within the contemporary and immediate conditions and environment, and not based on the historical analysis as the critical key/indicator to end-product.
However, one might not that there is no real ‘passion’ for ‘struggles’, or should say ‘long struggles’ within these states, as the masses, and the vanguard young, tend to prefer ‘period of tranquillity and romances’ to the ‘hardships of revolutionary life’.
4. The Northern States:
Not a chance. These are more inclined towards tranquillity periods than the Latin people of the South. These by nature tend to be more peace-loving, pacifist states/public.
The North, prefer diplomacy than conflict. Internal negotiations than civil fightings. The casing point, the recent terrible Norway’s Terror of Utoya, and the ‘quiet state of meditation’ of the entire state in understanding the causes of such terror, not in jumping into gung-ho reactionary measures, as compared to the ‘minor activities’ in Britain, recently.
5. The United States:
I will just finish with this final state assessment.
In the United States, the probability of revolutionary challenges and success are Moderately High.
This means that, as a result of the traditions of the socio-political structures and philosophies of the US, the people have always believed strongly that they are the final arbitrators of their own national legal frameworks, and if they feel it is threatened and they are unable to peacefully remedy the problems, that remove the causes of ‘tyrannical behaviours’, they will revolt on mass, and with success. The masses of US, are easily cohesive body. Also, as the results of many factions, to use the founding fathers terminology (James Madison), the US is more vulnerable to revolutionary challenges from within, if conditions are perfect.
To take an example of an inherent internal factional problem, one that can resurfaced any time, when conditions are tangible and receptive, is the South-North Problem which is even present to date, just have a look at the successes of the Tea-Party of US in rallying the South, and not being very successful in the North.
Anywhere, I forgot Britain.
6. The British Isles:
Simple, the masses chances of revolutionary success are NIL, unless the British Isles divides back into three ‘principalities’ of Scotland, Wales and England, then, any one of revolutionary masses from within each respective states, can operate with success, as it can be sure to be able to get either full and open assistance from any one of the neighbouring states, from moral, to physical and so forth.
The British Isles, are a place where, especially as union, only the Top, The Elites within the Ruling Establishment, can bring down existing order for their own, sort of coup de etat, as it has been throughout it historical ”revolutions”, Kings against Kings, Barons against Kings, etc, even Cromwell and ”the Legend of King Arthur” were elite inspired ”revolutions”. There has never been masses revolutions in Britain. The powers of the states are too ingrained at the roots of communities, and with a small Island, it is easy to keep an hold from even major crises.
The point is, for all those who dream of a revolutionary climate in UK, forget about it, unless you are a total Fool, then go ahead with your suicidal missions.
In the Western Democracies, the chances of masses revolt are below average, and within some states, like Britain and the Northern States within the Continent. almost Zero-probability.
In short, in The West only the ruling classes can revolt, never the masses.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN, IN APPLIED SENSE?
If one seeks to dominate the western democracies, for example, Europe, one will start by ‘building a base in France’, indoctrinate and inflame the existing passions. It is a factual point of observation, that all the ills of western Europe, can be traced from the breakdown or any activity within France, from Louis, the Sun-God, to Napoleon, to the two major wars, and even the present as we have already reiterated.
Secondly, one will seek to divide the British Isles, and create alliances at the top of the German Elites, and encourage and support the Northern Pacifism and Neutrality, and finally, use the Latin-Passion of the South as the final tool of ‘last assault’. With US, it is as easy to conquer as it is hard to attempt to do so.
(My recent Lecture at Gramscian Institute For Global Studies)