Revolution: Difference between revisions

[[:en:Revolution]]

A '''revolution''' (from the [[Vulgar Latin|Latin]] ''revolutio'', "a turn around") is a fundamental [[social change|change]] in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.  

[[Aristotle]] described two types of political revolution:

Revolutions have occurred through [[human history]] and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating [[ideology]]. Their results include major changes in [[culture]], [[economy]], and [[social institution|socio]]-[[political institution]]s.

Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in [[European history]] from a [[psychological]] perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several [[social science]]s, including [[sociology]] and [[political science]]. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

==Etymology==

[[Copernicus]] named his 1543 treatise on the movements of planets around the sun ''De revolutionibus orbium coelestium'' (''On the Revolutions of Celestial Bodies'') and this has come to be the model type of a [[scientific revolution]]. However "Revolution" is attested by at least 1450 in the sense of representing abrupt change in a [[social order]]<ref>[[Oxford English Dictionary|OED]] vol Q-R p. 617 1979 Sense III states a usage "Alteration, change, mutation" from 1400 but lists it as "rare". "c. 1450, Lydg 1196 ''Secrees'' of Elementys the Revoluciuons, Chaung of tymes and Complexiouns." It's clear that the usage had been established by the early 15th century but only came into common use in the late 17th in England. </ref><ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=revolution onlineetymology.com ]</ref>. Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of [[James II of England|James II]] with [[William III of Orange|William III]]. The process was termed ''"[[The Glorious Revolution]]"''.<ref>Richard Pipes, ''[http://chagala.com/russia/pipes.htm A Concise History of the Russian Revolution]''</ref> Apparently the sense of social change and the geometric sense as in "[[Surface of revolution]]" developed in various European languages from the [[Latin]] between the 14th and 17th centuries, the former developing as a metaphor from the latter. "Revolt" as an event designation appears after the process term and is given a related but distinct and later derivation.

==Types==

There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature. For example, classical scholar [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] differentiated<ref>Roger Boesche, ''Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism'', Lexington Books, 2006, ISBN 0739116657, [http://books.google.com/books?id=fLL6Bil2gtcC&pg=PA86&dq=%22types+of+revolution%22&as_brr=3&ei=hdVQR6TVIpm4pgLFvJ2fBw&sig=ZEc373JU8-9qM9N4BgKjnvvHVD8#PPA86,M1 Google Print, p.86]</ref> between 1) [[political revolution]]s 2) sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society and 3) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (ex. [[religion]]). One of several different [[Marxist]] typologies divides revolutions into pre-capitalist, early bourgeois, bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, early proletarian, and socialist revolutions.<ref>{{pl icon}} J. Topolski, "Rewolucje w dziejach nowożytnych i najnowszych (xvii-xx wiek)," Kwartalnik Historyczny, LXXXIII, 1976, 251-67</ref>

The term "revolution" has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in [[society]], [[culture]], [[philosophy]] and [[technology]] much more than [[political system]]s; they are often known as [[social revolution]]s.<ref>Irving E. Fang, ''A History of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions'', Focal Press, 1997, ISBN 0240802543, [http://books.google.com/books?id=QaVfg_vdyxsC&dq=communication+technology+changed+business&as_brr=3&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Google Print, p. xv]</ref> Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the [[industrial revolution]] (note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville).<ref>Warwick E. Murray, Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0415318009, [http://books.google.com/books?id=L-3Vq3aadTYC&pg=PA226&dq=%22cultural+revolutions%22&as_brr=3&ei=ddtQR5aHKovqoQLy7J2UAg&sig=Nrc0rBp_zg_44liln8OLNsUu7UE Google Print, p.226]</ref>

== English Wiki Body &sect; as of 2011-10-19==

[[File:Sunyatsen1.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[Sun Yat-sen]], leader of the Chinese [[Xinhai Revolution]] in 1911.]]

The works of [[Ted Robert Gurr]], [[Ivo K. Feierbrand]], [[Rosalind L. Feierbrand]], [[James A. Geschwender]], [[David C. Schwartz]] and [[Denton E. Morrison]] fall into the first category. They followed theories of [[cognitive psychology]] and [[frustration-aggression theory]] and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g. [[modernization]], [[recession]] or [[discrimination]]), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/>

The second group, composed of academics such as [[Chalmers Johnson]], [[Neil Smelser]], [[Bob Jessop]], [[Mark Hart]], [[Edward A. Tiryakian]], [[Mark Hagopian]], followed in the footsteps of [[Talcott Parsons]] and the [[structural-functionalist]] theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/>

The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as [[Theda Skocpol]], [[Barrington Moore]], [[Jeffrey Paige]] and others expanding on the old [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[class conflict]] approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous [[elites]] and the impact of interstate [[economic]] and [[military]] competition on domestic [[political change]]. Particularly Skocpol's ''[[States and Social Revolutions]]'' became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures...accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/>

[[File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg|thumb|The rebirth of the [[Azerbaijan]] Republic as people gather at [[Azadliq Square, Baku|Azadlyg Square]], shortly after [[Black January]].]]

From the late 1980s a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explain by them. The [[Iranian Revolution|Iranian]] and [[Nicaraguan Revolution]]s of 1979, the [[1986]] [[People Power Revolution]] in the [[Philippines]] and the 1989 [[Autumn of Nations]] in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and [[General strike|mass strikes]] in [[nonviolent revolution]]s.

* [http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/29050 DailyEvergreen.com], Vive la Révolution!: Revolution is an Indelible Phenomenon Throughout History by Qasim Hussaini

* [http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1989/xx/rev-today.htm Ernest Mandel, "The Marxist Case for Revolution Today", 1989]