![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
migmitThere are different kinds of revolutions.
The most tame, most enjoyable kind is a palace revolution. Somebody who is already in power, but is not on top of the pyramid, tells the guy who is on top to go away and takes his place. The previous ruler might be killed, or exiled, or simply forced to retire. The important thing is, common folks usually don't see much, and are relatively safe. For a while.
The polar opposite of it is, of course, the widespread, spontaneous rebellion. Regular people are pushed too far, they rebel, and manage to overthrow their evil overlords. They don't usually have a very clear vision of what to do next, and their organisational structure is kinda lax, so who gets the throne afterwards isn't exactly clear. Something like this happened, I think, in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, which resulted in president Yanukovych fleeing the country, and Petro Poroshenko becoming the new president.
But it also happens that the rebellion is not spontaneous at all. That it was carefully crafted and prepared for quite a long time, that there are people tirelessly working on organizing it, supplying it, establishing the command structure. The kind that happened in November 1917 in Russia.
But that last kind of revolution isn't just an evil plot of a few people, no. And here we can turn to the works of none other than Vladimir Lenin. Say what you want about that guy (and there is quite a lot to say), but he did know a few things about making a revolution. Specifically, a revolution of this third kind.
Lenin introduced a concept of a "revolutionary situation". Basically, if there is a revolutionary situation in the country, then a revolution can succeed. A group of cunning and motivated people can sway the large chunk of the country's population into rebelling. Their success is not guaranteed, but quite possible. If there is no revolutionary situation, then it is hopeless. Revolution — of that third kind — won't happen.
Now, the revolutionary situation is usually characterised as "the bottom has no desire, the top has no ability". Kinky as it might sound, the actual meaning is quite serious: those who are not in power don't want to preserve the status quo, while those who are in power can't really enforce it. When people are generally happy, revolution can't happen — nobody would rebel, as there is nothing to gain. When people are unhappy, but the government maintains an iron grip on the population — again, revolution won't happen, and any attempt would be crushed.
All of this was a lengthy prelude to the discussion about the current situation in the Evil Empire. I've read and heard quite a lot how the West hopes for a rebellion, and how it won't happen. Natalia Zubarevich, a great economist, phrased it quite interestingly: she said "people won't be happy, they would curse and swear in their kitchens, but they won't take it on the streets, they won't rebel". Which, I think, is accurate. But that only means the revolution of the second kind won't happen. At the same time, those profanity-laden talks at the kitchen counters constitute the first part of the revolutionary situation: the bottom has no desire.
As for the top's ability, well, that is debatable. It is true that peaceful protests, whenever those happen, are brutally crushed. But lately we've seen quite clearly how badly the ruskies perform against an enemy that is willing to fight. When the army is that bad — it doesn't seem to be a stretch to assume the police isn't in their top shape either. If a violent protest happens — the "cosmonauts" (as those policemen are sometimes called because of their spherical protective helmets) might not do that well. Now, as I've said before, it won't happen by itself, at least not on a large scale. But still, it might mean we have a second part of a revolutionary situation here.
Lenin actually wrote about a third part as well, though it is less known due to the catchiness of the two-part version. The third part is people's activity, people's involvement in political process; and here the situation appears most grim. The aforementioned cursing and swearing doesn't cut it. However, the emerging revolutionary situation might get a hand from an unusual ally: Putler himself.
See, it does seem like there is a trend in the Evil Empire: people are forced to take a stand. The stand to take is, of course, the officially-approved one, but it seems that now it isn't enough to not go against the official line; now it's necessary to actively support it. And that means people's engagement. Sure, not a good one; but it might be a start.
Let's recap. The bottom has no desire: check. The top has no ability: sounds like a good bet. People's activity: well, maybe. What we have now is a revolutionary situation in the making, although it does seem sloppy for now.
So, what's next? Well, even with a fully-formed revolutionary situation, there is still a need for this group of people to put it to good use. Some Jim diGriz of sorts, to turn a revolutionary situation into a revolution. But here is a thing: with a pool of about 140 million people (I have doubts about that number, but that's for another time) there is a chance of some crook, or some group of crooks that don't have anything better to do, to actually bring it to fruition.
Will the revolution happen? Second kind (spontaneous rebellion) — definitely not. But the third kind has a chance.
Personally, I would rather hope for the first kind (palace revolution). We'll see how it goes. Most likely, no kind of a revolution would happen, I'm just arguing that it's not that certain.
The most tame, most enjoyable kind is a palace revolution. Somebody who is already in power, but is not on top of the pyramid, tells the guy who is on top to go away and takes his place. The previous ruler might be killed, or exiled, or simply forced to retire. The important thing is, common folks usually don't see much, and are relatively safe. For a while.
The polar opposite of it is, of course, the widespread, spontaneous rebellion. Regular people are pushed too far, they rebel, and manage to overthrow their evil overlords. They don't usually have a very clear vision of what to do next, and their organisational structure is kinda lax, so who gets the throne afterwards isn't exactly clear. Something like this happened, I think, in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, which resulted in president Yanukovych fleeing the country, and Petro Poroshenko becoming the new president.
But it also happens that the rebellion is not spontaneous at all. That it was carefully crafted and prepared for quite a long time, that there are people tirelessly working on organizing it, supplying it, establishing the command structure. The kind that happened in November 1917 in Russia.
But that last kind of revolution isn't just an evil plot of a few people, no. And here we can turn to the works of none other than Vladimir Lenin. Say what you want about that guy (and there is quite a lot to say), but he did know a few things about making a revolution. Specifically, a revolution of this third kind.
Lenin introduced a concept of a "revolutionary situation". Basically, if there is a revolutionary situation in the country, then a revolution can succeed. A group of cunning and motivated people can sway the large chunk of the country's population into rebelling. Their success is not guaranteed, but quite possible. If there is no revolutionary situation, then it is hopeless. Revolution — of that third kind — won't happen.
Now, the revolutionary situation is usually characterised as "the bottom has no desire, the top has no ability". Kinky as it might sound, the actual meaning is quite serious: those who are not in power don't want to preserve the status quo, while those who are in power can't really enforce it. When people are generally happy, revolution can't happen — nobody would rebel, as there is nothing to gain. When people are unhappy, but the government maintains an iron grip on the population — again, revolution won't happen, and any attempt would be crushed.
All of this was a lengthy prelude to the discussion about the current situation in the Evil Empire. I've read and heard quite a lot how the West hopes for a rebellion, and how it won't happen. Natalia Zubarevich, a great economist, phrased it quite interestingly: she said "people won't be happy, they would curse and swear in their kitchens, but they won't take it on the streets, they won't rebel". Which, I think, is accurate. But that only means the revolution of the second kind won't happen. At the same time, those profanity-laden talks at the kitchen counters constitute the first part of the revolutionary situation: the bottom has no desire.
As for the top's ability, well, that is debatable. It is true that peaceful protests, whenever those happen, are brutally crushed. But lately we've seen quite clearly how badly the ruskies perform against an enemy that is willing to fight. When the army is that bad — it doesn't seem to be a stretch to assume the police isn't in their top shape either. If a violent protest happens — the "cosmonauts" (as those policemen are sometimes called because of their spherical protective helmets) might not do that well. Now, as I've said before, it won't happen by itself, at least not on a large scale. But still, it might mean we have a second part of a revolutionary situation here.
Lenin actually wrote about a third part as well, though it is less known due to the catchiness of the two-part version. The third part is people's activity, people's involvement in political process; and here the situation appears most grim. The aforementioned cursing and swearing doesn't cut it. However, the emerging revolutionary situation might get a hand from an unusual ally: Putler himself.
See, it does seem like there is a trend in the Evil Empire: people are forced to take a stand. The stand to take is, of course, the officially-approved one, but it seems that now it isn't enough to not go against the official line; now it's necessary to actively support it. And that means people's engagement. Sure, not a good one; but it might be a start.
Let's recap. The bottom has no desire: check. The top has no ability: sounds like a good bet. People's activity: well, maybe. What we have now is a revolutionary situation in the making, although it does seem sloppy for now.
So, what's next? Well, even with a fully-formed revolutionary situation, there is still a need for this group of people to put it to good use. Some Jim diGriz of sorts, to turn a revolutionary situation into a revolution. But here is a thing: with a pool of about 140 million people (I have doubts about that number, but that's for another time) there is a chance of some crook, or some group of crooks that don't have anything better to do, to actually bring it to fruition.
Will the revolution happen? Second kind (spontaneous rebellion) — definitely not. But the third kind has a chance.
Personally, I would rather hope for the first kind (palace revolution). We'll see how it goes. Most likely, no kind of a revolution would happen, I'm just arguing that it's not that certain.
