Revision as of 18:18, 28 February 2009 editClueBot (talk | contribs)1,596,818 editsm Reverting possible vandalism by 96.251.14.225 to version by Mentifisto. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (612398) (Bot)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:52, 2 March 2009 edit undo24.97.33.132 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'your mother like dick'Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
your mother like dick | |||
''{{Otheruses}}'' | |||
{{redirect|Revolutions}} | |||
{{redirect|Revolt}} | |||
], ] ] during the ].]] | |||
{{ Revolution sidebar |expanded=all}} | |||
A '''revolution''' (from the ] ''revolutio'', "a turn around") is a fundamental ] in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. | |||
] described two types of political revolution: | |||
# Complete change from one constitution to another | |||
# Modification of an existing constitution.<ref>Aristotle, ''The Politics'' V, tr. T.A. Sinclair (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964, 1972), p. 190.</ref> | |||
Revolutions have occurred through ] and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ]. Their results include major changes in ], ], and ]-]s. | |||
Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in ] from a ] perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several ]s, including ] and ]. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon. | |||
==Political and socioeconomic revolutions== | |||
{{quote|"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it drop."| ] <ref>"Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon", by Trisha Ziff, Abrams Image, 2006, pg 69</ref>}} | |||
Perhaps most often, the word 'revolution' is employed to denote a change in ]-]s.<ref name="Goldstonet3">], "Theories of Revolutions: The Third Generation'', '']'' 32, 1980:425-53</ref><ref name="Forantorr">], "Theories of Revolution Revisited: Toward a Fourth Generation", '']'' 11, 1993:1-20</ref><ref name="Kroeber">Clifton B. Kroeber, ''Theory and History of Revolution'', ] 7.1, 1996: 21-40</ref> ] gives two definitions of a revolution. A broad one, where revolution is "any and all instances in which a state or a political ] is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular ] in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion"; and a narrow one, in which "revolutions entail not only ] and ], but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for ] ]."<ref name="NOWO:9">Goodwin, p.9.</ref> ] defines them as | |||
<blockquote>an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and noninstitutionalized actions that undermine authorities.<ref name="Goldstonet4">Jack Goldstone, "Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory", '']'' 4, 2001:139-87</ref></blockquote> | |||
Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many ], particularly ], ]s and ]. Among the leading scholars in that area have been or are ], Charles Brockett, Farideh Farhi, ], John Mason Hart, ], ], ], Ted Roberts Gurr, ], ], Tim McDaniel, ], Jeffery Paige, ], ], ], ], ], Eric Selbin, ], Ellen Kay Trimbringer, Carlos Vistas, ], Timothy Wickham-Crowley and ].<ref name="NOWO:5">], ''No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991.'' Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.5</ref> | |||
] differentiates four 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> The scholars of the first generation such as ], ] or ], were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to ], such as Le Bon's ] theory.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> | |||
Second generation theorists sought to develop detailed ] of why and when revolutions arise, grounded in more complex ] theories. They can be divided into three major approaches: psychological, sociological and political.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> | |||
The works of Ted R. 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 ] and ] 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. ], ] or ]), 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 ], ], ], ], Edward A. Tiryakian, Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of ] and the ] 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"/> | |||
Finally, the third group, which included writers such as ], ], Peter Ammann and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of ] and looked at ] and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing ]s. In such a model, revolution happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal ] process traditional for a given ], and simultaneously have enough resources to employ ] in pursuing their goals.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> | |||
The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some ] results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (ex. a ], a ], a bad ]), now is sufficient – however if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution (through ] or ]).<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> | |||
{{quote|"A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets."| ] <ref>Journal of International Affairs, By Columbia University. School of International Affairs, 1976, pg 94</ref>}} | |||
Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases--famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, like the ] (1688), the ] (1789–1799), the ] and the ] (1927-1949).<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> In his famous "]", however, the eminent Harvard historian, ], focused on the ], the ], the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.<ref>Crane Brinton, '']'', revised ed. (New York, Vintage Books, 1965). First edition, 1938.</ref> In time, scholars began to analyze hundreds of other events as revolutions (see ]), and differences in definitions and approaches gave rise to new definitions and explanations. The theories of the second generation have been criticized for their limited geographical scope, difficulty in ] verification, as well as that while they may explain some particular revolutions, they did not explain why revolutions did not occur in other societies in very similar situations.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> | |||
The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as ], ], Jeffrey Paige and others expanding on the old ] ] approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous ] and the impact of interstate ] and ] competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's '']'' 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"/> | |||
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 ] and ]s of 1979, the ] ] in the ] and the 1989 ] in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and ]s in ]s. Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and ]s conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions, firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated ] theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious ] in the form of ] and ] in shaping revolutionary ] and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and ]s realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on ] has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> | |||
While revolutions encompass events ranging from ] to the ], they exclude ]s, ]s, ] that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as ]'s ] of 1926 or the ]), as well as peaceful transitions to ] through institutional arrangements such as ]s and ], as in ] after the death of ].<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> | |||
==Types of revolutions== | |||
{{quote|"Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one ] overthrows another."| ] <ref>"Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon", by Trisha Ziff, Abrams Image, 2006, pg 66</ref>}} | |||
There are many different ] of revolutions in social science and literature. For example, classical scholar ] differentiated<ref>Roger Boesche, ''Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism'', Lexington Books, 2006, ISBN 0739116657, </ref> between 1) ]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. ]). One of several different ] 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> ], a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated<ref>], ''''European Revolutions, 1492-1992'', Blackwell Publishing, 1995, ISBN 0631199039, </ref> between a ], a top-down seizure of power, a ], a ] and a "great revolution" (revolutions that transform economic and social structures as well as political institutions, such as the ] of 1789, ], or ]).<ref>], "Iran in History", Moshe Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University]</ref> Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the ]s; ] or ]s inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace ] with ]); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization) or violent vs. ]s. | |||
The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in ], ], ] and ] much more than ]s; they are often known as ]s.<ref>Irving E. Fang, ''A History of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions'', Focal Press, 1997, ISBN 0240802543, </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 ] (note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville).<ref>Warwick E. Murray, Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0415318009, </ref> | |||
==List of revolutions== | |||
For a list of revolutions see: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
==See also== | |||
{{Multicol}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{Multicol-break}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{Multicol-break}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{Multicol-end}} | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
==Bibliography== | |||
*Perreau-Sausine, Emile, ''Les libéraux face aux révolutions : 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933'', Commentaire, Spring 2005, pp. 181-193 | |||
==External links== | |||
{{wikiquote}} | |||
* ], , 1963, Penguin Classics, New Ed edition: February 8, 1991. ISBN 014018421X | |||
* | |||
* John Kekes, , City Journal, Spring 2006. | |||
* Plinio Correa de Oliveira, , Foundation for a Christian, Third edition, 1993. ISBN 1877905275 | |||
* Michael Barken, , 1 November 2006. | |||
* | |||
<!--Categories--> | |||
] | |||
<!--Other languages--> | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Revision as of 16:52, 2 March 2009
your mother like dick