Are Revolutions Inherently Violent?

“Are revolutions inherently violent?”


Within the complex nature of the process of “revolution” itself, we do not see any standard sequence of events or stages which must somehow play out in each transfer of power, except those which are inherent in the definition of revolution itself. In appraising first these values, we can begin to judge whether violence plays an inherently significant part in all revolutions. Firstly there comes the breaking of an existing political system - next a struggle and finally a subsequent re-establishment of a single system, supposedly replacing the old.[1] However, we must not confine the use of violence merely to the “struggle” phase - examples from history teach us that it can be entirely homogenous throughout all three stages. Therefore, in a concerted attempt to judge whether violence is inherent to the success of revolutions - we must ask whether direct change can be achieve through peaceful measures? Marxism stated otherwise, that in its penultimate stage would come the brutal ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ where the bourgeoisie would be deposed through violent, and popular insurrection. Perhaps it was ultimately fitting that European Communism would end non-violently with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the realisations of Gorbachev’s “glasnost” policy. Perhaps it is something of violence which goes hand in hand with the popular appeal of revolution, the unbridled emotion and fierce implementation of Revolutionary “justice” no clearer seen than through the Terror following the French Revolution. Therefore, despite it’s short length, the proposed question offers much scope for debate and insight into the very nature revolutions have taken throughout history, and how their actions have shaped future insurrectionary movements worldwide.

A good starting point would no doubt be the French Revolution, with its obvious history of insurrectionary violence and instability. Baker, on writing about the invention of the French Revolution, notions to Rétat, claiming than in a revolution, “all remedies being exhausted, a crisis was necessary, and in these violent crises only strong constitutions resist.”[2] Using the word “crisis” alludes to the fact that the revolution was to be experienced as a terrifying moment of violence and danger, a period of agitation and subsequent anguish.[3] One can identify, throughout the early editions of Révolutions De Paris, a clear emphasis of the horror of revolutionary violence, to quote Rétat once more : “this day was frightening and terrible : it marked the people’s vengeance against its oppressors.”[4] Much use is made of the word “horror” to signify the basic carnage of the revolution. Reference is made to “terrible scenes” which have supposedly frightened foreign enemies of France - a clear indication into the bloody and brutal internal conflict within the Revolution. We can gather, using eyewitness accounts as primary sources, the discernable fact that violence was countrywide throughout the revolution. In a petition to the National Assembly in 1789 an individual draws attention to “a band of brigands” laying waste to his agriculture and land.[5] Herein we can identify that grievances, be they political or otherwise, were very often settled during the Revolution through standard use of violence. We can see, therefore, that the heightened tensions prevalent through Revolutionary times went hand in hand with the use of violence which would certainly most not have existed in ‘peace’ time. Furthermore from an eyewitness account of the September Massacres we can determine that the violence present during the French Revolution was uncompromising in its plan and execution - nobody, seemingly, was exempt. The eyewitness reports Princesses’ being “butchered in the most shocking manner”[6] and gives clear evidence of the indiscriminate nature violence often took in Revolutionary France.

Through this last example especially, we can see that Revolutions can often usher in new phases of extreme terror and violence - in complete antithesis to their supposed aims at regenerative peace. We may draw illuminating comparisons at this point between the French and Russian examples of Revolution. In the example of Russia, it is possible to suggest violence as a way of life - a continuous presence throughout the course of a prolonged revolution dating from the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 until the brutal civil war in 1918 and beyond into Stalin’s Terror. Thus is we comply with the assertion that every revolution produces a backlash against it - do we not see as violence playing an inherently significant role? Terror, therefore, is no longer a response : it is an anticipation, an instrument which galvanised Revolutionaries throughout history. Terror must not be seen as a consequence of Revolution, but an aspect of it and therefore inseparable from it. Of course, we may argue that perhaps violence is a unique characteristic of the Russian social discourse - yet to note that periods of supposed “Revolution” go hand in hand with unprecedented levels of agitation and violence would be mostly very valid. Perhaps this might help explain why the policies of collectivisation under Stalin resulted in such extreme reaction from the Russian peasantry - that Russia has been through a period of total and continuous warfare, both external and internal. This process thus intensified after the Bolshevik seizure of power, making the Stalinist Terror all the more likely. Revolution as a concept may well then exacerbate pre-existing tendencies for violence - giving such acts a moral and social justification. We see violence again, in both Russia and France, as the fulfilment of ‘Revolutionary Justice’ - the enactment of the revolution through the most extreme means. The order for intensified Red Terror[7] on September 4th implies this fact ; “not the least wavering, not the least indecision in the application of mass terror”. Furthermore, the examples of Russia and France show us that the permeation of violence throughout the Revolutionary period is not always consistent. The storming of the Bastille in France and the Winter Palace in Russia were met with very little resistance, yet had immense symbolism for the success of both Revolutions. Many historians have sought to explain the use of Terror in the aftermath of Revolution as a continuation of the violence that was prevalent to the displaced old regimes. Yet, comparing the amount killed between the old regimes and the post-revolutionary eras, a clear pattern suggests the death toll is much heavier on the latter. Therefore, is the violence of the Revolution something different than just a continuation of old habits? The concept of virtue through terror is perhaps applicable here, that only through ultimate sacrifice and terror would the true potential of the Revolution be realised.

However, to label all insurrectionary movements as inherently violent would perhaps be a generalisation. The examples of Danton and Mazzini in France and Italy respectively show the emphasis also placed on an ideological yearning for a better system of government. Danton’s campaign was to induce a favourable change of climate among the public by means of journals.[8] Mazzini’s attempt at intellectualising the liberal elites within Northern Italy, notably through creating Young Italy, stressed non-violent techniques and methods. Yet we may make an interesting point here, that only amongst liberal upper-class intellectuals and thinkers were ideas of non-violence promulgated. The importance of violence within Revolution lies at the grass-roots of any nation, its peasantry and industrial working class. We may use this argument to detract importance away from such writers as Danton and to unrest created by those with real life grievances. Violence was a conceivably rational means to any supposedly morally defensible cause.[9] In both France and Russia, there were peasant revolutions that were emancipatory in their consequences, that was not merely a ritualistic expression of violence but exhibited choices of targets and tactics guided by reason. To peasants in Revolution, violence was the only way of conveying their displeasure and achieving their aims. The peasantry in Russia had been violently rising up against landlords since 1861, similarly in France. Yet there is very little written material to provide evidence for such peasantry violence - it is more likely that the use of violence was more social than political, a way of settling old scores, far from being politically motivated. However, that would not be to deny that the existence of such a violent mindset undoubtedly adds to the systematic use of violence during a perceived Revolution. Furthermore, we may add an increased role of violence within Revolution if we see military struggle as a part of any Revolution. The Russian Civil War and the Piedmontese Wars in Italy provide excellent examples here. Garibaldi stated that “it is not with shouts or applause that we should fight the enemies of our country, but with weapons and the shedding of blood.”[10] Clearly, the violent implication is self-evident - yet what this also shows us is that ideology and rigorous speech is never enough to force change, successful revolutions depend therefore upon a struggle. Without such a struggle, without galvanising grass-roots support for a revolutionary cause (as Castro infamously did in Cuba), there can be no Revolutionary victory as the established institutions do not crumble at mere words. Mazzini, for example, experienced little long-term success as he showed little interest in the material grievances that lay behind the discontents of the artisans and urban workers.[11] One may argue that Mazzini’s contribution to the question of whether revolutions are inherently violent or not is great, in that he showcases Revolutionary failure through non-association with direct action. He stated, “all great national enterprises have ever been originated by men of the people, whose sole strength lay in that power of faith and will”[12] - when contrasted with Garibaldi’s militaristic approach, we can clearly see why the latter was infinitely more successful in bringing about Revolutionary change.

To be angry does not necessarily mean that one is blinded by anger, and to be violent does not mean that one’s actions are unreasoned[13] - rather, it is the ultimate expression of dissatisfaction with a particular situation. Revolutions are borne of such dissatisfaction - and therefore the violent response is expected and justifiable. Violence can exist within the initial stages of Revolution, perhaps even pre-dating the historically given starting date for Revolution, like the emancipation of the Russian serfs in 1861. It can, furthermore, exist within the transitional period - the struggle phase is characterised by a violent upheaval. Lastly, the aftermath of Revolution is further littered with violence as the necessity of “Terror” to back the changes of Revolution becomes necessary. Robespierre noted that, “If the dynamic of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the dynamic of popular government in revolution is both virtue and terror.”[14] The primary examples used, that of France and Russia, show that violence both pre-empted and followed Revolution. In both cases such violence tended to be more extreme in the aftermath of Revolution, in the attempt to hold onto power - the Terror in France and the Civil War in Russia. What must be emphasised is that existing institutions do not merely crumble, they must be shook. Of course, the obvious exception is that of the Provisional Government in 1917, yet we may take this as an exceptional circumstance due to its inherent weakness. Revolutions cannot achieve their consistently radical aims without some form of the more powerful form of expression - that of violence. The spread of such violence through all spectrums of society implies this very fact, that violence is omnipotent within Revolution - the two go hand in hand. In recent years bloody internal conflicts have erupted worldwide, in places such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan and Chechnya - all display certain qualities of “Revolutions”. Such Revolutions and their internal violent civil wars are now common than interstate wars. Moreover, a resurgence in ethnic and religious identifications, and the increasing polarisation between Eastern and Western values, have been cited as worrisome portents of conflict to come. The rise in international terrorism, genocide and the continued repressiveness of both Left and Right wing regimes around the world has made political violence through Revolutionary intent a part of everyday politics. Take for example South America in the 20th Century, it was a hotbed of regime instability, political violence and Revolutionary overhaul of governments. Cuba has already been cited, but we may also include Argentina - the overthrow of the Batista regime and the countless Right-wing coups in Nicaragua, often sponsored by CIA financed insurrectionists.

The common theme that connects all of these is that of violence - its prevalence through the origins, the actions and the aftermath of Revolution underline the stated argument that Revolutions are, indeed, inherently violent. Such a degree of political change requires, it may be argued, an extreme reaction in order to force such change.



Bibliography

Primary Sources :-

H. Butterfield, Select Documents of European History vol.III 1715-1920 (London, 1931)

“Intensification of the Red Terror”, 4-5 September 1918, in Documents of Soviet History (1991), vol.1

“Petition to the National Assembly, 20 August 1789” from the Comte de Germiny, in J. M Roberts, ed., French Revolution Documents (1966) vol.1

Report by Col. Munro on the September Massacres of 1792, in O. Browning (ed.), The Dispatches of Earl Gower (1885)

Preamble to the Constitution of 1791, in Les Constitutions de la France depuis 1789(1970)

Alexis de Tocqueville, L’Ancien régime et al révolution (1856), (ed.) J.P Mayer (1967)

Gen. Giuseppe Garibaldi from D. Mack Smith (ed.) Garibaldi

“Civil War in the Pipe Factory”, 20 May 1917, in R.P Browder, A.F Kerensky (eds.), The Russian Provisional Government 1917 (Stanford, 1961), vol.2

Secondary Sources :-

R. Chartier, Cultural Origins of the French Revolution (Duke University Press, 1991)

S. Schama, Citizens : A Chronicle of the French Revolution (Penguin, 1989)

G. Kates, The French Revolution : Recent Debates and Controversies (Routledge, 1998)

T. Blanning (ed.), The Rise and Fall of the French Revolution (Chicago, 1996)

J. Davis, Conflict and Control, Law and Order in 19th Century Italy (Macmillan, 1988)

O. Figes, People’s Tragedy : The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 (Pimlico, 1997)
[1] R. Price, Revolution and Reaction : 1848 and the Second French Republic (London, 1975)pp238
[2] K. Baker, Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge University Press 1990) pp222-223
[3] IBID
[4] Pierre Rétat, Les Révolutions de Paris en 1789 in Labrosse : L’instrument péridodique (Lyon 1986) p139
[5] “Petition to the National Assembly, 20 August 1789” from the Comte de Germiny, in J. M Roberts, ed., French Revolution Documents (1966) vol.1 pp.140-1
[6] Report by Col. Munro on the September Massacres of 1792, in O. Browning (ed.), The Dispatches of Earl Gower (1885) pp.226-9
[7] “Intensification of the Red Terror”, 4-5 September 1918, in Documents of Soviet History (1991), vol.1, pp.214--215
[8] Description of Georges-Jacques Danton’s political principles and hopes in J. Garat (trans.) 1793-94
[9] G. Kates (ed.) French Revolution : Recent debates and new controversies (London, 1998) pp112-118
[10] Gen. Giuseppe Garibaldi from D. Mack Smith (ed.) Garibaldi p63
[11] J. Davis, Conflict and Control : Law and Order in 19th Century Italy (Macmillan, 1988) pp88-91
[12] H. Butterfield, Select Documents of European History vol.III 1715-1920 (London, 1931) pp40-41
[13] G. Kates (ed.) French Revolution : Recent debates and new controversies (London, 1998) pp112-118
[14] Maximilien Robespierre, translated extracts from speech to the Convention by the Committee of Public Safety (5 Feb. 1794) in M. Bouloiseau & A.Soboul (eds.) Oeuvres de Maximilien Robespierre (1967), vol.10, pp.352-3