POLSCI 137H Midterm

theories for revolution

A&R main theory/argument

• conflict between elite (rich minority) and citizens (poor majority)

• who holds de jure and de facto power depends on whether the gov is democratic or non democratic

• level of inequality between elite and citizens determines uprisings

A&R key terms

• de jure: legal power

• de facto: political power

• landed elites: elites whose wealth is in the land they own (unmovable)

• capital/industrial elites: elites who’s wealth is in the bank (movable) and depend on worker labor

A&R - How revolution happens

• elites use power to keep favorable policies

• citizens want to mobilize, giving them de facto power

• elites can give citizens concessions but take them away when mobilization stops

• to prevent this, citizens demand democratization, giving them de facto AND de jure power

• revolution → more likely if there is high inequality between citizens and elites b/c repression is cheaper and if it fails, citizens will revolt

A&R mapped onto Russia

• Tsar had de jure power for long time, but WW1 gave citizens de facto power and allowed them to pose a threat

• Tsar Nicholas created the Duma and institutionalized credible commitment to citizens to avoid revolution, but he took it back when threats died down

• continuous non credible promises led citizens to overthrowing the Tsar in 1917 using de facto power

A&R emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: poor civilians, rich elites

• missing actors: leaders, social classes between the two given

A&R theory strengths

• explains political transitions through economic reasons

• easy to apply to situations since it focuses on two categories of power

A&R theory weaknesses

• overlooks middle class, religious groups, ethnic factions, and sub groups within the elite

• assumes the masses can easily organize and pose a threat to elites

• only looks at economic reasoning for revolution, overlooks ideological reasoning

• isn’t very applicable to post-colonial states

Marx & Engels main theory/argument

• class struggle will end up in socialism

• working class should fight state through revolution instead of getting political power

• proletariats have the power because of the master-slave dialect

• one class oppresses the other, revolution will happen in industrialized society

Marx & Engels key concepts

• socialism: means of production owned by society as a whole rather than private individuals

• Bourgeoisie: capitalist, rich, elite class, they own means of production

• Proletariats: working class, works under the bourgeoisie for wage labor

• industrialization: shift from agriculture and manual labor to machinery, factories, and manufacturing

Marx & Engels - how revolution happens

• international competition & technological change → lower wages and poor work conditions

• working class moves to cities, interacts with capitalists more, running to conflicts leading to polarization

• proletariats are ready to revolt, and a portion of the bourgeoisie defects and joins them (usually leaders/intellectuals)

• balance of power tips in the favor of the workers b/c they are the majority

Marx & Engels mapped onto Russia

• doesn’t apply because Russia wasn’t highly industrialized and capitalist, yet revolution still occurred

• proletariats were a small proportion, not a majority

• Russian workers didn’t have time to develop class consciousness, they were led by intellectuals (Bolsheviks) instead

Marx & Engels emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: Bourgeoisie, Proletariats, intellectuals within the Bourgeoisie (leaders of revolution)

• missing actors: middle class

Marx & Engels theory strengths

• highlights how economic systems, land relations, and class interests shape politics and law

• critiques capitalism

• based on evidence of real world working conditions and historical transitions

• first to predict globalization and the expansion of capitalism

Marx & Engels theory limitations

• predicted that revolutions would happen in industrialized nations, but they occurred in agrarian, preindustrial societies

• capitalism adapted to making workers more comfy and happy, which theory doesn’t consider

• doesn’t consider the rise of the middle class

• overemphasizes economics and downplays religion, nationalism, race, and culture

• state doesn’t always “wilt away” after revolution, sometimes it becomes more oppressive and abusive to citizens

Davies main theory/argument

• gap between people’s expectations vs what they actually get is what produces revolutions

• key mechanism is psychological, not material, we should look at how people are FEELING

Davies key concepts

• expectations

• frustrations

Davies - how revolution happens

• J-curve hypothesis: long period of economic and social progress is followed by a sudden downturn

• after having needs met for so long, now that they have been taken away, people are upset and believe they deserve more

• gap between what they want and what they deserve grows larger

• people eventually rebel

Davies mapped onto Russia

• matches Russia’s long state of improvement from 1890-1914, a period of rapid industrialization and economic growth

• matches short sharp reversal that followed through WW1

• matches shock and spark in 1917, where people could no longer tolerate the loss of progress that they had achieved so far

Davies - actors emphasized and missing

• emphasized actors: people as a whole

• missing actors: elites, the poor, leaders, politicians, social classes

Davies theory strengths

• applicable to many situations since it just looks at how people are feeling

• explains the timing of revolts rather than concluding that oppression lead to them

• fits French and Russian revolution well

• draws attention to human perception instead of just looking at wealth and resources

Davies theory limitations

• explains a revolution after it happens, but can’t predict one starting

• difficult to measure since you can’t just measure expectations and frustrations of people

• assumes people will work together just based on their individual frustrations

• overlooks structural factors like gov organization, military strength, foreign intervention

Olson main theory/argument

• collective action problem b/c if everyone wants revolution, these elements interfere

  • large groups means individual contributions aren’t enough to tip the scale

  • participation has an individual cost

  • outcome is a public good, non-excludable and non-rival

• solution to the problem is providing selective benefits

Olson key concepts

• rational choice: people will free ride and choose not to participate

• non-excludable: everybody can access the public good or benefit of collective action

• non-rival: one person using the good doesn’t rob another person from using it

• selective benefits: an attraction or reward that is distinct from the public good itself

Olson - how revolution happens

• only if selective benefits are offered will people contribute to a public good, in this case revolution

• there could be leadership or community benefits from revolting as well

Olson mapped onto Russia

• explains rise of Bolsheviks, a small disciplined group that provided selective benefits to its members

Olson - actors emphasized and missing

• emphasized actors: individuals

• missing actors: social classes, leaders, ideological groups

Olson theory strengths

• explains rarity of revolutions — why so many people live under oppression and are unable to successfully revolt

• demonstrates that successful revolts are always done by small, disciplined secret groups

• explains how revolutionary militias are able to recruit — there are selective benefits like social status and protection from the enemy

• explains why revolutions succeed only when the elite or military falls apart — there is less risk in participating when this happens so more people are willing to revolt

Olson theory weaknesses

• can’t predict when a revolution will happen

• underestimates human emotions like moral outrage, sense of injustice

• sees the cost of protesting as negative, but people can gain popularity, agency, and community through protesting

• doesn’t explain massive leaderless uprisings where people have overthrown the gov without formal selective benefits

McAdam main theory/argument

• people’s ties and networks play a key role in explaining why individuals mobilize

• biographical availability and individual beliefs affect people’s decisions on whether to participate or not

McAdam key concepts

• biographical availability: where you are in the life course (marriage, parenthood, education, employment status)

• idealism: individuals feeling like they must help, that they can’t sit and do nothing while injustice and discrimination takes place, they must take action to help

McAdam - how revolution happens

• people who have organized before, or who are already part of orgs/groups, are the ones who overcome the costs and risks of participating (biographical availability plays into this)

• those who don’t have previous organizing experience or who aren’t part of groups still want to protest due to biographical availability and idealism, but they tend to withdraw b/c the risk is higher for them

McAdam mapped onto Russia

• there was political opportunity after WW1 when the tsarist state was weakened (less capable of repression)

• explains how the masses mobilized through existing structures and groups such as worker and soldier councils and pre-existing factory committees

McAdams - emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: students, religious groups, civil rights orgs, teachers groups, elite people

• missing actors: social classes

McAdams theory strengths

• explains that large scale structural shift is enough to motivate an individual to mobilize

• shows that selective benefits aren’t needed, people can mobilize through existing networks/orgs

• explains how idealism leads people from quiet anger to active mobilization

• maps mobilization over time as a continuous process

McAdam theory limitations

• only applies to democratic/western states, not so much to highly repressive autocracies

• assumes that the gov is the only target of mobilization

• more emphasis on political opportunities than human emotion

Kuran main theory/argument

• theory of individual decision-making

• each person has private and public preferences

• there’s no choice to be neutral in one’s public preferences, one has to actively support the status quo or oppose it

• we each have a different cost of preference falsification

• each person has a threshold for joining active opposition, but it’s invisible so nobody really knows where anybody stands

Kuran key concepts

• private preference: what the person really wants

• public preference: how we choose to act, what preferences we choose to portray

• preference falsification: concealing one’s private preferences when acting

• threshold: where the cost of public opposition falls below internal cost of preference falsification (a willingness to participate if enough other people do so)

Kuran - how revolution happens

• when a sequence of thresholds perfectly aligns, creating a dominos effect, revolution will happen

• if just one person’s threshold is off, it can ruin the sequence and no revolution will happen

• perfectly distributed threshold sequence: (0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90)

Kuran mapped onto Russia

• can explain the suddenness of the February revolution

• few women and workers started the strike, hitting thresholds of the surrounding soldiers who joined them in protest instead of firing on the crowds

Kuran emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: ordinary everyday people

• missing actors: social classes, elites, leaders, politicians, groups

Kuran theory strengths

• explains why revolutions are often unpredictable and often surprise people

• explains how certain regimes that appeared completely stable suddenly fell - people were committing preference falsification

• focus on individual agency and fear rather than seeing people as just pawns in something bigger

• can explain post-revolutionary reversals, once a regime falls and new standards are set, there are new social expectations, potentially continuing the cycle of preference falsification

Kuran theory limitations

• cannot actually be used to predict a revolution

• underestimates the importance of organizing in revolutions, focuses more on spontaneity

• overlooks a state’s hard power and their ability to suppress a cascade of people

Scott main theory/argument

• non-mobilization doesn’t mean there isn’t any struggle

• the peasantry don’t rise up because they can perform everyday forms of resistance instead which are:

  • less risky

  • effective at relieving pressures on their lives

  • can potentially force the powerful to change their policies

• as long as these work, there’s no need for direct confrontation or revolt

Scott theory key concepts

• everyday forms of resistance: requires little coordination/planning, individual self help, avoids direct confrontation with authority or elites

• foot dragging, dissimulation, desertion, false compliance, sabotage, slander

• hidden transcript: private language through jokes, songs, cultural tricks that only the oppressed group knows

Scott - how revolution happens

• theory mainly explains non-mobilization

• but if the hidden transcript suddenly becomes public after everyday resistance has occurred for a while, revolution can happen

Scott theory mapped onto Russia

• applies to rural peasant life before the 1917 revolution

  • Russian peasants couldn’t revel without being slaughtered by Cossacks

  • peasants hid grain harvest from tax collectors, illegally cut wood on noble estates, and deserted from the tsarist army

  • these everyday forms of resistance chipped away at the foundations of the empire

Scott- emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: oppressed, unorganized masses

• missing actors: political governmental leaders, elite leaders

Scott theory strengths

• broadens definition of what is considered a political act

• is realistic to people living under extreme oppression

• proves that the poor are aware of their exploitation and are just playing along publicly to survive

• explains how massive systems can fail without protests

Scott theory limitations

• everyday acts of resistance might actually prevent revolutions rather than help them

• romanticizes petty/harmful behavior

• cannot explain institutional or structural change

• everyday forms of resistance wouldn’t work on regimes that are totalitarian, modern, and extremely high tech since they could repress people instantly

Gaventa main theory/argument

• the powerful prevent revolts through 3 dimensions of power

• first dimension: A uses power to win against B when the issues at stake come up for resolution

• second dimension: A uses power to prevent B from raising issues he wants to discuss

• third dimension: A uses power to shape how B sees the issues

Gaventa key concepts

• 1st dimension: the use of resources to win when conflicts arise

• 2nd dimension: intimidation, co-optation, other ways of preventing conflict from arising, keeping issues off the table

• 3rd dimension: information control, myths and ideologies, psychological adaptations by the powerless

Gaventa - how revolution happens

• mobilization can happen if the oppressed shatter the 3 dimensions in reverse order

Gaventa mapped onto Russia

• explains long centuries of peasant passivity before the 1917 revolution

• Russian church and Tsarist had ideological control (3rd dimension), conditioning peasants to believe that the Tsar was God’s chosen “little father” and that their poverty was divine will

• explains the power breaking through external shock: WW1 industrial slaughter and economic ruin helped the lower classes realize that the system was illegitimate

Gaventa emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: oppressed, powerless masses, and powerful elites, the outside challenger

• missing actors: leaders, other social classes, orgs/groups

Gaventa theory strengths

• explains why people endure exploitation and oppression for so long

• exposes hidden forms of power

• based on real world case study

• challenges the idea that humans have perfect rationality, shows how human psychology is affected by extreme oppression

Gaventa theory limitations

• assumes the poor don’t know whats good for them

• doesn’t account for everyday resistance, assumes the masses are just staying quiet the whole time

• no way to measure the third dimension of power (ideological control)

• makes the elite seem too flawless and powerful, doesn’t explain bottom-up uprisings that occurred without obvious elite vulnerabilities

Collier main theory/argument

• people rise up because they see an opportunity to gain

• conflict provides opportunities for enrichment

• the narrative of grievance is used by rebel elites to hide their true financial motivations

Collier key concepts

• opportunity cost: the lost benefit a person could’ve enjoyed if they don’t rebel

• diaspora - large communities of emigrants living in wealthy, western democracies who are far away from the horrors of the conflict

  • they financially support rebels b/c they are susceptible to romanticizing the rebel rhetoric

Collier - how revolution happens

• relationship between poverty and rebellion is driven by opportunity cost

• people that have fewer legal/formal opportunities are more willing to risk rebelling for the wages & economic opportunities it can generate

• opportunities for resources that are bootable (diamonds, timber, gold, oil) can drive revolution

• rebels have to prepare before “launching”

  • assemble fighters and civilian supporters

  • build structures of command and control

  • train for combat

  • build bases and sanctuaries

Collier mapped onto Russia

• doesn’t apply because deep systemic grievances were the absolute primary reason for revolution (starvation, landlessness, war casualties)

• doesn’t explain Lenin and the Bolsheviks’ ideological devotion to Marxist theory

Collier- emphasized and missing actors

• emphasized actors: elite rebel leaders, fighters, regular citizens, diaspora, companies that hold lootable resources, economic interest groups

• missing actors: social classes, elites that aren’t rebel leaders

Collier theory strengths

• explains real world resource wars

• bypasses the collective action problem by providing immediate private goods to those who rebel

Collier theory limitations

• greed and grievances aren’t mutually exclusive, usually grievances are what justify things like looting

• assumes everyone’s motivation to rebel and loot is greed, when people could just be doing so in the moment to survive