Revolutions: Who Benefits from the Processes - Coursework Example

Revolutions: who benefits from the processes and how? Considering the bureaucratic tendencies of modern governance practices, it becomes critical that societies and governments are freed from their closed structures. The only way that people can free themselves from such structures is by shunning bureaucracy and establishing open structures of governance. In essence, achieving this openness requires engaging in a revolution in which the public openly questions the system and demands for radical changes. This paper aims at explaining the process by which revolutions take place and their consequences on the revolutionaries and future generations. The questions to be asked are concerned with whether revolutions occur for the good of those taking part in the revolution or for the good of future generations, what is means to be in a state of utopia, and the omnipresence of revolutions. In his work “Revolution at the Gate: A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917” Zizek writes that people engage in revolutions and persevere the hardships associated with the process. However, such people do not revolt for the sake of the freedom and happiness of later generations, but for their own happiness and freedom in the present (Zizek 259-260). The idea being put forth by Zizek here is that in as much people want to bring about change so as to ensure a better future for the next generations, these people mostly act in order to protect their current interests. In essence, revolutionaries want to enjoy the freedom and happiness that comes with engaging in a struggle by ensuring that they reap the benefits of the revolution in the soonest time possible. Zizek’s argument is supported by various case examples of revolutions that happened in the past in different parts of the world, particularly Europe. In all of these revolutions, people were striving to be free and happy and pass these feelings to future generations. In some cases, the revolutionaries achieved the freedom and happiness as soon as the particular revolutions ended, while in others, future generations are the ones who benefitted from the hardships borne by the revolutionaries. Zizek writes that freedom requires a particular group to engage in a political struggle; thus the view that society is characterized by antagonistic struggles (156). Virno adds that with time, people have become increasingly aware of the bureaucratization of the political process and have used their general intellect in their struggle to try and open up the public space (65). The problem with this struggle, according to Zizek is that it never ends because reconciliation between bureaucratic structures and an open society can never be reached (42). Zizek affirms that the micro-political movements being created today will change nothing in relation to the closure of the political system. In this case, Zizek advices that real change can only be realized if people accepted that political structures will always be closed, especially in this era of globalization (11). Despite the idea that political structures will always be closed, Zizek advices people to try and engage in revolutions that may provide alternatives to the present system. In Zizek’s terms, a revolution is a brief opening that allows people to engage in an act that is aimed at intervening in a given situation (170). Virno is of the opinion that public struggles are brought about by issues concerning the production of goods and how it affects wage labor (65). In most cases, people decide to engage in public action if they feel that the process of production is unfair in terms of wage distribution. In the case of a struggle based on wage labor, Virno writes that the best alternative is to make sure that the public sphere is controlled by the interests of the multitude rather than by the state’s interests (69). To achieve such public control, the masses need to engage in radical civil disobedience which involves a process of emancipating the public from constrictive traditional politics (ibid). When the public radically disobeys the laws put forth by the state, they are not simply seeking to break the law but rather to question the validity of such laws. This view point seems to coincide with that of Zizek who does not consider that a revolution can take place without necessarily having to resort to violence (259). Studies, however, show that over the course of time, revolutions have taken place that did change the way the system was run without having to resort to violence. In 1968, for example, there was a revolution against the capitalist system which was non-violent in character considering that the revolutionaries did not engage in violent attacks on the left-wings. According to Arrighi, Hopkins, & Wallerstein, the major tool used in the revolution was ideological in that the leaders of the revolution used the ideologies of the old left movements (35). In France, for example, Kastifiacas writes that the old left movement called for a general strike which succeeded in increasing wages, reforming the education system, and bringing the student movement to an end (203). The fruits of the revolution in France, in this case higher wages and a better educational system, were enjoyed immediately after the revolution. This fact validates Zizek’s opinion that revolutions are meant to fulfill current needs and feelings (260). The people of France were paid better, had a better educational system and were happy with the system. In roughly the same period, Italy used the exit strategy to force the political class to address labor issues. Virno writes that in the late 1970s, the labor-force in Italy made a mass exit from the full-time employment provided by big corporations to engage in temporary and part-time employment (70). The professional exit strategy functioned as a political tool to get the government to enforce industrial discipline and self-determination in the labor process. The problem with modern day revolutions is that the people responsible for pioneering them are no longer as active as the ones before them. Baudrillard writes that the masses who are often tasked with bringing about a revolution are today but silent majorities with no representation (20). As such, the masses no longer have a voice and are only represented by statistics contained in surveys conducted by various media. Here, the opinions of the public are represented in the results of these surveyed which have come to replace the conventional referenda. However, as Baudrillard writes, the fact that the masses are non-represented is not necessarily bad thing because it means that they are subjects to no one (22). As such, freedom from subjectivity is what allows revolutions to take place especially when the masses decide to speak up. It is interesting to note that the governments in Eastern Europe surrendered too soon without putting up serious resistance. Considering that the whole political and economic spheres of Eastern Europe were bound to be adversely affected by the 1989 revolution, the manner in which political leaders gave in to public pressure boggles the mind. Singer writes that the smooth transition was made possible by the fact that eve the political leaders were more interested in amassing wealth to leave to their descendants (13). Accordingly, the politicians chose capitalism over socialism as the preferred production mode (ibid). Considering the effects experiences by Eastern Europe, and in particular Russia, in terms of replacing a socialist system with a capitalist one, the argument by Zizek that people are already happy as they fight for revolution is cast into serious doubt. While the people of Eastern Europe may have been very happy and free during the crumbling of the socialist system, Singer writes that as soon as capitalism replaced socialism, this happiness was brought to an abrupt end (13). The former socialist states had to grapple with reduced product of goods, minimal national gross products, and mass unemployment (Singer 13). As Singer highlights, in 1994, unemployment in Poland stood at 17 per cent, while income inequality increased by 10 per cent in the period from 1990 to 1995 (13-14). As such, those who participated in the revolution were living miserable lives hoping that future generations would reap the benefits of the system change. To demonstrate that the revolutionaries of Eastern Europe did not reap the freedom and happiness derived from their hardships, Singer writes that among the first countries to make steps towards economic recovery was Poland, which did so a whooping six years later (14). Even with significant improvement in Poland’s economy, the country had still not gone back to the same economic state it had enjoyed in 1989 prior to the revolution. However, with time, most eastern European countries are adopting to the capitalist system and as such, these countries are making economic and political recoveries. Singer, however, writes that to date, Eastern Europe is yet to attain a state of “really existing capitalism” and that it may take the next generation to fulfill this dream (16). Utopianism in the present day is concerned with an open desire to bring about change in the manner in which world systems, political and otherwise are run. The utopian future, according to Zizek is never fully realized in a revolutionary breakthrough. The fact that people engage in violent struggles aimed at freedom does not mean that they are always seeking to have an ideal future. If anything, Zizek is of the opinion that the revolutionaries engage in struggles because they are convinced that they can achieve such utopianism in the present (259-260). The fact that political systems even allow room for revolutionaries means that the revolutionaries are already free but are fighting for more freedom. Utopia is, therefore, considered as the only way in which people can escape the oppression meted on them by the status quo. Considering all the revolutions that have taken place in the course of time and the diversity of their origins, it is evident that revolutions will never end. For instance, the revolution of 1989 is, according to Arrighi, Hopkins, & Wallerstein, considered as a continuation of the 1968 struggle (35). Following the myriad of changes made in most of Europe after the 1968 revolution, the region was grappling with countless challenges during the 1970s. Eastern Europe, the USSR in particular, bore the brunt of these challenges and was forced to deal with another ideological revolution in 1989 (Arrighi, Hopkins, & Wallerstein 42). Socialism as an ideology failed to continue its influence on USSR while the capitalism practiced in the United States gained more ground. The 1989 revolution, according to Singer was non-violent transition from an Eastern Europe controlled by socialist ideologists to one controlled by the will of the people (11-17). In this case, it is obvious that the world will never achieve a utopian state of being because it is not possible to have a state in which everyone is equally satisfied with the system. Singer writes that just like socialism, capitalism will one day face such huge opposition from the public that a revolution will take place and the system will be replaced by another that will be most relevant then (Singer 18-19). Essentially, the idea here is that no matter how dominant a regime or system may seem, the day that the public decide that it is no longer working for them, such a system will be phased out. In line with this argument, therefore, just like Zizek, Singer is of the opinion that the world will never achieve a utopian state and that revolutions will never end (19). Baudrillard adds that revolutionary thought is always geared towards dissolving the political system and empowering the social system (81). When masses are continuously seeking to end the bureaucracy that characterizes the political systems and empower the social system, struggles are bound to persist. Revolutions will always be part the political society and regimes will come and be replaced by others depending on how the public perceive and relate to the prevalent political systems. However, although it has been argued that modern-day revolutionaries are not as aggressive as before, recent happenings in the north of Africa and the Middle East have proved otherwise. The people in these two regions engaged in violent struggles that led to long-time dictators in the region being ousted by the public. Accordingly, revolutions, violent or not, will obviously persist for as long as humanity continues to seek a utopian state of being. Works Cited Baudrillard, Jean. In The Shadow of the Silent Majorities. New York: Semiotext (e), 1983. Print. Arrighi, Giovanni., Hopkins, Terrence., & Wallerstein, Immanuel. “1989: The Continuation of 1968” In Katsiaficas, George. After the Fall: 1989 and the Future of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 2001. 35-51. Print. Singer, Daniel. 1989: “The End of Communism?” In Katsiaficas, George. After the Fall: 1989 and the Future of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 2001. 11-19. Print. Virno, Paolo. A Grammar of the Multitude. New York: Semiotext (e), 2004. Print. Zizek, Slavoj. Revolution at the Gate: A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917. Brooklyn: Verso, 2002. Print. Read More