Conditions for People’s Movements Today

Based on Conclusions Drawn from

the French, Russian Hungarian Revolutions

and
the Peoples' Movements of the Recent Past

When Should We Revolt?

By revolution I mean all kinds of revolts and movements that break out for
the discontent of the various social strata and minorities' based on
economic differences or on national status.

It can be soft with the only aim to display the social discontent, or it can be
hard with the aim to seize power.

The revolution and the peoples' movement have the same meaning for me.

They break out for the same cause and they have the same purpose.

Abstract

This paper seeks to investigate how popular uprisings, movements and revolutions were carried out in the past – with what backgrounds and under what conditions – and how applicable these conclusions are in the context
of present-day struggles.

To this end, I propose a review of three separate people’s movements, revolutions that broke out at different times and in different regions. The aims they sought to
fulfil were completely different; yet, they shared a basic goal, the transformation
of society, breaking out on account of discontent either throughout the entire
social system or in one part of it.

Also common to these movements is a mechanism of new creation, a process
of creation that is repeated time and time again in different societies. Conflicting interests have existed in the course of history, simultaneously and constantly.
They are present now as well – under the surface – between countries, within countries and among distinct social strata living under diverse conditions. Some are fuelled by centuries-old material interests that have only grown stronger.
These conflicting interests generate power within the society and strive to effect
social change.

I. The French Revolution

1789

Antecedents and Historic Background

In the period before the revolution, France boasted a population that exceeded
28 million with a great number of peasants. It had a highly developed economy
and was one of the richest, most vital and most powerful countries in Europe
at the time. Nevertheless, by the end of the 1780s, France faced serious
economic and political difficulties.

Louis XVI, his ministers and the French nobility had become very unpopular
on account of unfair taxation. Peasants and aspiring bourgeoisie were

burdened with high taxes, levied to support a luxurious and wasteful lifestyle
which the wealthy monarchy and aristocrats enjoyed. Merchants, tradesmen,
prosperous farmers, peasants crushed by the tax system, wage-earners
and intellectuals alike were all allied. Society’s support for the monarchy
decreased.

By 1789, developments had taken shape which paved the way for historic
change. The necessary and satisfactory conditions for transformation
were in place.

Home Affairs – Economy and Finance

France had run into debt, which caused a prolonged economic depression.
On the eve of the revolution, France was actually in bankruptcy. State debt had climbed from 1 billion to 2 billion livres.

a. With his vast expenditures on luxuries, Louis XVI succeeded
in compounding the debts that had piled up during the reign of his even
more spendthrift predecessor, Louis XV.

b. Heavy costs were also incurred during the Seven Years’ War against
Britain (1756-1763) and by supporting the American War of Independence.

Louis XV had failed to solve the fiscal problems, since he was unable to
reconcile the conflicting parties and could not hammer out or introduce
a coherent economic policy. Politically, economically and financially,
the monarchy had reached its nadir. Society no longer supported it,
and anti-monarchist forces gained in strength.

Having realized the problems, Louis XVI deemed it necessary to introduce radical financial reforms worked out by his ministers Turgot and Malesherbes. The nobles blocked acceptance of the reforms in the parliament, because they wished to preserve their tax-exempt status, and they succeeded in doing so. The king dismissed his ministers,
while the new minister, Jacques Necker, who supported the American Revolution,
continued to take out large international loans instead of introducing tax reforms.

Louis XVI’s policies were also a fiasco. While raising taxes in 1787, he ‘attempted’
once more to introduce radically new fiscal reforms. Yet, the nobles, instead of
rallying behind any plan, rejected all of them. All subsequent fiscal policies failed
miserably, while forces of anti-monarchism appeared with increasing frequency.
All in all, this indicated that the absolute monarchy had ceased to function, and
the king himself was aware of it. Britain, too, was heavily in debt as a result
of wars, but Britain’s financial institutions were more advanced.

The French tax system was inconsistent. In practice, its collection was arbitrary
and unfair. Taxes were a burden even in times of high productivity, but there were
a series of cruel winters when many starved to death. Whereas the nobility and
the clergy were exempt from taxation, this burden crushed the peasants,
wage-earners and workers, indeed stifling all business activity.

The difficult economic situation was compounded by a series of crop failures
in the 1780s, which led to a food shortage. The circumstances added more fuel
to the peasant movement. In the course of a single year, 1789, the price of bread
rose 67%. Unrest spread, and revolutionary sentiment appeared in the streets
as well. More and more people moved to the cities seeking work, which luckily
coincided with the Industrial Revolution. Urban centres were filled with hungry and
dissatisfied paupers, an ideal environment for revolution.

Social and Political Situation

At first, society was only opposed to the profligate kings and the nobles’ luxurious, gluttonous lifestyle, which only grew in splendour with the iniquities of the tax system. Support for the monarchy decreased among the French people.

The financial burden, caused by old state debts and the royal court’s profligacy,
led to dissatisfaction with the monarchy. This manifest itself, at first, as opposition, then grew into movements. An alliance formed among the rising merchant class, successful farmers, peasants crushed by taxation, wage-earners and the intelligentsia.

Bread riots caused by a shortage of grain began in 1789, when revolutionary sentiment came to the surface. More and more unemployed people moved to cities looking for
work. Urban centres were filled with hungry and dissatisfied paupers, an ideal environment
for revolution.

As the revolution proceeded, political power gradually slipped from the hands of the
monarchy and the nobles with inherited privileges.
Power devolved in stages to representative political bodies and legally elected legislative
assemblies. The developing crisis spread to economic, social and political fields.
Revolution erupted.

Foreign Affairs

The conditions in field of foreign affairs had been good. There had been neither wars
nor hostilities nor tensions in foreign policy. On the other hand, Louis XVI had no
foreign allies who would have rushed to his aid.

II. The Russian Socialist Revolution

1917

Antecedents and Historic Background

Tsarist Russia (otherwise known as the Russian Empire) was the most backward
territory in Europe. Living conditions for the inhabitants were far below
the standard European level. Most of the people lived in poverty. The tsarist
autocratic system gave rise to criticism and dissatisfaction among the citizenry
and even the nobility.

The Russo-Japanese War resulted in significant economic decay. Later, in 1905,
the revolution broke out. The intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie demanded more
freedom. Society’s respect and support for the tsar decreased significantly, and
only through concessions (like the October Manifesto) was he able to forestall
the system’s collapse. The Duma was established. This represented the first
popular representation of the Russian people and the beginning of Russian
parliamentarianism. The press was able to achieve ever-wider circulation, and
its propaganda had a strong effect on the people.

This had an increasing influence on the activities of the government, because
liberal representatives were able to make fundamental opposition to the state
palatable. Hence, the tsar’s reactionary politics and his refusal to modernize the
political structure deepened the conflict considerably. Meanwhile, the autocratic
system grew weaker in Russia. The government was increasingly unstable.
The population’s opposition to the tsarist system and the government steadily
increased.

In 1915, discontent was growing in the parliament as well, which created tension
in the Duma. As a result, the tsar dissolved the Duma, and some representatives
fell victim to persecution by law enforcement. Disorder intensified in the spheres
of industry, agriculture and transport – in effect, nationwide. In the following years,
there were a series of protests and strikes throughout the empire. Police were only
able to restore order by the end of 1916, and only until the revolution broke out
in February 1917. By this time, a historic situation had developed, which set the
stage for revolution.
There were economic, political and social conditions that required fundamental
change, and the Russian society recognized this.

Home Affairs – Economy and Finance

Exhausted by war, the country’s economy deteriorated. The budget deficit increased,
and financial bankruptcy loomed. Productivity, wages and the living standard all
declined:
1. In 1917, gross industrial production decreased 36% from its 1916 level.
2. Unemployment grew. Production stopped in many places. Fifty per cent
of industrial firms closed, releasing crowds of unemployed people.
3. Living conditions deteriorated as wages sunk and prices rose due to war
expenses. The cost of living increased significantly, while real wages were only
half their previous value in 1913.

4. National debt grew, and there were budget deficits. By October 1917, Russian
national debt had reached 50 trillion roubles, primarily due to war expenses.
Of this sum, there were 11 trillion roubles of foreign debt. The nation was
threatened with bank collapses.

5. Social discontent grew, first appearing as anti-tsarist sentiment, then as social
unrest, which gradually took shape as an organized movement.

Social and Political Situation

Nicholas II, the last Russian Tsar, also served as army commander, so he was
held responsible for the army’s war failures. Therefore, he was forced to resign
on 13 March 1917. Two days later, he abdicated the throne as well.
The Provisional Government was established on 15 March 1917.

There were strikes by workers in Moscow and St Petersburg, miners in Donbas, metalworkers of the Urals, oil labourers in Baku, railroad employees and many others. More than 1 million workers took part in strikes. In many factories, they
took over management of production and distribution.

Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks who was in exile in Switzerland, wanted to turn the imperialist war into a civil war. He disseminated ambitious propaganda that urged the Allied troops to turn against their officers and start a socialist revolution – which, unfortunately, in Hungary, came to pass. (See the Hungarian Soviet Republic, 1919)

In September 1917, the garrisons of St Petersburg, Moscow and other cities,
in addition to the Northern and Western Fronts and the Baltic Fleet, declared
that they did not recognize the Provisional Government, and they refused
to carry out its commands.

A well-organized staff stood at the forefront of the discontented workers’ organization. Soldiers and workers in St Petersburg demanded an end to the war and a transfer
of power to the Bolshevik leadership. The Provisional Government was unable to act,
and its feeble stance sealed its fate.
Power slipped from its hands. It was not able to govern. Local Soviets working
in many Russian communities urged the Central Executive Committee of Soviets
to assume authority.

On 23 October 1917, the Bolsheviks’ Central Committee decided ten-to-two
upon an armed uprising, and indeed, an armed battle broke out over control
of the government. Two days later, on 25 October 1917, the Red Guard
occupied the poorly defended Winter Palace and had members of the
Provisional Government arrested. The Russian Revolution had succeeded.
As expected, Vladimir Lenin, having been released from exile in Switzerland
and having returned home as leader of the Russian government, brought
the war to a halt and immediately made peace with the Central Powers.

Foreign Affairs

Conditions in foreign policy worked in the revolution’s favour:a. Nicholas II was not in league with any country, so there was no one to rush to his aid. 
b. The Central Powers supported the revolution, because they hoped that an internal civil war(i.e., the socialist revolution) would weaken Russian Empire’s ability to wage war.
This came to pass, but the world was to pay a high price in the long run.

III. The Hungarian Revolution

1956

Antecedents and Historic Background

After 1945, the relatively developed capitalist economy of Hungary was liquidated.
Once more the country’s economy decayed to an all-time low, as it had after the
First World War. The people’s most fundamental material and intellectual properties
were seized. Democracy was killed and replaced with a dictatorial government.

Home Affairs – Economy and Finance

Following the war, reparations, reconstruction and the delivery obligation placed
burdens on the people. First and foremost, these burdens affected the peasantry,
since their agricultural yields were confiscated directly. A compulsory amount of
produce had to be delivered to the state, even if this did not leave enough to
sustain the family. That is why the peasants had to buy bread, though not more
than the prescribed bread ration, at state bakeries. The peasants lead a very
miserable existence.

It was easier for the new state power to enchant the workers, since the looting
of their products did not transpire under their noses. Comrades readily stuffed
baskets intended for surrender to state and, as soon as they were full,
dispatched them to the Soviet Union. Forced industrialization required a
tremendous amount of manpower on account of the poor mechanization
and the workers’ relatively low skills.

After a short while, though, a grand disappointment set in. Workers became
fed up with the cruel conditions, the model worker’s standard (Stakhanovite
method) and the low wages. The middle class, deprived of its goods, became
destitute overnight. Even some decent communists soon tired of the dictatorial
system. They left the Communist Party, joined the revolution and secured high
positions in the revolutionary government in 1956.

Reparations, reconstruction and the establishment of a new social order soon
overburdened the fledgling communist economy. It developed very slowly,
required a vast amount of manpower and was not effective. In effect,
a market economy was replaced with the exchange of commodities. Fiscal policy was undeveloped. The communist system failed to achieve its
stated goals. Flaws were typical of the budget and the financial system.

Social and Political Situation

Brainwashing, communist training and rehabilitation all took place by fair means
or foul. Those who resisted were thrown into labour camps, where they toiled
away while being dinned with communist philosophy.

Political power was weak, and support from Hungarian society was poor.
The political system was only able to exist and function with the presence of the
Russian army in Hungary and the enforcement of dictatorial measures. The forced
fusion of political parties and the use of aggressive means led to further antipathy
and passive resistance on the part of a majority of Hungarians. Slowly, a kind of
restrained revolutionary sentiment developed among the people. Some very weak
underground movements started to function, while insignificant political
organizations began to express the people’s demand for political changes.

By October 1956, all the economic, political and social conditions needed
for revolution were in place. Many resolute people were only waiting for
the signal. The insubstantiality of the government’s political power was typified
by its enforcement system, the police and the armed forces, which collapsed
during the first days of the revolution.

Foreign Affairs

Conditions in foreign policy were not favourable for a revolution in Hungary
at the time:
 1. The presence of enemy Soviet troops was superior in numbers.

The invading Soviet tanks overcame the revolutionaries’ resistance. Otherwise,
the overthrown communist regime would not have been able to return to power,
let alone maintain it for decades after 1956.

2. There was a clear absence of international support. The western Great Powers continually incited the unfortunate peoples living under
the Communist Block to rise up against the Soviet Union. However, when these
people needed support and reinforcements, the western powers ignored the
awkward turn of events, elegantly side-stepping the conflict as though nothing
happened in Hungary. The only message that Eisenhower sent, in 1956, was that
he praying for the Hungarians; however, God did not heed his prayers. He, too,
considered him guilty.

IV. Other Examples from the Recent Past

1. The disintegration of Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union, followed
by the establishment of several countries, occurred in the 1990s, in the best of
all possible historical situations. All the political and social conditions within the
countries, in addition to foreign policy conditions, were favourable. Montenegrowaited for the most opportune time, when all circumstances paved the way for
peaceful secession, made by referendum. That would not have had been possible
some years before. Belgium now finds itself in a similar political situation, but
the two peoples love each other like two wrangling, quarrelling friends.

2. The Romanian people won their revolution easily, without any great difficulties, because those supporting the political regime were few, indeed.
The economic and financial system was under severe strain, and despite all
outward appearances, the regime was weak as well. It no longer had the strong
international backing that it had previously enjoyed. All the international, foreign-
political conditions were favourable for an overthrow of the Ceaușescu Regime.

3. Kosovo’s Secession was a more difficult case, because the Serbs – who,
naturally, made up the majority of people in Serbia – did everything to prevent
the secession of Kosovo, where Albanian people were in the majority.
Nonetheless, support for the Serbian government in Kosovo was weak and
even hostile. Meanwhile, Serbia’s economy was languishing, exhausted from
waging wars.

All the pre-conditions for secession were present in Kosovo. America and
Europe took offence at Serbian atrocities during the war, and anti-Serbian
sentiment had grown. This created favourable international, foreign-political
conditions for Kosovo. Otherwise, their bid for secession would have failed,
or only succeeded at the cost of heavy casualties.
(See Hungary 1956, or the struggle of European minorities today)

Kosovo’s secession is the most current and the most instructive example
for European minorities still fighting for their independence. In the case of
Scottish, Catalan, Occitan, Corsican, Basque and Kurdish people, a minority is
fighting for equal rights (like the Albanian people of Kosovo). They wish to win
independence from a federal power that represents the existing country’s majority.

The fight took place on two fronts:

a. The majority Albanian people in Kosovo represented a minority
fighting against the majority Serbian people’s state power. Their organizations
were unified, and their own forces were strongly concentrated.

b. The Serbian people’s big mistake was in committing war crimes,
which is why they were disgraced and had lost favour in the eyes of USA and
European great powers. At the same time, the minority group made use
of this situation in a diplomatic and political way. (See, in part, Romania)4.The occurrence of secession of Crimean Peninsula

Conditions in home policy were favourable for secession:

- the Ukrainian state was/is weak, the economic and financial system was/is poor

The Russian minority, whose support of status quo in Ukraine was weak anyway,
turned into open opposition.

The conditions in foreign affairs were favourable for secession:

-Russia’s favourable geopolitical situation and firm political and physical support

-the hesitation and impotent action of EU and the USA

-the confronting political powers' interpretation of self-determination highly
differs /differed.

5. The conditions of secession in East-Ukraine overpopulated by Russians
are similar to those of Crimean Peninsula

Conditions in home policy are favourable for secession:

- the Ukrainian state is weak, the economic and financial system is poor

The Russian minority, whose support of status quo in Ukraine was weak anyway,
turned into open opposition

- the success of secession of Crimean Peninsula further encouraged the Russian
minority

The conditions in foreign affairs are favourable for secession:

- Russia’s favourable geopolitical situation and firm political and physical support

-the hesitation and impotent action by the EU and the USA

-the confronting political powers' interpretation of self-determination highly differs

The cause of the strenuous political conflict is the conflicting parties’ differing
interpretation and using dual standards that apply for peoples’ self-determination.

The Russian approach to the right of peoples’ self-determination is based on
numerical majority of the Russian population in East-Ukraine ( see Wilson’s
Fourteen Points, 1918 ), which again differs from these principles of the western
powers where the right of self-determination is deducted from sophisticatedly
implemented constitutional and legal systems.

However painful Putin's interpretation is for the USA and the EU, it agrees with
the right of peoples to self-determination established and applied by the great
powers in the peace treaties after the First World War.

V. Methods of preventing secession

1. State power (in the hands of the existing majority) use clever practices and sophisticated methods to prevent secession or any change of the social situation brought about by the minority peoples’ movements.

Some of these methods:

- obstruction by citing the constitution or crafty and complicated laws

- sophisticated application of the law, hair-splitting and nit-picking

-introduction of specious or false theories and arguments

-manipulation and division of people by targeting society’s different strata

-use of provocative political rhetoric to foment ideological chaos

2. The other method is prevention through physical force and violent measures.

VI. Lessons, conclusions

Methods for effecting social change:

-peaceful, as in the case of Montenegro

-violent struggle waged with one’s own army, as in Croatia

-violent struggle with the assistance of a foreign army, as in Serbia-Kosovo,
as in Crimean Peninsula, as in East-Ukraine

Although the actual purposes of the three main revolutions under discussion here
were different, the main purposes were, in general, the same. All three strove to
change the social system, the framework of society and social conditions.
The nature and workings of society are the same today as they were in the past,
throughout history. That is why even today we can draw valid, general conclusions
about societal changes from the movements and revolutions of the past.

Social changes can be achieved if the historical situation is favourable and all the
necessary economic, political and social conditions exist.

Having studied the three aforementioned revolutions, we found that there are certain conclusions that hold true for social changes and revolutions today, conditions that operate now as they did in the past, throughout history:

1. Internal conditions and domestic politics favourable for social changes:

-weak executive power

-economic difficulties and a troubled economy

-poor financial situation and fiscal crisis

-large national debt and a heavy budget deficit

-large international loans

-high unemployment

-depressed domestic consumption

-loss of society’s support for the government

-development of political organs or parties that concentrate power

2. Foreign political conditions favourable for social changes:

-lack of a hostile foreign authority, either economic or political, opposed to change

-international recognition and support for change

-legitimacy in the eyes of the international community

-strong argumentation to maintain that the new social system is worthy of international recognition and that those in authority have a legal right to exercise their newly-acquired power

3. All the movements need an ideology, a theorist, a leading personality who can unify the movement and win society’s support for its common goals. Nowadays, we tend to call these people politicians.

Process of revolutionary and/or social changes:

-manifestation of antipathy to state or federal power

-diminished support for state power

-social unrest and turmoil or an attack upon state power

-formation of alliances among social groups comprising different strata of society that share the same interests

-presence of ideological or political leaders within the group

-integration in terms of common demands and ideology

-formation of organizations representing dissatisfied members of society

-revolutionary sentiment developing into demonstrations and protests

-active dissemination and the spread of revolutionary ideas among the people

-radicalisation of peaceful demonstrations

-outbreak of revolution

-initiation of social changes

-international recognition of the new entity and its legitimacy

VII. Summary

Economic, financial and political conditions (that is, internal/domestic
conditions) are favourable in all the European countries. It is hard to
foresee how favourable the foreign-political conditions are for secession
of minorities. Europe and the world at large prefer immutability and peace
in the aftermath of the twentieth century’s World Wars. Some lucky
minority peoples, like Montenegrons, may achieve their independence
and win secession from the majority people’s country by waiting patiently
and diplomatically for the propitious moment. In the case of Kosovo,
there was no possibility for an unassisted, peaceful secession. It could
only be accomplished with the aid of strong foreign military support.

Minority peoples should circumvent the majority through clever propaganda, publicity, diplomacy and other means. They have to find allies among international politicians, distinguished figures in scientific and economic circles, organizations, parties, etc.

In a sense, they must court the favour of great powers by international means, pledges and professions of allegiances to the EU, for example. Somehow, they must guarantee a future that is appealing and advantageous for the EU or the great powers. With international backing (that is, the sympathy, benevolence, confidence and support of the EU or the great powers), they can achieve secession and legitimization of social changes.

This may entail a long process that calls for polished and sophisticated
political activity. Affected peoples may have to tolerate their current
situations for many years. Hence, minority populations face an uphill battle
so long as the existing country (ruled by the overall majority) does not lose
the favour of the EU or the great powers of the world. (See Serbia)