The Ignorance of Political Revolutions : why political revolutions are an infeasible changeover mechanic within political theories

(1)

The Ignorance of Political Revolutions

Why political revolutions are an infeasible changeover mechanic within political

theories

Thomas Snijders

11895411

thomas.snijders@live.nl

dr. Paul Raekstad & dr. Gordon Arlen

June 20th 2018

Master thesis Political Science Political Theory

Word-Count: 19573

(2)

Introduction

This thesis will focus on the research question: 'are revolutions in political theories a viable changeover mechanic?' It will be argued that this is not the case. Capitalism has become

increasingly criticized, not merely for its role in society but also as a political-economic philosophy (Hutton, 2014 & Schweickart, 2012, p. 203). As such, it is important to look at alternatives to see what could replace this failing philosophy. One of the more radical alternatives is anarchism, a political philosophy focussed on eliminating imposed hierarchy. Specifically, anarchism would like the state to be replaced by organizations based on free association. Anarchism is quite a broad philosophy with different thinkers each having their own slightly distinct version of anarchism. This thesis would specifically focus on the anarchist philosophy developed by Peter Kropotkin, as he was one of the founders and one of the most important anarchist thinkers. Another political theory that this thesis will look at is the Leninist view on Communism. Whilst the end result might be the same between anarchism and communism, the abolition of the state, the way towards this goals is vastly different. Communism believes that it is imperative that there is a transitional period in which the state is governed by the proletariat, whilst the anarchists believe that the state should

immediately Disappear. These two different theories, whilst both requiring revolutions, are dissimilar to such a level that it might be possible to generalize the results.

Another important aspect of this thesis is the question of feasibility. Gilabert and Lawford-Smith state that 'some state of affairs is feasible if there is a way we can bring it about', (2012, p. 809). The same authors describe three levels of normative theory in which feasibility plays an important role. Firstly, in the level of the core normative principles. Secondly, in the level of

institutional implementation. Thirdly, in the political reforms leading to the reformed institutions. It is the third level which this thesis will focus on.

The first two chapters will elaborate upon the concept of feasibility and the theories used. The chapter which follows will start of with the main argument. An important aspect of feasibility is that an option should take into account the momentum and inevitability of other options. An option is not feasible if an alternative option carries within it a certain momentum and inevitability. Revolution entails removing the political system for a completely new political system. The alternative option then is evolution, changing the political system through the political system. It will be argued that the evolution option does indeed have a certain momentum and inevitability. Therefore revolutions are not feasible.

(4)

However, no one would argue that revolutions were not feasible in the past. One need only look at the myriad examples in Europe's past to see that revolutions were in fact quite common. One of the reasons that these occurred were because there was no evolution option. It will then be argued that people believe that the evolution option has declined and because of this revolutions become feasible once again. What people believe is not always the truth however. Whilst people might believe that the evolution option has declined, merely due to the fact that most people in Europe live in parliamentary democracies results in an implicit evolution option, the right to protest. This has often been used to influence policy and as such evolution remains a possible. Because of this revolution remains infeasible.

The final arguments this thesis shall make revolve around the economic aspect of politics. Globalisation can also be regarded as having an inherent momentum and inevitability. Product chains are becoming more internationally organised due to the effects of globalisation. People are aware of this, just as they are aware that a revolution would disrupt this, causing people to be wary of revolutions when there is a suitable alternative; evolution. Globalisation can also cause a

democratic deficit within organisations. The evolution option would then be partly eliminated thereby making revolutions once again feasible. To properly oppose this counter argument a section will be offered to elaborate upon the trilemma of the world economy. With an increasing economic integration, the prevalence of the nation-state but a diminishing of democratic mass-politics it would appear that countries are moving towards the Golden Straitjacket model of the world. No country went further in this then Argentina in the 1990s. Yet even within the archetypical example of the Golden Straitjacket there still remained an evolution option. Argentinian protests resulted in the resignation of key government officials but not in a new political system. Therefore the concept of the trilemma of the world economy would appear to be false and revolutions would still be infeasible.

The scientific relevance of this thesis is rather broad. Firstly, it adds to the scientific literature on feasibility by applying the concept to a concrete example. Another part of scientific literature that this thesis adds to is by critiquing both anarchism and leninism on the same point, their changeover mechanic. This is closely linked to the societal relevance, to see whether revolutionary organisations, such as occupy was seen by some people, might be better trying to work through the system.

Now that the lay-out and arguments that this thesis will present have been put forward it is time to start with the proper meat of the thesis. The following chapter will look at the concept of feasibility.

(5)

1. Feasibility

To argue that revolutions are not feasible it should firstly be made clear what feasibility is. This chapter shall firstly make clear what feasibility is, secondly it shall note why feasibility is important and lastly it will show on which levels of political theory feasibility can be applied.

1.1 Feasibility

The increasing human population already is, or will soon be, a problem. There are numerous

solutions to this problem. One could prescribe birth control or even make birth control mandatory to curb the growth of the human population. Another more controversial solution could be to purge selected parts of the human population on a regular basis to reduce the strain of humanity on the planet. Finally a solution could be to travel back in time to make sure that humanity starts with technology that would preserve the Earth better. The difference between these solutions depends on the feasibility of them. Whilst the first two solutions are possible (though perhaps not ethical) the third one is not due to the hard constraint of the laws of nature. A case can then be made that in trying to solve actual problems only feasible solutions should be taken into account.

On its most basic level, something is feasible if 'there is a way we can bring it about', (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 809). Whilst this gives an idea about what feasibility is, writers on feasibility such as Gilabert, Lawford-Smith and Hawthorn have greatly expanded upon this definition. Geoffrey Hawthorn has argued that the two aspects required of something being not feasible are momentum and inevitability. He states that in some cases alternative futures are quite imaginable and thus feasible, whilst in other cases something being imaginable does not lead to feasibility (Hawthorne, 1991, p. 158). It is, for example, quite feasible that we could live in a future in which Hillary Clinton is president of the United States with the eventual election result being as close as it was. There are however numerous moments that could not have swung either way. As soon as the United States were dragged into the second world war, defeat was certain for the Axis. Therefore a future in which the Axis won the second world war is infeasible. The difference between the two examples is that the momentum of the war after the U.S. joined the allies dictated that an allied victory was inevitable.

Feasibility is important for two main reasons. Firstly, it is important because it helps rule out solutions to problems that are not feasible. In the example presented in the first paragraph there is no use to think about solutions that are not feasible. As such the first function of feasibility is to rule

(6)

out proposals that cannot be executed. This is a rather broad tool, the second tool is more nuanced. In its second function, feasibility enables comparisons between different options. It enables one to see which solution is more feasible than others (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 811)..

Mark Jensen argued for four important conditions regarding feasibility. These are: logical consistency, non-violation of laws of nature, fixed history of the world and natural human ability. Logical consistency means that options should follow the laws of logic. Non-violaton of laws of nature means that the laws of nature are fixed and therefore not able to change. Fixed history of the world means the same, the history of the world is fixed and not subject to change. This places specific demands upon proposals. Any proposal that is judged on feasibility needs to take into account the laws of nature, the history of the world and logical consistency. If a proposal does not meet one of these criteria the proposal immediately loses its feasibility condition. The first three are seldom violated as these are fixed, hard constraints. Jensen primarily pays attention to natural human ability (Jensen, 2009). This human ability can be split into three categories: synchronic, direct diachronic and indirect diachronic. A synchronic action is an action that can be performed now, a direct diachronic action is an action that can be performed now or later and an indirect diachronic action is an action that can be performed after another action has been performed

(Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 811). As such, feasibility is not only influenced by whether or not someone can bring something about, but also by whether or not someone can get themselves into a position to make a decision to bring something about. As this is admittedly rather vague, an example will be presented. Japan does not have the direct diachronic ability to prevent tsunamis. However, they do have the ability to place seawalls that might prevent tsunamis from reaching the mainland, therefore it is feasible for Japan to prevent some measure of tsunami's. Feasibility then does not merely involve being able to generate an action but also being able to be placed into a situation in which one can act.

There are a few other important aspects to feasibility. Firstly, it is important to separate principles from their implementation. Principles cannot be feasible or infeasible, only the

implementation can (Cohen, 2001). Stability and accessibility are two other important aspects. The eventual end position must be stable and there must be a route towards this position for it to be feasible.

This route towards feasibility needs some explanation. Whether there is a route or not depends on certain constraints. Constraints can be divided into a spectrum with logical constraints at one end and physical, biological, economic, institutional, cultural, psychological and motivational constraints moving towards the other end (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 813). Gilabert and Lawford-Smith state that logical, physical and biological constraints always need to be taken into

(7)

account because these will always be constraints (2012, p. 813). These will not change and are therefore hard constraints. These hard constraints rule certain things out, such as that humans will grow wings and fly, and are therefore important for feasibility. The other constraints are just as important but far more difficult to categorize. Economic, institutional and cultural constraints are seen as soft constraints. These constraints do not rule out options, rather these constraints help in making comparative assessments of different solutions. These constraints are more or less likely to constrain what people might do but they are not absolute. The difference between soft and hard constraints can be elaborated upon further. Firstly, soft constraints are probabilistic (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 814). People might say that something is economically impossible but they would not mean truly impossible. Rather what they mean is that the probability of that outcome is low. For example, some economist might argue that universal basic income is

impossible to execute. However, because economics is malleable, universal basic income might still be feasible. What economists mean is that the probability of this action is low. This then leads to the second difference, specifically that soft constraints are malleable. These include the indirect

diachronic abilities. Scarcity is a hard constraint. The world has a limited amount of resources and this will not change. How humanity deals with scarcity however can change and is malleable. Two such social orders that deal with scarcity are capitalism and feudalism. Whilst scarcity is a hard constraint, social orders are malleable and thus a soft constraint. As such, not everything that is infeasible now need be infeasible in the future.

The question then becomes: if soft constraints are malleable why include them in a account of feasibility at all. Some might say that by including malleable constraints people might simply accept injustices because they are fixed now but might change in the future. The other side of the coin is that by not including them it might lead to idealism, always promoting solutions that do not take into account the real limitations that soft constraints offer (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 814). For example, people might state that 'our culture does not permit that kind of solution'. As cultures change this is not a valid excuse to completely dismiss solutions.

As stated, one of the two roles of feasibility is comparative judgements. This is one of the features of the soft constraints, as in that it is possible to see which alternatives are more feasible than others. A rather critical point that needs to be made here is that there is a rather significant difference between feasibility and desirability. Feasibility entails whether something can be done whilst desirability involves evaluative judgements. Simply because something is feasible does not make it desirable and simply because is desirable does not make it feasible. This seems obvious, however too often the line between feasibility and desirability becomes muddled. Feasibility and desirability intersect when one looks at what agents are supposed to do (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith,

(8)

2012, p. 818). Political theories often look at prescriptive actions in that they look at desirable options and the way in which these desirable options might be achieved. Evaluative assessments are important for prescriptive actions in two ways. Firstly in that they help identify the morally superior option and secondly in that it helps present guiding principles which might eventually lead to this alternative.

By combining feasibility with desirability one can find the optimal solutions to problems. There are three (rough) levels in which these two concepts can intersect. These three are: the formulation and defence of core principles, the institutions that would enable the execution of the core principles, and the path towards these institutions. At this first level only hard constraints are important as it only deals with the fundamental principles inherent to a theory. The first and second levels are both defended by showing that they are no worse than the alternatives. What is important in this second level is the stability of the institutions. Because this level deals with the stability of the institutions, soft constraints become important. The third level involves the path towards the institution. The most important aspect here is the accessibility of the institutional scheme (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012, p. 820). As this thesis will argue that revolutions are not a viable

changeover mechanic, the focus will mostly be on this third level of political feasibility.

2. Anarchism and Leninism

The previous chapter has looked at feasibility and what this exactly entails. Simply put feasibility is whether something can be brought about. There are three levels of political theory where feasibility is important, but for this thesis the third level, the path towards institutions is the most important. This chapter shall look at two political theories, anarchism and leninism, and will conclude by looking at the third level for both of the theories.

2.1 Anarchism

Anarchism means different things to different people. Famous anarchists like Bakunin, Bookchin and Rocker all have a slightly different view on anarchism. That is one of the reasons that it is difficult to state specifically what anarchism is. This thesis will focus on anarchism as envisioned by Peter Kropotkin, as he was one of the most famous and influential anarchists. Another advantage of using Kropotkin's works is that they are fairly comprehensive in that they discuss all three levels

(9)

of political theory mentioned in the previous chapter. Kropotkin discusses the problems that the current society has, what his ideal society looks like, and how society can get to this ideal. Whilst some of the arguments that Kropotkin has against society are firmly embedded in his time, one can still extrapolate the main points to critique the current society. The rest of this section will be devoted to explaining his view on anarchy, firstly by elaborating upon the shortcoming of the current society, then by explaining what kind of society he envisioned would be the best and finally by focussing on how he wanted to achieve this ideal society.

Kropotkin starts with the statement that the current capitalist system produces enormous amounts of inequality. A clear minority holds the majority of wealth and a clear majority does not come anywhere close to this minority. Kropotkin saw this in 1892 and stated 'we, in civilized societies, are rich. Why then are the many poor? Why this painful drudgery for the masses?', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 10). He answers this question by stating that 'It is because all that is necessary for production – the land, the mines, the highways, machinery, food, shelter, education, knowledge – all have been seized by the few in the course of that long story or robbery, enforced migration and wars, of ignorance and oppression, which has been the life of the human race before it had learned to subdue the forces of nature.', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 10). It is quite evident that this is unjust, but Kropotkin has a specific reason for believing this to be unjust. He believes that every member of modern industrial society benefits from 'an immense capital accumulated by those who have gone before him', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 11). Our ancestors were the ones that created most of the wealth, such as the railways that Kropotkin uses as example. However, the descendants of these people, far from inheriting the wealth they created, are deprived of wealth. 'If the children of those who

perished by the thousands while excavating the railway cuttings and tunnels were to assemble one day, crowding in their rags and hunger, to demand bread from the shareholders, they would be met with bayonets and grapeshot', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 11). Kropotkin does not believe that everybody is entitled to a same share of property and production due to a person working a certain amount. It is not the case that because a person works a certain amount he is owed that same amount of the production. Rather he believed that due to the offer brought by our ancestors, one needs to view production and property as something belonging to all of society, as common good. As such, Kropotkin believed that that is the reason that everyone should live alike. Or as he states it: 'We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that everyone, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, the right to live, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence it has at its disposal', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 28). The material wealth of the modern era should be seen as a inheritance from millennia of experimentation and innovation. The fundamental idea is that wealth, being the

(10)

product of social labour, social suffering and social innovation, should be in some way shared by society as a whole. This should show why Kropotkin so vehemently opposes capitalism, as capitalism causes a small minority to hold a great majority of wealth.

If Kropotkin opposes the current system one must wonder with what he would want to replace it. Luckily Kropotkin is also quite clear in this regard, however to understand his view on core institutions it is necessary to understand his view on human nature. To put it a different way, to understand the second level, attention must first be paid to the first level. Kropotkin's premier work on human nature was the book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. This book was written as a counter to the believes of Huxley who believed that society was maintained against our natural instincts that are at its core Social Darwinist. Kropotkin believed that this was not based on science and went on to write Mutual Aid to prove it. He started with the animal world. Most animals live in societies, which offers them protection from all the natural conditions unfavourable to the species (Kropotkin, 1902, p. 142). The mutual protection which is acquired due to societies leads to 'the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of social habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution', (Kropotkin, 1902, p. 142). These are all quite advantageous to a species, whilst the unsociable species will eventually perish due to them not having these advantages. After having proven that animals adhere to mutual aid, Kropotkin moves towards humanity. He states that up to the medieval ages, human society had institutions, such as the guilds, in place which followed the principles of mutual aid. This ended with the advent of the state, with the first one being the Roman Imperial state. The state does not answer the call for mutual aid, rather it focusses on another component of human nature, its inherent individualism. 'In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element', (Kropotkin 1902, p. 143). Kropotkin believed that both mutual aid and individualism are inherent to human nature, however far more attention has been spent on the individual aspect of human nature. One need only look at man's struggle for superiority to see how much individualism is praised. This includes people praising individualism as the source of the vast progress humanity made during the industrial revolution. Not merely as industries grew, but also as science progressed and society moved

forwards, people praised human individualism as the main cause of this. Kropotkin however argues that this is not due to individualism, but rather due to the medieval mutual aid organizations. In this case Kropotkin bases his argument on the same principle of feasibility that have been discussed in the previous paragraph, that of momentum. He argues that in the 15th century certain discoveries were made, such as the pressure of the atmosphere, which combined with advances in the sciences led to a certain momentum. Specifically he states that 'once these discoveries were made, the

(11)

invention of the steam-motor, and all the revolution which the conquest of a new power implied, had necessarily to follow', (Kropotkin, 1902, p. 143). It was certain that humanity would advance in science and technology, however this was not due to individualism, but due to the mutual aid organizations of the 15th_{century. After reading this one might think that mutual aid is the same as} altruism. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Altruism involves someone doing a good deed because the person enjoys doing good deeds. By contrast, mutual aid involves people assisting each other because it is the best way for the society to survive. As has been explained, the society which helps each other has a better change for success than the society that is not based on mutual aid.

Now that has become clear what Kropotkin believes to be wrong with the current society and what he sees as human nature, it is time to discuss his proposed alternative. What this

alternative would need to accomplish is what the current capitalist society has failed in. Kropotkin argues that this new society would need to provide certain rights to people. Not the right to work as is the case in the current society, but as Kropotkin states rather decisively 'THE RIGHT TO WELL-BEING: WELL-BEING FOR ALL!', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 14). The right to well-being 'means the possibility of living like human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a society better than ours, whilst the “right to work” only means the right to be always a wage-slave, a drugde, ruled over and exploited by the middle class of the future', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 20). The only way that this can be achieved is through a society based on anarcho-communist principles. The current system does not promote the right of well-being. Society and production has become all about profit. As such, capitalist critique is not merely that capitalism is unfair, but also that it has caused production to take a wrong turn. Instead of focussing on the right of well-being it focusses on profit. The only way to remedy this error of production would be a massive expropriation. What is meant by this is that everything should be owned by everyone. Only in this way could the right to well-being be guaranteed to every person (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 56). The first part of society to be subject to this expropriation would be villas and mansions. By confiscating these homelessness could be reduced and the homelessness could be given a fresh start. A second important aspect of Kropotkin's future society is what rewards people would get. In the current society one gets

rewarded based on occupation and amount of time worked. This instils principles of capitalism and private property and stabilizes an authoritarianism economic system. In no way would this fit in the future society. Rather Kropotkin argues that a person's needs should be the yardstick against which ones needs are measured. A person with two small children needs more than a person without children. Due to the expropriation there would be enough resources available for every person to reach well-being, regardless of differences in need. The third part of the future society would be a

(12)

reorganization of the industry-agriculture division. Kropotkin argues that it is important that industry is spread throughout the rural areas to share the improvement that industry brings with the rural areas as well (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 102). Towns and cities would then need to start feeding themselves out of necessity. However, Kropotkin argues that this need not be a bad thing. Farming can be made enjoyable and relaxing. It would do people good to participate in some outdoors stimulating activities. Besides which, with modern day technology farming would not be such a burden on the people. This addresses the division between agriculture and industry but in what way does Kropotkin address the division between menial and more spiritual work? He proposes to integrate the two parts, so they make a more perfect whole. As he states it: 'Every nation with its farmers and industrialists, every person who works in agriculture or industry and combines his scientific know-how and skills, will create an ideal and cultured nation', (Kropotkin, cited in Ya'acov, 1992, p. 310). Every person would need to perform some sort of manual labour for some amount of time. This must not be seen as a negative thing, rather manual labour can work quite liberating and relaxing. It could provide social incentives for doing research, artists might gain more inspiration and authors could learn more about humans. The one required stipulation is that this menial labour must not be arduous. This can be solved by making work attractive and pleasant by providing variation, this should broaden man's horizon and help him express his personality and creativity. The fourth part of the future society is the education. In the future society this would be a broad education, making sure that every person is versed in general sciences, both natural and social, arts and history. Another important part of the education is to instil a broad sense of justice and solidarity so that they can become functioning members of society. Because this person can use both his brain as his hands, he would be blessed both with initiative and ingenuity. An additional part of this future society would involve woman's rights. In this society woman would be relieved of oppressive chores as most of these could be replaced by machines. Kropotkin even envisioned machines such as vacuum cleaners, dishwashers and washing machines long before these were invented. The final part of the future society which is the importance of maintaining individual freedom. To achieve this, every community would be the result of a free and voluntary union and would present a wide scope for human potential and diversity (Ya'acov, 1992, p. 313). This is the core of his anarcho-communist views on society. As he states: 'but ours is neither the Communism of Fourier and the Phalansterians, nor of the German State Socialists. It is Anarchist Communism, Communism without government – the Communism of the Free. It is the synthesis of two ideals pursued by humanity throughout the ages – Economic and Political Liberty', (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 139). Kropotkin wanted the future society to not have governments because: 'Anarchism aims at creating a society in which relationships are regulated not by authorities, whether the latter are

(13)

self-proclaimed or elected, but rather by mutual agreements between members, and by social customs and habits not petrified by law, or authorities but continually developed and readjusted in

accordance with the ever growing requirements of a free life. This process abolishes government of man by man and replicated the continues evolution of nature', (Kropotkin, cited in Ya'acov, 1992, p. 314). As soon as the political system is abolished, all the functions of the state would be done by these new associations based on free association and mutual aid. To summarize using Kropotkin's own words, an anarchist communist society would function like this: 'imagine a society, comprising a few million inhabitants, engaged in agriculture and a great variety of industries—Paris, for

example, with the Department of Seine-et-Oise. Suppose that in this society all children learn to work with their hands as well as with their brains. Admit that all adults... bind themselves to work 5 hours a day from the age of twenty or twenty-two to forty-five or fifty, and that they follow

occupations they have chosen in any one branch of human work considered necessary. Such a society could in return guarantee well-being to all its members; that is to say, a more substantial well-being than that enjoyed to-day by the middle classes. And, moreover, each worker belonging to this society would have at his disposal at least 5 hours a day which he could devote to science, art, and individual needs which do not come under the category of necessities, but will probably do so later on, when man's productivity will have augmented, and those objects will no longer appear luxurious or inaccessible.' (Kropotkin, 1892, p. 59).

This paragraph has paid attention to Kropotkin's critique of the current society, his view on human nature and his ideal future society. The first two of the three institutional levels have thus been discussed. All that is missing, and what the remaining part of this chapter will look at, is the third level: the path towards this future society. According to Kropotkin there is only one way to achieve this future society and that is through a social revolution (Ya'acov, 1992, p. 306). He believed that the elite would never willingly relinquish their power and as such the only way in which the masses could regain this power would be through a revolution. Kropotkin knew of the failures of the French Revolution and the French commune. He believed that this failure was partially created due to the unwillingness to follow through the revolution. The revolution was afraid of demolishing the institutions present. Instead of tearing down the institutions, the French revolution demolished the present inhabitants of the institutions and replaced them with new inhabitants. A successful revolution does not merely have a political goal, it must also have a social one. A revolution that only partly follows through on the political goals and completely ignores its social aspect will fall foul of internal power struggles. However, Kropotkin denounced the use of terror believing that the only thing terror helped was a strong government, the state and social hierarchy. Terror helped demolish revolutionary power and therefore had only adverse effects to the

(14)

revolution. He even denounced the idea of a short term transition dictatorship for the same reasons (Ya'acov, 1992, p. 306). The revolution should not be led by a minority group or by some kind of elite advanced guard. It should be the masses who destroyed the old institutions that lead the way towards the new society and this should be based on spontaneity. The masses would be led by solidarity and cooperation as well as revolutionary spirit. The social revolution would only succeed only if it catered to the needs of the population immediately. Kropotkin realized that confiscating private property might result in a counter revolution and strikes. People would not be willing to let go of hard earned property on the word of revolutionaries stating that it would be for the betterment of mankind. Kropotkin argued that the only practical solution would be to immediately use the unemployed masses, who would have lost their jobs due to the restructuring of the society, to

reorganize the society. A first step would be to set up communal stores to feed the population during the first critical moments of the revolution. As such, farmers were incredibly important to this revolutionary plan. Once this critical beginning moment has passed it should be possible to move towards the anarcho-communist society as Kropotkin envisioned.

2.2 Leninism

The previous section has discussed the works of Kropotkin and Anarchy, and looked at anarchist revolutions. In doing so this thesis has looked at a very specific way of executing a revolution. This view is rather idealistic and theoretical. To contrast this view, the following section will look at a different type of revolution, the Leninist revolution. There are numerous types of revolution to choose from to offer an opposing view. The reasons for choosing Leninist theory are manifold. Firstly, it offers not just a theoretical but also an empirical foundation. Secondly, due to this empirical base it contrasts nicely with the idealistic anarchist revolution. Finally, Leninist theory directly opposes one form of evolution that shall be discussed later on in this thesis, Social Democracy. The following section will start with a description on Leninist thought and theory, followed by the Leninist necessity of revolution.

V. I. Lenin was introduced to a revolutionary outlook early on in life due to the execution of his brother. After working in the Russian underground Lenin was arrested and sentenced to three years of political exile in Siberia (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 78). It was during this exile that Lenin wrote the book The Development of Capitalism in Russia. In this book he argues that Russia has entered the capitalist stage of production (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 79). 'In Marxist terms this spelled the possibility of a nationwide working-class consciousness for a nationwide working-class political

(15)

movement, as opposed to isolated trade-union factory disputes between employers and workers' (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 79). Another book written by Lenin was his 'what is to be done?' primer. In this primer Lenin related four important themes. Firstly, the proper role of agitation in the pursuit of Marxist revolutionary political goals. Secondly, the notion of two camps whereby deviation from correct Marxist revolutionary theory objectively supported the counter-revolutionary camp of the class enemy. Thirdly, the criterion of being a professional revolutionary as a requirement for Marxist party membership. Finally, in conjunction with the above, the necessity of periodic party purges to ensure correct political orthodoxy and political discipline (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 81). This shows that Lenin had a rather hardcore streak within him. His view on Marxism was the right one and any other view was wrong according to him.

Leninism follows on from Marxism. As such, it is imperative to briefly state the core principles of Marxism. These can be summarized in four propositions. Firstly, that all historical consciousness is predicated on the development of the forces of production to free mankind from the scarcity of nature (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 73). Natural resources are and always will be limited, because of this humans have always sought different ways to deal with this fact. Classical Marxism in this sense states that human society will pas through different types of production which will eventually lead to the ideal of Communism. Examples of different types are feudalism and capitalism. In Marxist thought Capitalism is the step before Communism. Secondly, that the development of the forces of production takes place through the accumulation of capital realized through the capitalist economic exploitation of the working class engendering a revolutionary socialist consciousness in the working class (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 73). Thirdly, that the ultimate liberation of mankind under socialist and communist society must take place through the political rule of the working class under a Marxist political party (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 73). Finally, that the working classes of the various nations of the world must be internationally organized to promote worldwide political collaboration in the struggle for the right of national self-determination in the framework of the nation-state as the basic organ of the economic and political struggle for socialism (Davidshofer, 2014, p. 73). These four basic propositions contain the basic thought of Marxist scientific socialism. As Birkin summarizes 'The classical doctrine of Marx and Engels may thus be seen as an extreme elaboration of the general Enlightenment project of replacing God's laws with natural law and heavenly salvation with earthly progress. Certainly Marxism was much more subtle than this and possessed a doctrinal richness of tremendous complexity. And yet the underlying ethical force of Marx and Engels's work is basically derived from its distillation of the classical assumption of human perfectibility and progress' (Birken, 1991, p. 614).

(16)

The Highest Stage of Capitalism' Lenin argues that there is a new form of Capitalism not envisioned by either Marx or Engels: imperialism. Lenin argues that imperialism came into being when

capitalism should have led to a revolution. Marx and Engels argued that the development of capitalism would lead to communism. As such, it are the most advanced parts of the world that would lead the charge to Communism. However, Lenin wrote that Capitalism leads instead to Imperialism (Birken, 1991, p. 614). In Imperialism the more developed areas leach from the less developed areas. This rather revolutionary thought shows how Lenin advanced on Marxist thought and brought a revolutionary twist to it. This new thought managed to explain two related

phenomena. Firstly, why there has not been a communist revolution in the West yet and secondly, why such a revolution might occur in Russia. Marx and Engels divided the world in different areas, believing that each area needs to move through the different modes of production eventually leading to Capitalism, a revolution, and then finally Communism. Lenin however believed that the world was one interconnected area, with different sub-areas. Birken uses an English factory worker as example. In the time and place wherein he lived, he might be part of the workers class, however compared to the rest of the world one could argue that the life of the British factory worker could be more compared to the bourgeois class (Birken, 1991, p. 617). To summarize, Marx and Engels divided the world into separate areas. Once an area arrived at Capitalism the population would naturally be divided into a bourgeois class and into a working-class. After this divide, a revolution would occur leading towards a communist society. Lenin thought of the world as one

interconnected area, with different sub-areas included within it. As such, it is perfectly possible to be of the working-class in your sub-area and of the bourgeois class in the world wide area.

Likewise, it is also possible to be of the bourgeois class in your local area but of the working-class in the world wide area. Lenin also envisioned the revolution to take place in the less developed regions rather than in the more developed regions. This is due to Capitalist regions leaching of the less well developed regions, which is the essence of Imperialism. Due to this the revolution will be more likely to occur in the less well developed regions, such as 20th_{century Russia.}

The preceding section has made the first level of Lenin's work more clear, specifically where Lenin agrees with Marx and Engels and where he does not. The next section will focus on the second level, what type of society Lenin desired.

In Lenin's ideal Russian society, government by direct democracy was effected by elected soviets (workers' councils), which Lenin described as the manifestation of the Marxist 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat' (Deutscher, 1954, p. 255). The soviets would function as political organisations. In doing so they would include representatives of factory workers and trade union committees. However, they would exclude the capitalist social class to make sure that the

(17)

government would be a purely proletarian government, by and for the working class and the peasants. Lenin describes 'the dictatorship of the proletariat—i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors.... An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich:... and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from

democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people—this is the change which democracy undergoes during the 'transition' from capitalism to communism', (Hill, 1971, p. 86) On democracy Lenin wrote that 'Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people—this is the change

democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.' (Lenin, 1917, p. 461) In Lenin's Russia, the country would be governed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would be the opposite of the current Capitalist system. In this Communist system the Leninist party would not be the only one. The system would comprise many parties, each competing for electoral power. Even though the Leninist party would be the vanguard for the Communist system, by no means does this mean that there would only be one single party. However, it was during the Russian civil war that other parties opposed the Leninist political party, leading to those other parties being banned. Stalinists claim that the idea of one political party was inherent to Lenin's work, whilst traditional Leninists refute this statement (Deutscher, 1954, p. 187). The Marxist vanguard party had numerous roles. One of these was to educate the workers and the peasants. In this way the vanguard party hoped to eliminate ideas of religion and nationalism. These ideas were introduced by the bourgeois class to legitimate their systematic exploitation of workers and peasants, as such it was seen as essential that these ideas be removed from the common collective mind. This then has made clear the second level of political theory, the core institutions. The following section will discuss the most relevant level for this thesis, the changeover mechanics.

Lenin is rather adamant about his preferred changeover mechanic, a revolution. He describes the state as 'a special organisation of force: it is an organisation of violence for the suppression of some class' (Lenin, 1917, 1. The Eve of Revolution). This should make it clear that Lenin holds no love for the state. Not even for parliamentary democracy, which was according to him overly influenced by the military and bureaucracy: 'To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament - this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics' (Lenin, 1917, 3. Abolution of Parliamentarism). Any and all solutions to problems involving the state would be counter to Lenin's believes. The state is a tool for class oppression, born out of a desire to suppress the non-dominant social class. Where anarchists aim for

(18)

the complete and immediate abolishment of the state, Lenin believes this to be impossible in the short run. During the early days of the revolution an institution is required to suppress the bourgeois class, and what better institution is there in suppressing a social class then the state. If the state were to be immediately abolished, without also eliminating the conditions for the rise of the state (one of which is the bourgeois class) a new state would simply arise. The socialist revolution would then have been pointless. The goal of the revolution would be to bring the state under their control, change it into a dictatorship of the proletariat, and slowly wither away the state. As the state in its current state is merely an instrument of suppression, it is no wonder that Lenin opposed everyone arguing for institutional reform through the then current political system. He had the following to say in regards to Social Democrats: 'They [Social-Democrats] are just as much traitors to

socialism… They represent that top section of workers who have been bribed by the bourgeoisie… for in all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting ‘gain’ from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of ‘their own’ country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain superprofits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.' (Lenin, 1919, Letter to the Workers of Europe and America).

Both anarchism and leninism share the same eventual end result for the same reason. The abolishment of the state because the state is an instrument of capitalism which precipitates inequality. However, the way in which the two theories want this to happen differs. Where

Kropotkian Anarchists believe in the immediate abolishment of the state, Leninist believe that the state needs to be kept for a transitional period. The following chapter will look more closely at revolution and evolution.

3. Revolution and Evolution

The last two chapters have elaborated upon the background of this thesis: feasibility and the theory behind anarchism and leninism. This chapter will firstly state some information regarding

revolution in general. Secondly, it will be stated what exactly is meant with evolution. In this sub-section two possible views of evolution will be stated along with which view better fits the ideas of this thesis. Thirdly, the argument will be presented by combining the earlier two sub-sections (3.1 and 3.2). Finally, sub-section 3.4 will lay out a criticism of this view along with a brief rebuttal.

(19)

3.1 Revolution

In Kropotkin's and Lenin's view, a revolution is required to change society into an anarchist or communist one. This section will elaborate upon what precisely a revolution is, and what the motivation can be to execute a revolution. Most often the word revolution is used to state a change in political and social institutions. Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution, the first being that a revolution is 'any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion', and the second in which 'revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power', (Goodwin, 2001, p. 9).

There are currently four generations of scholarly research into revolutions. The first

generation was mostly descriptive and the explanation of how revolutions came into being tied in to social psychology. Such as, for example, how crowds behave, (Goldstone, 2001, p. 148).

The second generation sought to ground revolutions in more complex social behaviour, moving away from a purely descriptive stance towards trying to explain why revolutions occur. This second wave can be divided into three groups: psychological, sociological and political. The psychological and sociological group agree that society is in some kind of balance between systems, resources and demands. Revolution is caused by an imbalance in society, causing widespread frustration with the current political situation. The political group saw events as outcomes of a power struggle between different interest groups, (Goldstone, 2001, p. 148). Revolutions happen when groups cannot come to a decision within a normal decision making model and have enough resources to use force to try and force their decision. The three different groups are agreed in that they saw the development of revolutions as a two step process. The first step is that the current situation should be different from the past. The second step is that this new situation should create an opportunity for a revolution. In this view there is a possibility to stop a revolution before it happened. To use an example, if a country suffered some kind of enormous famine, but the government handled it adequately the current situation would not resolve into a revolution. If, however, the government decided that the best way to resolve a famine would be to reduce the population through some form of decimation, the situation would be worse than the past and offer the possibility for revolution. These two generations focussed mostly on four revolutions. Those being: the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Chinese Revolution. As these are highly uncontroversial and archetypical examples of revolutions the data cannot be easily extrapolated upon other revolutions.

(20)

These two generations became criticized for focussing mostly on these four revolutions. As scholars have begun analysing hundreds of events as revolutions it became clear that the first two generations were far too limited in scope. The theories of the first two generations were criticized for their limited scope, their difficulty in empirical verification and the fact that they might explain certain revolutions but not other revolutions, or why revolutions do not occur during similar situations, (Goldstone, 2001, p. 148).

Because of these criticisms, a third generation rose up. This generation expanded upon the classic Marxist class conflict approach, turned their attention towards state conflict with elites, to rural agrarian-state conflicts, and the impact of military competition on domestic political change. One of the most famous authors 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', (Goldstone, 2001, p. 164). In this case revolutions are caused by multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.

However around the 1980s this generation garnered criticism as well. The revolutions of that time (such as the Iranian and Nicaraguan revolutions, the People Power revolution in the

Philippines, and the Autumn of Nations) defied the explanations of the previous three generations. Those revolutions saw multi-class coalitions demonstrate and strike non-violently and topple seemingly powerful regimes. As such, defining revolutions as only state versus people and class struggle conflicts was no longer sufficient. Because of this, the study of revolutions moved into three different areas. Firstly, scientists more rigorously applied the structuralist view on non-European, non-archetypical revolutions. Secondly, scientists more rigorously applied agency in trying to understand revolution. Specifically the link between agency in the form of ideology and culture in the shaping of revolutionary mobilization and objectives. Thirdly, experts in revolutions and social movements came to realize that their respective fields have a lot in common. The fourth generation tries to combine both phenomena in the attempt to understand both better (Goldstone, 2001, p. 172). Revolutions exclude coups d'état, civil wars, revolts and rebellions that make no effort to change the justification for authority or institutions, as well as a peaceful transition towards democracy. The Leninist view on revolution quite clearly fits with the third generation. The

working class overthrowing the state fits the idea of elites fighting against lower classes. However, the Anarchist view on revolution does not completely fit any generation. The anarchist view relies on the both a political and a social revolution, by also changing the way people think. This currently is not incorporated within a school of revolutionary thought and shows that information regarding revolutions is incomplete at best.

(21)

3.2 Evolution

Evolution can be a wondrously vague word, as it can mean different things to different disciplines. If one were to mention evolution to a biologist or a zoologist, their first reaction would be to

mention how species change over millennia, although the precise details would remain contested. If one were to mention evolution to linguists, their most probable reaction would be to look at how languages change over time, although once again the precise details would remain contested. It is therefore important to note precisely what type of evolution is being written about. This short sub-section will carry that responsibility. Firstly, by mentioning two views on evolution, which are not necessarily opposed but that can be seen as distinct. First shall be the idea of passive revolution, followed by the idea of social democracy

A passive revolution involves a significant change that is not a rapturous one, but a slow and gradual metamorphosis which could take years or generations to accomplish (Gramsci & Forgacs, 1988). This term was coined by the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci to contrast the passive revolution with the more active revolutionary revolutions. This view has been chosen for closer examination due it being the exact opposite of revolutions. Passive revolution is a transformation of the political and institutional structures without strong social processes. There are four important tactics to passive revolution, those being: education, language, religion and media. With those four working in tandem, society can be changed slowly and organically to suit the ideas of the ruling class.

For this passive revolution to work it is important that education is formed around the future. By focussing on the minds of the future generation it becomes possible to shape future

developments to align with the governing ideas. For example, by teaching proper history in high school, students now know that slavery is inherently bad.

Secondly, Gramsci states that language is important. If society can control how people talk, they can eventually control how society thinks. Gramsci believes that language can best be

controlled through education.

Thirdly, Gramsci believed that religion would form an important aspect in forming society. However this was a key aspect of the time and place in which he wrote. As an Italian of the early twentieth century, the Roman Catholic Church had a major role in society. However, these days the role of the Church in society has been reduced and for that reason this third aspect can be mostly overlooked.

Finally, and most importantly, the media plays the most important role of the four. The media ties all three other tactics together and fills any gaps that they might have left. Once again, in

(22)

the time in which Gramsci wrote, media was not as widespread and all persuasive as it is now. Just as the third tactic of religion must be seen as having a diminished effect, this fourth tactic of media has only increased in power. The media has a great control over the opinions of people, and this must be utilized, and not be allowed to influence in contrast to the revolution (Gramsci & Forgacs, 1988 ).

As stated, now social democracy will take the stage. Heywood describes social democracy as: 'an ideological stance that supports a broad balance between market capitalism, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other hand. Being based on a compromise between the market and the state, social democracy lacks a systematic underlying theory and is, arguably, inherently vague. It is nevertheless associated with the following views: (1), capitalism is the only reliable means of generating wealth, but it is a morally defective means of distributing wealth because of its tendency towards poverty and inequality; (2), the defects of the capitalist system can be rectified through economic and social intervention, the state being the custodian of the public interest', (Heywood, 2012, p. 128). The important part for this thesis lies within Heywood's second point. Defects, where they arise, can be mitigated by state power. To use a rather simplistic example, if through capitalism people lose their jobs because their sector has become obsolete, it is up to the state to provide the workers with a solution. At first that would be in giving them benefits to make sure that they can survive. After that it would mean making sure jobs are created for them.

Where social democracy then differs from passive revolution is that social democracy believes in using the established political and social system to achieve change. To put it in the terms of this thesis, through an evolution rather than a revolution. This evolution can be seen in terms of an increase in social welfare legislation. Political parties which embrace social democratic

tendencies also seek to increase social welfare legislation, thus making sure that people are

protected and provided for. The origin of Social Democracy can be found within the revolutions of 1848 (Harsanyi, 2015, p. 242). The key contributions that Social Democracy have had on societies around the world have been: democratization of political, social and economic life; the growth and modernization of the state and the economy, specifically in regards to social policy, industrial and labour relations; the introduction of ideological consensus by bridging the gap between socialism and capitalism; and finally the strong support for third peace and economic integration (Harsanyi, 2015, p. 243). Although Social Democracy became most popular in the Northern European countries such as in Scandinavia, Germany and the Netherlands, it garnered support around the world. Social democracy shall be the concept of evolution going forward as it most closely fits the ideas of evolution and it has been used far more then the concept of passive revolution.

(23)

3.3 Why evolution is superior to revolution

In theory, revolutions are wonderful things. People get to work out all their frustrations with the system and each other, thus forming a closer bond with the people left. One can also demolish the current system and in that way be left with a blank canvas which can be painted however one desires. However whilst this might appeal to some (the more bloodthirsty) people, the idea appears to be flawed. As has been stated in sub-section 3.1 the most looked at revolutions were the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution. It is not within the scope of this thesis to properly analyse all four revolutions so only the eventual end result will be presented. The French Revolution had as result the establishment of a French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte which spanned most of Europa. The empire also was the cause of a continent wide war which killed and impoverished millions. The Russian Revolution also killed and

impoverished countless people and helped in the establishment of a horrendous regime which has killed and impoverished countless more. The same can be said for the Chinese Revolution. The Glorious Revolution is the exception in this case in that it achieved its goal rather painlessly (Goldstone, 2001, p. 132. As stated, this a gross oversimplification and yet it cannot be denied that of the four revolutions, three did not accomplish the intended goal and only managed to work against people.

With the social security provided by social democracy hardly anyone would prefer a revolution over political evolution. Revolutions throw societies into the wind with no one being sure what one ends up with. Evolutions have been shown to get results which help the general life of people. To conclude, revolutions do often not provide the solution wanted which shows their failing and evolutions can provide the solutions. To put it into the terms of feasibility: revolutions ignores the momentum and inevitability of evolutions. As evolutions have been progressing continuously (in the way of increasing welfare security) it has gained a certain momentum.

Evolution would then appear to be inevitable. In that case the alternative, revolutions, must then be seen as infeasible.

3.4 Homo Economicus

(24)

requires a fully rational man. It requires that people fully weigh all the advantages and

disadvantages of revolution versus evolution. After this has been done people would decide on evolution. If this were the case this thesis would base its conception of human nature on the idea of Homo Economicus, which will now be properly explained.

The best way to introduce the concept of Homo Economicus is through an example. Imagine that you have the money to travel to Las Vegas for a few weeks to gamble and party. You will then have to make a decision: to go or not to go. Economics deals with choices and assume that people want to maximize their utility, in this case the value of some subjective goal (Rittenberg &

Tregarthen, 2009, p. 1). As such, one can use economics to decide which option is the better one. Following through on this example lets imagine that you do decide to go to Las Vegas. In this case the subjective goal is the enjoyment of the trip. However, you will have to give up certain other things to go on this trip. These things include: the money you will have to spend on the trip, the money you decided not to earn by taking time of work, time itself which you could have spent on other activities, and perhaps some of your mental faculties by spending a few weeks gambling and partying. Economists will then state that to maximize utility, you will have weighed the costs against the benefits and decided that in this case the benefits outweigh the costs.

The origin of the idea of Homo Economicus can be traced back to critics of John Stuart Mill, specifically critics on his work on political economy (Persky, 1995, p. 221). The critics were

referring to the following passage of Mill, in which he seems to argue for the idea of the Homo Economics. 'Political economy does not treat the whole of man’s nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end', (Mill, 1836, p. ). However, even before Mill the idea behind the term was used. For example, as Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest', (Smith, 1986, p. 119). In this case Smith states that men are self serving, thus showing a clear line towards the eventual concept of Homo Economicus. Even further back in time, Aristotle discussed the nature of self interest in Book 2, part 5: 'Again, how immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser's love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property', (Aristotle, Politics). In this way one can see that the idea of a self serving man

(25)

has a long history ultimately leading to the concept of homo economicus. This in turn led to economic models based on utility maximizing actors such as Rational Choice theory. This view of human nature is rational in the sense that the actor tries to advance his own personal utility by weighing costs against benefits. The actor is not rational in that it tries to always follow a rational utility.

This view on human nature has been heavily criticized for a number of reasons. Amaryta Sen has argued that it is absurd to assume that rationality must always be limited to selfish

rationality. He uses an example to elaborate upon this. Imagine two people on a street in a village, one a local, being yourself, and one not. You get asked the question 'where is the railway station?' “'There,' I say, pointing at the post office, 'and would you please post this letter for me on the way?' 'Yes,' he says, determined to open the envelope and check whether it contains anything valuable”, (Sen, 1997, p. 322). This would make sense if people would always seek to maximize their own utility, for according to the principles of Homo Economicus there would be no reason not to look in the envelope. Johansen puts it as 'Economic theory in this, as well as in some other fields, tends to suggest that people are honest only to the extent that they have economic incentives for being so. This is a homo oeconomicus assumption which is far from being obviously true, and which needs confrontation with observed realities. In fact, a simple line of thought suggests that the assumption can hardly be true in its most extreme form. No society would be viable without some norms and rules of conduct. Such norms and rules are necessary for viability exactly in fields where strictly economic incentives are absent and cannot be created', (Johansen, 1977, p. 149) Another example that Sen mentions is the example of voting. As the vote of an individual almost never has a

measurable effect on the election, and the individual has to give up time and do some effort to vote one could state that the costs far outweigh the benefits. If people were utility maximizing actors they would never vote. Yet the turnout of elections remains high. Therefore the idea of the Homo Economicus, whilst perhaps not being completely false, needs to be amended. This however does not fit the scope, nor the purpose, of this thesis. It is merely sufficient to state that people are not fully rational and that decisions made are made due to other reasons.

An alternative view is the concept of bounded rationality. This view argues that the

rationality of decision making does not need to be grounded in the maximisation of utility. No one will argue that it is in the best interest of men to smoke, and yet people continue to do so. As such, one can argue that 'conclusions reached by rational deliberations may be overridden by strong emotional impulses', (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2000, p. 13). What bounded rationality is, is difficult to explain. It is easier to elaborate upon what it is not. Bounded rationality is neither optimization nor irrationality (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2000, p. 5). Therefore it is not the principle of homo economicus

(26)

as has been described, as the concept of a fully rational person is an impossibility. Neither is it fully irrationality, as most people do have some type rationality within their decisions. The original theorist that developed bounded rationality, Simmons, described this view as a pair of scissors. One blade of the scissor is the cognitive limitation people and the other blade is the structure of the environment. People with limited rationality can still make rational decisions by using the structures available to them (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2000, p. 4). Therefore even non-fully rational people can make rational decisions. Whilst it is true that people will not be able to fully process all information in regards to revolutions and evolution, most people will have some knowledge regarding the two of them and will have come to the conclusion that evolutions have gathered results that revolutions have not.

4. Historical- and current revolutions

The previous chapters have presented a convincing case for the infeasibility of political revolutions. This chapter, the fourth, will look at seemingly convincing counterarguments. The main argument of this thesis, briefly summarized, is that revolutions are not feasible due to the overwhelming prevalence of a better option: evolution. One can argue that it is only due to revolutions that evolutions have become possible. Three examples shall be presented to provide a foundation for this counterargument: the French revolution, the Russian revolution, and the Arab Spring. The first two are included because they are seen as archetypical examples of revolutions, as seen in their inclusion into the first wave of research into revolutions. The Arab Spring is included because it is a rather new period of political disturbance and a new type of revolution. This chapter shall firstly explain the French revolution, followed by that Russian revolution and the Arab Spring. The chapter will then elaborate upon the reasons for the revolution to occur and will conclude that the main reason for the revolutions to have occurred is because people had no option to work through the political system. The evolution option was non-existent. It will then be argued that as people believe that the evolution option is eroding away these days, that revolution does become feasible again. However, as people live in parliamentary democracies, even if people might not believe that they have a voice in proceedings, they in fact do. The chapter will end with looking and disproving an example which runs counter to the main argument, Rojava.

The Ignorance of Political Revolutions : why political revolutions are an infeasible changeover mechanic within political theories