1

Collin Anderson
Comparative Revolutions, Paper #1
10/1/2013
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
If the role of the state is to govern the masses, then the role of the revolution is to amass
against the governors. The elephantine history of socio-politics shows that political power has
been the fulcrum upon which war and peace, famine and bounty, and order and chaos have
always teetered upon. The Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs are so lauded because century after
century they maintained their vice grip on the kingdom; the order that the successive dynasties
maintained allowed for an explosion of culture, architecture, and social complexity that still
today baffles researchers and grade school teachers alike. Leap forward thousands of years to
the 1960s when the balance of war and peace was threatened. Much to the chagrin of many
Americans, the government of the United States of America used its massive political and
economic sway to engage in a war of ideology. Just a few years into the war popular opinion
moved away from military involvement in South East Asiabut that didnt stop the political
paragons from flexing their muscles to repress dissent, nor did it stop the war. Both of those
scenarios demonstrate the power of the political elite over the general masses they govern;
however, for every successfully dominant government there is a tessellating group that took
discontent, and mobilized it against the powers at be. These revolutions, big or small, are
fascinating in that they are all vastly different and unique, but look to achieve the same ends:
liberation.
To be liberated from the yoke of the oppressors (whether they are a monarch, or an entire
class) is the goal of political revolution. The reason that revolutions are dynamic, complex, and

2
wholly individual in nature is due to the variance in what exactly liberation necessitates in the
context of the society in which its fermenting. If the revolutionary cause is to depose a
monarch, than the revolutionaries will have to form a strategy that aligns with the set of
circumstances they are facing. In the same regard, a communist revolution aimed at
overthrowing an entire economic, political, and social order will require a completely different
approach.
Karl Marx is perhaps the quintessential revolutionary thinker. His writing, including but
not limited to The Communist Manifesto (also authored by Friedrich Engels), Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and The German Ideology, provided a blueprint for
revolutionary movements. Thinkers like Mao Zedong of China used Marxist ideology as a basis
for his movement, but through practice, he had to adapt it to fit the perceived differences in his
movement. On the other hand, sociologist James C. Davies removes dogma from his analysis of
revolution, and attempts to illuminate patterns in them. Each author has a unique take on civil
disobedience, just as each revolution in itself is distinctive.
Karl Marx wrote the book on revolution. He was not the first, and he certainly would not
be the last, but his work The Communist Manifesto alone redefined popular uprising in the age
of industry. For Marx, society was plagued by the modus operandi of capitalism, [The
Bourgeoisie compel] all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of
production (Marx and Engels, 84). The bourgeois, or those in the global economy that control
the means of production, have such an absolute stranglehold on the economy, that Marx doesnt
hesitate to denounce the militancy of these exterminators. In the eyes of the bourgeoisie, there is
no room for another system. Yet, his work did not become notorious for being an outlet to

3
complain about the rich. Instead, he reveals to the world the concept that makes him just so very
revolutionary...

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death
to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those
weaponsthe modern industrial working classthe proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same
proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developeda class of
labourers who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so
long as their labor increases capital. (Marx and Engels, 87)

For Marx, the cure for the blight of bourgeois domination is a byproduct of the poison itself.
Much like the cure for a lethal snakebite comes from the same vicious fangs. An interesting
phenomena was being proposed, so long as the capitalists exists, they will inherently produce the
means of their own demise. Essentially, Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in
other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society, (Marx and Engels, 93).
The stringency of bourgeois methodology, and its ability to eviscerate, is astounding to
the proletariat. In one fantastically poetic sentence, All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy
is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and
his relations with his kind, Marx vividly paints the reality of the proletariat. This gripping
language makes it quite clear to see that Marx sees revolution as not only crucial, but inevitable.
Human kind cannot be completely blinded by the trappings of capitalism, because once critical
mass is reached, all that is solid melts into air, and that disenchantment leads to action. The
proletariats, upon achieving this consciousness of their hopeless position, must according to
Marx, join together to overthrow the owners of the means of production, and with it, the
politically powerful.

4
Mao Zedong sees a China at the beginning of the 20th century that is struggling
with imperialism, poverty, economic backwardness, illiteracy, and countless other ills. He is not
Marx, writing from the view of a political philosopher behind a desk. Instead, he has a real
populace enveloped in the very system Marx describes, and faces the gargantuan challenge of
employing communism against a real bourgeoisie. While Marxs theories are invaluable to the
practical communist, the details are vague in the areas of exactly how to administrate the
revolution. Mao fills in what Marx left out and creates his version of practical communism,
Maoism.
Mao faces a challenge that Marx didnt give an explicit solution to: the proletariat
working class in China was far smaller than the peasant class. The reason for this, as Mao says, is
because China is economically backwards, due to the lack of industrialization (Zedong,
Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, p. 5). Mao looked to Vladimir Lenins Bolshevik
Revolution when planning his own, we found Marxism-Leninism, the best of truths, the best
weapons for liberating our nation, (Reform Our Study, p.1, section 1) and denounced those in
his party that saw the theories of Marx, Lenin, Stalin etc. as just reading. He believed in taking
their principles and finding exactly how they were to fit into the Chinese model, The target is
the Chinese Revolution, the arrow is Marxism-Leninism, (Reform Our Study p. 5, Section III).
Zedong proposes that the majority of the rural farmers are not farmers at all, but instead hired
laborers that work seasonally. Therefore, these workers, though not the traditional industrial
proletariat of Marxism-Leninism, do in fact sell their labor in the same manner. They dont own
the land, and most times they dont even own the tools they use to farm it. Therefore these
farmers in Maos vision play a large role in the revolutionary movement.

5
James Davies has the luxury of being on the other side of the revolutionary history.
Certainly more revolutions have occurred since he wrote his Toward a Theory of Revolution in
1962, but in the piece he is able to construct a theory about how and why revolutions occur based
on revolutions that have already happened, successful or not. Davies succinctly defines what he
means by revolution, Revolutions are here defined as violent civil disturbances that cause the
displacement of one ruling group by another that has a broader popular basis for support,
(Davies, p. 6, footnote 3). It is a much broader definition of revolution than that of Marx or Mao,
and allows him to study more than just communism when he analyzed movements.
Davies suggests that revolutions are, to a degree, relative in the regard that the oppression
experienced isnt the deciding factor. One society may live in horribly repressive conditions and
never get anywhere near the brink of revolution, while another may live a comfortable life by
some standards, and still revolt. Davies states that [Political instability is] ultimately dependent
on a state of mind, a mood, in a societyIt is the dissatisfied state of mind rather than the
tangible provision of adequate or inadequate supplies of food, equality, or liberty which
produces a revolution, (Davies, 6). He further defines this phenomenon by stating that
revolutionary movements are contingent on the peoples expectation of their government to
satisfy needs. A society that has never been fully provided for is less likely to revolt than a
society that expects provision because it has had its needs sufficiently met in the past.
To illustrate this point, Davies highlights cases of revolution, including Dorrs Rebellion
of Rhode Island, The Russian Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution. In each he details how
the aforementioned societies fit his model. As an example, in Dorrs Rebellion, the theorem
holds despite the revolution not being ultimately lasting or very successful. The textile industry
was starting to boom in the blossoming republic of the United States of America, and in 1790 it

6
reached the smallest state in the Union, Rhode Island. These mills saw a particular success due to
the Napoleonic wars in Europe creating a demand that the fledgling nation in the Western
hemisphere could supply. In New England this boom in industry began the first of many different
waves of urbanization that characterize industrial societies. Rhode Island, being a small state,
saw more people completely abandoning the rural agrarian lifestyle to find work in the cities
than either of its neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The first trouble came from the fact
that the industry was capricious. Some years it would be fruitful, and the factories flourished, and
others, there was not enough money for bread, (Davies, 8). At the same time, the urbanization
of the workers led them to political organization in a way never possible in scattered urban
communities. This is the volatile beginning of the conflict between need expectation, and need
satisfaction. Through the first two decades of the 19th century, Rhode Islanders watched their two
neighboring states enact universal male suffrage laws, something that they had been trying for in
vain. In 1841, the suffrage organizations called a conference, and declared a separation from the
established government.
In the case study above, there are elements of revolution familiar to Karl Marx, Mao
Zedong and James Davies himself. Karl Marx wrote his works with the voice of a guide. He
declared boldly the inherent evils of capitalist society, and the inevitability of a proletariat-led
Communist Revolution. Mao Zedong took Marxist thought, as well as the trials and tribulations
of revolutions that had already occurred, and created a plan for China that was unique. Rejecting
the rigidity of communism, James Davies proposes a theory for general revolution, and gives
parameters that are not subordinate to any single ideology. Each thinker views revolution
differently, yet all attempt the same thing: to analyze a human desire to revolt.