Chapter 13 Chapter II World Revolution 5

5 The driving force of the world revolution lies mainly in its organization in the form of the Communist Party, which is what Lenin called "a new kind of party".Lenin's pioneering work can be said to be a great invention of social engineering in the 20th century, comparable to the monk system and various clergy organizations of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages.Small organizations are surprisingly efficient because the party can demand total sacrificial devotion from its members.The discipline is stricter than the army.Concentrate all forces and implement the party's will and decision-making at any cost.The spirit of high obedience and dedication, the enemy also has to admire.However, the relationship between this "revolutionary vanguard party" model and the revolutions he was promoting (which he promoted, with occasional successes), was less clear.The single most obvious point is that this model was only established after the success of the revolution (and wartime).Because the Lenin party itself actually started as a small number of elite leaders (vanguards) (of course, before the victory of the revolution, they were called "anti-elites"), but the revolution, like the example in 1917, was made by the masses.Once a revolution breaks out, neither the elite nor the anti-elite can control the overall situation.In fact, the objects that Lenin's model attracts are often the younger generation of the existing elite class in society.This phenomenon is most obvious in the Third World: a large number of outstanding young people join the organization, heroically carry out the real proletarian revolution, and there are occasional successful examples. In the 1930s, the power of the Brazilian Communist Party expanded greatly, and the main force was the joining of young intellectuals from the ruling class of former landlord families and junior military officers (Martins, 1894, pp. 3390-3397).

But on the other hand, for the real "mass" (and sometimes those who actively support the "vanguard organization"), their feelings often contradict the opinions of the leaders.Especially in the case of really large-scale mass movements, the contradictions are more obvious.It was for this reason that in July 1936 the Spanish military mutinied against the incumbent Popular Front government, immediately sparking a social revolution in much of Spain.The militants, especially those who advocated the idea of ​​anarchy, naturally set out to collectivize the organization of production everywhere.But the Communist Party and the central government are unanimously opposed, and, as long as they seize the opportunity, they will abolish public ownership as much as possible and restore the original system.The advantages and disadvantages of public ownership are still a topic of endless discussion in the local political and historical circles.At the same time, this incident set off a wave of anti-idols, anti-old habits, killing priests, and anti-clergy. The situation was unprecedented and unprecedented.In fact, since the great riots in 1815, targeting the church has become part of the rioting activities of the masses.That year, the citizens of Barcelona burned the church to vent their anger because they were dissatisfied with the result of a certain bullfight.This time, about 7,000 clergy were brutally killed—almost 12% to 13% of the total number of priests and monks in the country; however, the number of Spanish nuns was even larger, and 7,000 accounted for only an insignificant proportion—only in the Northeast. In the local Catalonia (Gerona) diocese, more than 6,000 icons were vandalized (Hugh Thomas pp. 270-271; M. Delgado, 1992, P. 56).

This terrorist incident caused two reverberations: the leaders and spokesmen of the Spanish revolutionary left came forward to criticize the inappropriate behavior of the masses, although they were also fanatical anti-church elements in their hearts.Even the anarchists, who were known to hate the clergy, thought it was going too far.But for the people who participated in the riots, including many people who were on the sidelines at the time, their views were completely different.They feel that a revolution should be called a revolution just like this: a permanent, not temporary, symbolic overthrow of the original order and original values ​​of society.In addition, any other practices are secondary (M. Delgado, 1992, pp.52-53).Leaders can certainly insist that the main enemy of the revolution is capitalism, not poor priests.But the masses don't think so, and their views are completely different. (In another society that is not as masculine and muscular as the Iberian Peninsula, would mass politics be so crazily killing old idols? This is actually an unanswerable question regardless of the facts. However, if the attitude towards women Study carefully, maybe you can find some clues.)

Facts have proved that the so-called revolution occurs, the political order disintegrates, the idol authority collapses, and the people on the street are completely on their own (including women, if men let her have this freedom). This form of revolution is unique in the 20th century.Even the closest thing to this is the sudden collapse of the Iranian regime in 1979 under the revolution. The masses of Tehran rose up against the Shah in unison. Although most of them were spontaneous activities, they were not completely unorganized mobs. .Thanks to Iran's inherent Islamic organization, a new regime was established as soon as the old regime was wiped out.Although it took a little longer for it to really consolidate itself (see Chapter 15).

Another fact is that since the October Revolution, with the exception of certain regional emergencies, all the revolutions in the 20th century in various places have generally won the capital if it were not for sudden coups (most of which were almost always military coups). The result is the final victory of the long-term armed resistance (mostly peasant movements).In poor and backward countries, a military career often provides a way out for outstanding young people who are educated but lack connections and wealth to start a big career.Among these low-ranking officers of humble origin (sometimes even the non-commissioned class, but to a lesser extent), sympathy for radicals and leftists was common.Therefore, revolutions started by coups often appear in Egypt (Free Officer Revolution in 1952) and countries in the Middle East (Iraq in 1958, Syria, where revolutions have occurred from time to time since the 1950s, Libya in 1969, etc. Wait).In the history of revolutionary movements in Latin America, soldiers are even more indispensable protagonists.Although their motives for seizing power are rarely out of a clear left-wing position.Even if it was indeed motivated by a left-leaning consciousness at the beginning of its launch, it is rare to see long-term persistence.In 1974, however, there was an officer mutiny in Portugal that surprised observers: a group of young officers, disillusioned with Portugal's long-running colonial defense, became radicalized and overthrew the longest-running right-wing regime in the world at the time. It is the so-called "revolution of carnations".The team that joined forces with the officers included underground Communists and various Marxist groups.But the alliance between them eventually parted ways, at least to the relief of the members of the European Community.Soon afterwards, Portugal also joined the European Union.

As for developed countries, because their social organizations, ideological traditions, and the political functions of the military are different from those of the third world, soldiers with political ambitions tend to move closer to the right.As for cooperating with the Communist Party or socialism, it is not in their personality.It is true that in the battle to recover the colonies of the French Empire from the hands of the German army, the soldiers of the troops trained by the former Empire in the local area-the number of whom were promoted to officers was very small-often played an extremely important role (the former French Algeria in colonial North Africa is the most obvious example), however, these colonial soldiers who fought alongside de Gaulle's Free French in World War II and made up the majority of them, during the war and after the war, did not All tasted rather disappointed.Not only were they often discriminated against, but like most other French underground resisters who did not belong to the Gaullist faction, they were thrown into limbo as soon as the war was over.

In the official victory parade held after the recovery of France, the Free French troops displayed a much "whiter" complexion than the members who actually won the fighting honors for the de Gaullists.All in all, although 50,000 Indian soldiers joined the Indian National Army (Indian National Army) instigated by the Japanese, on the whole, the colonial troops serving the imperial forces, even under the leadership of the locals, Always loyal to the Empire.At least it has no political color (M. Echenberg, 1992, pp. 141-145; M. Barghava and A. Singh Gill 1988, p. 10; T. R. Sareen, 1988, pp. 20-21).