Chapter 87 Chapter 15 The Third World and Revolution 5

5 Revolutions at the end of the 20th century therefore had two characteristics: one was the atrophy of the existing revolutionary tradition, and the other was the revival of the power of the masses.We have seen (see Chapter 2) that very few revolutions since 1917-1918 have been based on grassroots masses.majorities driven by activist minorities, fully committed and well organized; or initiated from above and enforced, as in military coups or military occupations - though this does not mean that under the right circumstances they do not have real masses Base (this only makes a difference if the change is from a foreign conqueror).But at the end of the 20th century, the "crowd" returned to the stage again, and this time, it no longer just played the role of background, but turned around and took on the role of the show.Minority activism, in the form of rural or urban guerrillas and terrorists, continues to operate in the developed world and has even become localized.In important parts of South Africa, in areas of Islam, they are also constant sights.According to statistics from the US State Department, international terrorist incidents increased from 125 in 1968 to 831 in 1987, and the number of victims increased from 241 to 2,905 (UN World Social Situation, 1989, p. 165).

The list of political assassinations is also getting longer and longer—Egypt's President Sadat (Anwar Sadat, 1981), India's Gandhi mother and son (Indira Gandhi, 1984, Rajiv Gandhi, 1991) are just one or two of them.The Irish Republican Army in Britain and the Basque Liberal Party in Spain are also examples of small group violence.Their advantage is that they can complete tasks with only a few hundred or even dozens of people, because there is a steady supply of weapons and explosives with super explosive power, low price, and easy to carry from the thriving international arms trade.This is a major symptom of the growing barbarism of the three worlds. The urban population living in the end of the millennium is learning how to live in an atmosphere polluted by terror and anxiety every day.But these actions made very little real contribution to the political revolution.

But the power of the masses is not.As the Iranian revolution showed, millions of people, willing to take to the streets at any time, have a great influence on the revolution. The same is true for East Germany 10 years later; the people of the German Democratic Republic made up their minds to vote with their feet and cars, and set off in the direction of West Germany to show their determination to oppose the East German regime.This great migration, without any prior organization, was a completely spontaneous phenomenon—however, Hungary’s decision to open its doors wide naturally also had an accelerated effect.In just two months, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, 130,000 East Germans set foot on this road to the west (Umbruch, 1990, pp. 7-10).And Romania, where the television media first caught footage of the revolutionary moment.The people summoned by the regime to the public square, not only did not applaud, but began to boo everywhere. The sagging old face of the dictator reflected the revolutionary will of the masses.What's more, in the place where Palestine is occupied by Israel, a large-scale non-cooperation movement (intifada) has been set off. Since its launch in 1987, it has proved that from now on, Israel can only maintain its occupation by suppressing it with all its strength.Standing still and acquiescing to accept it has been unable to restrain the turbulent Palestinian sentiment.What is the stimulus for the dull people who have always been lacking in vitality to suddenly turn into action-modern communication technology, such as television and tape recorders, makes it difficult for even the most remote and isolated people to be isolated from the impact of the world situation-but in the final analysis, the masses have accumulated The state of being ready to go into battle is the key to everything.

But mass movements have not and cannot overthrow regimes on their own.In some instances, this force is sometimes even immediately repelled by high pressure.The greatest achievement of mass popular movements has been to highlight that regimes have lost their legitimate representation.In Iran, and in Petrograd in 1917, the regime's loss of legitimacy was manifested in the most classical form, the refusal of the military and police to continue to obey the regime.In Eastern Europe, the mass movement made the old regime, which had suffered a severe setback when the Soviet Union refused to extend a helping hand, realize the fact that it was exhausted.This is really a standard example from Lenin's textbook: people vote with their feet, which may be more effective than real ballots.Of course, the people alone cannot achieve success, and the revolution will not succeed because of this.They are not an army, but a crowd, or a statistical aggregation of individuals.They need someone to lead them, and they need to have a political structure or strategy to make the revolution work.The Iranian populace was able to mobilize because of a political protest movement against the Shah's regime, but the key to turning that movement into a revolution was the willingness of millions to follow it.The masses responded to the political call of the upper class and directly intervened on a large scale.Numerous precedents fit this same pattern—for example, the Indian National Congress in the 1920s and 1930s calling for non-cooperation against Britain (see Chapter 7), and Argentina's famous Day of Loyalty. ), supporters of President Peron demand the release of their captured hero in the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires (1945).What is more, the most important factor is not their numbers, but so many people can act in a situation that makes them highly effective.

Why voting with your feet became such a huge part of politics in the last decade of the 20th century is not well understood.One of the causes, if tried, must be that during this period the distance between rulers and ruled increased almost everywhere in the world.But in a country with a political mechanism that keeps track of public opinion and a way for people to express their political preferences, the growing disparity is not enough to cause revolution, or to cause a complete disconnect between top and bottom.Consensus loss of confidence is most likely to occur in regimes that have long since lost or never had a legitimate basis (such as Israel in territories it occupies), and is even more pronounced where those in power have gone to great lengths to conceal the truth.But even within democracies with stable congressional institutions, large-scale demonstrations against realpolitik or party systems occur frequently.Such as the political crisis in Italy in 1992-1993; and the emergence of new electoral forces in many countries.A common feature of this powerful new trend is its lack of "identity" with any established political party.

But there is another factor in the revival of the mass movement, namely the global urbanization, especially in the Third World.In the early classical revolutionary era, from 1789 to 1917, the old regime was overthrown in the metropolis; however, the new regime later became permanent under the support of rural grassroots who could not speak clearly. The novelty of the revolutions after the 1930s was that the revolutions started from the countryside, and once they were victorious, they entered the cities.But by the late 20th century, revolutions were starting again in the cities, even in the Third World, except in a few really backward areas.This trend is inevitable, because most of the people in any large country now live in cities (at least it seems so), and also because the metropolis where the center of power is located is strong enough to withstand the challenge from the countryside (thanks to modern technology, Naturally must not) - as long as those in power have not lost popular support.The Afghan War (1979-1988) proved that a city-based regime can still survive in the typical guerrilla countryside where insurgent forces emerge from the countryside.Because it is backed by someone, funded by someone, and equipped with modern high-tech weapons and equipment, even after the withdrawal of foreign troops that it once relied on completely, it can still remain unmoved.President Najibullah's government, against all expectations, survived years after Soviet troops withdrew.Even if it eventually collapsed, it was not because Kabul could no longer deal with rural forces, but because its own professional soldiers defected. After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Saddam Hussein also stood still in Iraq and failed. Although the army was severely damaged, he was still able to conquer the north and south and deal with the rebel forces in his country. The reason was that he Baghdad was not lost. Revolutions in the late 20th century had to be fought in cities to succeed.

Will this urban revolution continue? The four major revolutions in the 20th century: 1917-1920, 1944-1962, 1974-1978, 1989 to the present, will there be another wave of overwhelming torrents?Looking back, there are only a handful of regimes in the world that can survive today without a few revolutions, armed counter-revolutionaries, military coups, and civilian armed conflicts.After seeing such a century of bloody revolution, who would dare to place a bet on the guarantee that a peaceful constitutional transformation will really succeed in the world? ——In 1989, some people who deeply believed in liberal democratic constitutionalism were ecstatic, and they boasted such utopian prophecies.However, the world entering the third millennium is not a world with a stable country and society.

But while the world will certainly continue to be turbulent—at least in large parts of the world—the nature of these disturbances remains unclear.The world at the end of the short twentieth century was in a state of social collapse rather than revolutionary crisis, although it inevitably included countries like Iran in the 1970s.Where the conditions were right to overthrow a regime that had lost its legitimacy and was hated by the population, and led by a leadership sufficient to replace it, the population revolted; as in Algeria at the time of this writing, and in the pre-apartheid regime South Africa (however, even if the conditions for revolution are potential or exist, the revolution is not guaranteed to succeed).However, today, there are not many phenomena that are dissatisfied with the status quo in such a rush and focus. Generally, the more common situations are mostly scattered rejection of the status quo, or political organizations do not exist, and people feel extremely distrustful of political organizations.All in all, it may be a phenomenon of disintegration at all, and the domestic and foreign politics of various countries can only do their best to adapt to it.

This new phenomenon is also filled with violent restlessness - more evil than before - and, crucially, with weapons of all kinds.Take the years before Hitler won the two regimes in Germany and Austria as an example. Although the tension and hatred between races were strong at that time, it is hard to imagine that they will deteriorate to the same level as neo-Nazi teenage skinheads today. Similarly, a Turkish immigrant family was set on fire, killing six of them.Yet by 1993, when such drastic action took place in the quiet depths of Germany, especially in the city of Solingen, whose working-class socialist tradition is deepest, it was commonplace and unsurprising. It's a regular thing.

What's more, weapons and ammunition with high explosive power are readily available, so that the military advantage once monopolized by developed societies is no longer a matter of course in the world.The territory of the former Soviet bloc is now a chaotic phenomenon of poverty and greed.It is not unimaginable that the possession of nuclear weapons, and even the means to manufacture them, would flow to groups other than the government. Therefore, it is obvious that the world entering the third millennium will still be a world full of violent politics and violent political upheavals.The only thing that is uncertain is that we don't know where this turbulent current will lead mankind.