Lack of control and Revolution - 0 views

• 
  #1 Ian Schlom on 17 Nov 11

   

  At pg. 44 in The Stuarts,  Kenyon describes how the monarchy lost control of the House of Commons, and how, in the earlier chapter, the monarchy didn't control much of England anyway.  Does this factor of not controlling the institutions of the State and society have sometyhing to do with the chances for revolution?  Does the State not having control over its institutions and organisation give the outrage experienced by the people the air to ferment into a widespread revolution?

  
  

  In the fall of the USSR, Gorbavech had to institute Perestroika before the Berlin Wall collapsed; In the Russian Revolution, WWI had to destroy stability by psuedo-modern warfare; and in the Spanish Revolution, the fascists had to upset the Republic for revolutionary measures to be instituted.

  
  

  What does a lack of absolute control have in fomenting Revolution?  Is it that the State's institutions are failing/declining that naturally prompts Revolution?  Or is it just that declining control gives outrage the chance needed to ferment into rebellion?

  
  

  The specificity is, of course, always necessary when considering these questions.  At least in the English Revolution, The monarchy had lost control of local provinces and was mostly centralised (where the gentry, having this local power, were mostly decentralised and could not easily become centralised), the gentry, mistreated by the monarchy, had the chance to disobey the king's commands and foment revolt among the suffering people.  The monarchy losing control of the House of Commons gave more autonomy to the gentry, allowing the gentry to make gains and pursue their own interests.  Not quite like the chaos of 1917 in Russia, although, 40 years leater in the crazy time of the late 40's and early 50's, there would be more spontaneity in the vacuum of a monarchy on hiatus, like the Diggers or the Levellers.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><p>At pg. 44 in <em>The Stuarts</em>,  Kenyon describes how the monarchy lost control of the House of Commons, and how, in the earlier chapter, the monarchy didn't control much of England anyway.  Does this factor of not controlling the institutions of the State and society have sometyhing to do with the chances for revolution?  Does the State not having control over its institutions and organisation give the outrage experienced by the people the air to ferment into a widespread revolution?</p> <br /> <p>In the fall of the USSR, Gorbavech had to institute Perestroika before the Berlin Wall collapsed; In the Russian Revolution, WWI had to destroy stability by psuedo-modern warfare; and in the Spanish Revolution, the fascists had to upset the Republic for revolutionary measures to be instituted.</p> <br /> <p>What does a lack of absolute control have in fomenting Revolution?  Is it that the State's institutions are failing/declining that naturally prompts Revolution?  Or is it just that declining control gives outrage the chance needed to ferment into rebellion?</p> <br /> <p>The specificity is, of course, always necessary when considering these questions.  At least in the English Revolution, The monarchy had lost control of local provinces and was mostly centralised (where the gentry, having this local power, were mostly decentralised and could not easily become centralised), the gentry, mistreated by the monarchy, had the chance to disobey the king's commands and foment revolt among the suffering people.  The monarchy losing control of the House of Commons gave more autonomy to the gentry, allowing the gentry to make gains and pursue their own interests.  Not quite like the chaos of 1917 in Russia, although, 40 years leater in the crazy time of the late 40's and early 50's, there would be more spontaneity in the vacuum of a monarchy on hiatus, like the Diggers or the Levellers.</p></div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top