From time to time, I like to point readers to the podcast Revolutions by Mike Duncan. I most recently did so for lessons about avoiding authoritarianism, even the kind we find in so-called ‘democratic’ forms.
Here’s one more lesson.
Appendix 3
Duncan finishes his podcast with about a dozen appendices. In Appendix 3, he argues that divisions within the ruling class are necessary in order to produce a revolutionary situation (or another type of civil war). To be clear, this is only to say that these divisions are necessary for a revolution, not sufficient.
As Duncan puts it, divisions within the ruling class produce a state of disequilibrium in the regime. Without this disequilibrium, it’s nearly impossible for revolutions to get off the ground. Even the best laid plans for leftist change fail to go anywhere without a broader atmosphere that creates unique opportunities to gain traction. And divisions within the rulers produce just such an opportunity.
While intuitive, I find that people tend to forget all this when they’re doing politics, especially leftist politics.
Film and Politics
When we evaluate leftist movements, we need to account for this. It’s one thing to condemn incompetent in times of revolutionary change. We can all do that. But it’s quite another to recognize that even well laid plans might go wrong at the wrong time. We can appreciate the plans, even when we recognize that the context was lacking.
Leftists must look to the broader situation when thinking about what to do. And even when thinking about the kinds of politics to advocate. Are we noticing where deeper conflicts and tensions exist? Do our ideas account for those conflicts and tensions? We shouldn’t simply evaluate movements apart from their contexts.
We could obviously ask whether we see this situation arising in the U.S. I might also mention the recent film Civil War. Did it succeed at portraying the kinds of situations in which revolution or civil war might arise?
Let me know in the comments.
