In every country where a
revolution has taken place (whether it be a “soft” revolution, or a violent
overthrow), those who are part of the winning team make a point of glorifying
the revolution and all the “good” that it has brought. For this reason, the
inhabitants of most countries where a revolution has taken place at some point
in their history, will believe that the revolution was positive. In countries
where that revolution was opposed, the people will most likely regard the
revolution as negative.
As an example, Frenchmen tend
to praise their revolution of 1789, in which the aristocracy were overthrown. Since
then, the emphasis has been on “the little man.” The little man would not only
be treated equally to the aristocrat, he would receive
preferential treatment. Not surprisingly, this devolved into the
socialism that dominates France today. In spite of the dysfunctionality of the
French system, most Frenchmen fondly praise the revolution and the “freedom”
that it ostensibly created for them.
And then we have the Cuban
revolution of 1959. Its stated purpose was to overthrow the aristocratic
Batista Regime and a replace it with one that favoured the campesinos. The
aristocracy was removed and ownership of most everything moved to the state.
There is most certainly greater equality in Cuba today (albeit at a very low
level), and yet we’re taught to regard the Cuban revolution as having been
destructive, as it devolved into socialism. Although the current system is
largely dysfunctional, the Cuban people, even today, speak of the freedom that
the revolution created for them.
These two examples are
similar, and yet Westerners are taught to regard the French Government as an
enlightened body of men and women who spend their waking hours legislating for
ever-increased goodness for the French people, yet we’re equally taught to
regard the Cuban government as tyrannical rulers over an oppressed people.
The perception of the results
of the respective revolutions would seem to have little to do with the reason
for the revolution, it’s immediate outcome, or its eventual outcome and have
more to do with whether the leadership of the country is “on our side” or not.
Those countries where the leaders align themselves with our own country are
good and enlightened, whilst the leaders who do not align themselves with our
country are tyrannical dictators. The true level of freedom for the people is
not really at issue.
“We’re Not Going to Take it Anymore”
So, let’s take a thumbnail
view of revolutions. The premise behind the desire for revolution is always the
same – a segment of the population feels that the government (and very possibly
their cohorts) have become oppressive and should be overthrown. When the
history is written by the victors, they will endeavour to create the impression
that the entire population had risen up; however, this is never the case. A
dissatisfied minority succeeded in
taking over.
So, what, then, of the
majority? Well, prior to the revolution, they sat along the sidelines and
tolerated whatever perceived injustices the former government imposed upon them.
During the revolution, they often sat on the sidelines, hoping to have as
little involvement as possible and, after the revolution, they generally sat on
the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the new regime, or at least avoid being
victimised.
In Russia, in 1917, a
relatively small number of people overthrew the aristocracy, and were then
faced with the problem of taking over. They had no experience in this and
didn’t know where to begin. Enter Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin, who had
little to do with the revolution itself but, through funding from London and
New York banks, were able to pay the Russian military and police to establish
order to a cursory degree. Once this was achieved, they used the military and
police to establish order to a
ruthless
degree. (Not exactly “saving the little man from the oppression of the
aristocracy”.) As Mister Lenin himself said,
“One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”
In the aforementioned France,
in 1789, the aristocracy was overthrown by a relatively small number of
revolutionaries and, again, the victors had no real experience in running a
country. Enter Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer with a flair for control and a
contempt for the hoi polloi. However, he was good at rhetoric, and the people
cheered as he lopped off heads. This, in spite of the fact that he most
certainly did not deliver “freedom” to the French people, only the illusion of
it. As he himself stated,
“The secret of freedom lies in educating people,
whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”
Meet the New Boss – Same as the Old Boss
And so it has gone, in one
revolution after another. Whether it be a soft revolution, or a violent one, it’s
generally followed by a disorganised and often violent period, where commerce, social
stability
and freedom suffer, at the
very least, for as long as it takes the new management to pull it all together,
and, in most cases, long thereafter. From Juan Peron in Argentina, The Shah in
Iran, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and countless others, revolution has meant
diminished liberty and hard economic times.
Meet the New Boss – Worse Than the Old Boss
In some cases, such as Mao
Zedong in China, Idi Amin Dada in Uganda and Pol Pot in Cambodia, conditions
worsened
considerably after the
revolution had “freed the people,” sometimes for decades.
It should be said that there
have been a few cases of both soft and violent revolutions in which the new
leaders were truly visionary and ushered in an era of greater freedom, such as
the American revolution of 1776, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines and Nelson
Mandela in South Africa. Yet, even in these cases, the rot set in almost
immediately through individuals within the new governments who sought to
re-create authoritarian power within an otherwise positive takeover.
Be Careful What You Wish For
The American revolution
notwithstanding, violent revolution almost never ends well. The odds are poor
that you’ll get a more just leader or the greater freedoms that the
revolutionaries have promised.
Today, we’re observing the
deterioration of the world’s most prominent capitalistic countries,
all at the same time. Each has devolved
into a fascist state. Again, to quote Mister Lenin,
“Fascism is capitalism in decline.”
Quite so. And, like many
Russians in the early days of the twentieth century, we see an increasing
number of citizens of the former “free world” realising that the decline of
their countries is baked in the cake; that
things are not likely to improve in their lifetimes.
And so, many fantasise that a
revolution of some sort will occur. They hope for a soft revolution (virtually
no chance of that happening), or a violent one – possibly generated by the
millions of gun-owners across the country. Unfortunately, no amount of handguns
and assault weapons will equal their government’s arsenal of tanks, drones,
chemical weapons, etc. A revolt could occur and spontaneous nationwide
guerrilla tactics could make it difficult to put down, but the likely outcome
would be years of strife and bloodshed, followed by dramatically-increased
authoritarian rule.
A third option might be to
accept that, yes, the decline into fascism is a dead end, but then, so, in all
likelihood, is revolution. That being the case, those who see two possible
negative outcomes and no positive one, might take the simpler step of
internationalising - moving to one of the many countries that are not presently
on the ropes.
|
Jeff Thomas is British and resides in the Caribbean. The son of an economist and historian, he learned early to be distrustful of governments as a general principle. Although he spent his career creating and developing businesses, for eight years, he penned a weekly newspaper column on the theme of limiting government. He began his study of economics around 1990, learning initially from Sir John Templeton, then Harry Schulz and Doug Casey and later others of an Austrian persuasion. He is now a regular feature writer for Casey Research’s International Man (http://www.internationalman.com) and Strategic Wealth Preservation in the Cayman Islands.
|
The author is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by Sprott Money Ltd. The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author or guest speaker, are subject to change and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sprott Money Ltd. Sprott Money does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness and reliability of the information or any results from its use.
