It is impossible to define the methods used when resisting a government or institution. Lenin summaries the general feeling within a country at the brink of revolution when he says ‘A revolution occurs when those on top can do more, and when those below will stand for no more. ‘ This statement is applicable to many of the instances over the years although the techniques and outcomes that followed varied drastically. Due to the changes in society over the many decades containing revolutions the nature of resisting has adapted in order to cause the largest impact on the government.
The admiration of the French Revolutions of the 19th century led to more recent ones to model their resistance on what they know of the past. Everyday resistance, which involves mass insubordination by the public, nas been a more recent tactic when resisting the government, and has been seen as effective. By examining these revolutions across Europe, ranging from France in 1848 to Paris in 1968 and those that spread across Eastern Europe in 1989, we can draw comparisons between them and analyse their techniques and effectiveness. ublic, has The rise of superpower countries such as the Soviet Union and the United States in the later half of the century brought a new meaning to revolution. These governments were not so easy to topple; consequently, a lot more planning was required to make an impact. The success of the earlier revolutions was partly caused by the unstable systems of government having no substantial power to defend itself against the masses.
The attitudes of the heads of state have also strengthened over the past 200 years. During the 1848 revolution Emperor Ferdinand of Austria allegedly said: ‘Tell the people that I agree to everything. ‘ which was a similar reaction across the continent. This contrasts with Gaulle’s response in the Paris revolution in 1968 where, although shaken by the turmoil caused by the events, he called for a re-election instead of stepping down as was demanded of him.
Bruce Ackerman talks about this reevaluation of government structures in an essay discussing the future of liberal revolutions and how the whole outlook on revolutions must change, stating that revolutionaries can no longer fight bureaucratic totalitarianism with force and instead must find ways to bring about freedom and equality that don’t result in prison sentences or death. Reinforcing this is the technological advancements that brought about a change in society which meant it was not possible to resist the state in the same ways prior to the Industrial Revolution.
The revolutionaries’ lack of military and resources and the rapidly increasing weapons of the state meant that their old tactics of barricades and street fighting could no longer attempt to cause destruction in the face of oppression. This disagrees with the statement that resistance became more informal after 1945; it could be argued that in fact, with the new strengths of the government, tactics had to be planned out more thoroughly instead of fighting in the streets.
The cooperation of intellectuals and their goals is clear in both classic revolutions and those more recent. Their knowledge and ideas attracted support nationwide with many relying on them to lead towards change. Although the role of intellectuals has mostly remained the same their tactics towards forming a resistance has changed vastly. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a prominent figure during the French Revolution of 1848, believed that violence was the answer to force the government to take notice of the revolutionaries.
He also believed that universal suffrage would not be enough to end discontentment within France and that they should demand more, believing the state would agree in order to restore order to the country. In sharp contrast with this ideology is Vaclav Havel, a Czech philosopher and politician, who during the 1989 resistance had no military to attack the government and instead went to Poland to discuss negotiations and change to the current regime by way of seminars and handouts. This has been criticised as being not enough and portraying the revolutionaries as a weaker force than those of times before.
However, the negotiations Havel was carrying out was a culmination of the slow, gradual build up of unrest within several countries in Eastern Europe; this was the safest way to get what they wanted instead of widespread militant resistance which could lead to more issues. The student-led revolution in Paris 1968 is an important area to examine when discussing resistance post-1945. This is a good example of the changing times and how both the people directly involved with the protests and the citizens of Paris reacted to this sudden revolt which brought Paris to a standstill for many weeks.
It began with a meeting concerning the closing down of Nonterre campus in Universite de Paris and quickly snowballed into something much larger. This was the first revolt led by students and this resulted in it being treated more despairingly by both the media and state. The lack of coverage by the media led many to believe the protests were harmless and would not come to anything, not understanding the needs of the students in the country as a whole. Additionally, the suddenness of the revolt meant the intended outcomes were unclear, the students demanding change as and when they thought of it.
However, the lack of planning did not stop them from flooding the city with anger and determinedness to make a change as is clear from a popular slogan graffitied across the city: ‘I have something to say, I just don’t know what it is. ‘ This vague desire for change was perhaps the reason they did not receive as much support from the upper classes as previous revolutions did. It is a strong argument that the lack of trade unions in France, and particularly Paris’, is what bridged the gap between students and workers, giving the University the support it needed from the factory workers.
Despite it being called an unsuccessful revolution by many, others going as far as to say it was an ‘imaginary revolution’ benefiting a very little percentage of the population, 1968 had a number of positive outcomes. One of these was the increased attention towards marginalised groups such as women, immigrants, and homosexuals, and the importance of their voices in a diverse city. Another was the change in society as a whole, moving away from the passive audience who never audibly questioned the government to a much more self-aware electorate who used their votes and abilities to protest to demonstrate their discontent with their government.
The theory behind everyday resistance is that society as a whole must bring revolutionary ideas into every aspect of their life, into their homes, their sexual desires, and their day to day emotions. This was working towards the idea that in order for a revolution to be successful it must transform humanity completely and to do that everyone must willingly be a part of the resistance. It was a form of insubordination that alerted the government to discontent within the citizens but gave them no formal cause to take action against the resisters.
An example of this is East Germany in the 80s. A series of conflicts over wages and housing policies led to workers threatening to strike in June 1953. This unhappiness in the workplace did not fit in with the Communist ideology of taking pride in your work and therefore instilled a sense of fear within the state when faced with a crack in the system. Following these strikes, East Germany settled into a state of conservatism, everyday resistance never quite reaching the same heights again, but the idea that it could again happen was enough to keep the government worried.
This is substantial evidence that everyday resistance can be effective when executed correctly and in a state of highly controlling dictators. In conclusion, the methods used to execute a revolution have changed over the years due to the ever-changing society. Force can no longer be the sole action used when wanting the government to listen to what you have to say, smaller, less violent acts of resistance are just as effective. Despite this, there are numerous similarities of revolutions pre-1945 and those after.
The role of leaders and intellectuals are crucial as is the cross-class cooperation to grab the state’s attention. Additionally, the spreading of information is still as effective, only becoming quicker and easier as time progresses. The mobilization of everyday resistance has been an important tool to create unrest within the country and crosses the gap between the leaders of revolutionaries and the country as a whole, combining their aims to cause as much unrest as possible.