Intense regional jealousies and rivalries disunite the country of Vietnam. It is spilt by contentious differences among individual southern, northern and centralist interests. It also suffers from a long history of foreign rule and alien occupation since ancient times. At present, Vietnam is struggling for its very existence, after suffering the ravages of modern warfare, and experiencing runaway inflation estimated at forty-five hundred percent, since the end of the war in 1975 (Nguyen 1990). This research addresses the country of Vietnam from a pragmatic perspective. It searches for solutions to Vietnam’s problems, caused by regionalism and foreign occupation, as well as tries to solve the country’s current political dilemma brought about by its violent revolution.

Throughout its history, Vietnam has been torn by hostile foreign occupation, perpetual wars of resistance, and intense revolutionary infighting. Today, the Vietnamese Communist Party, (VCP), governs Vietnam with brutally harsh authoritarian rule, in order to control the deeply divided and economically troubled country together as a single nation. The political monopoly of power of the VCP is based on art adulteration of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Ideology,but Vietnam has thus far avoided current trends toward perestroika, glasnost and humanitarian reforms experienced elsewhere in the communist world.

  1. French Colonialism and Revolutionary Resistance

Vietnamese resistance to western colonialism erupted from the outset of French penetration into Indochina, with major uprisings occurring in 1885, 1896, and 1906, from within the northern regions of the country (Greene 1990). This resistance movement was eventually organized into the Vietminh, a shortened name for the League for the Independence of Vietnam. It was the chief political and military organization, founded by Ho Chi Minh, which fought the French for independence between 1946 and 1954. A legitimized coalition of nationalist groups under Communist control, they were the only significant organized resistance in Vietnam during the World War II Japanese occupation. In time, the Vietminh garnered a distinct advantage in the north in comparison to the overextended and bureaucratically crippled French administrators in colonial power.

As the power struggle shifted in favor of the Marxist, the French reacted with newfound puissance. However, French counterinsurgency in North Vietnam failed miserably. Almost everything they did helped contribute to their demise. Following the French defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, a communist government was established in North Vietnam, and the Vietminh was promptly dissolved. But the members of the Vietminh became important political figures in the new regime. Ho Chi Minh’s colleague, Vo Nguyen Giap, organized the victory at Dien Bien Phu, and later set the strategy for the ensuing successful struggle against the South Vietnamese government and the United States. After its revolutionary separation from the French, the Vietnamese communist government maintained a veritable stranglehold grip on the country. However, this grasp of monopolistic political power was only possible by garnering ongoing and often conflicting communist support from its super power counterparts. Since the 1930s, Vietnam’s communist revolutionaries have been supported by ongoing, and often strongly competing, alliances with Russia and China (Nguyen 1990).

  1. Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Party

Early in his revolutionary career, Ho Chi Mirth visited Moscow to learn the essence of Marxism and guerilla resistance techniques. Imbued with Lenin’s vanguard global mission in post-revolutionary Russia, his pedagogues were determined to shape and corral Vietnam’s politics and future (Nguyen 1990). From Moscow’s perspective, the future of Vietnam should be dictated by Leninist-Stalinist soviet intentions. On the other hand, their Chinese neighbors had ruled Vietnam throughout much of its history, and could not be expected to remain silent about its present condition or future. There were also many influential Chinese people living in Vietnam. These Chinese included a prominent group of merchants in the south. This Chinese enclave in Saigon was a leftover from the French. In an attempt to legitimize their colonialization, they gave the Chinese immigrants special foreigners-status, as a concession to China. Vietnam’s resistance against French colonial rule, one of the last to survive in modern history, was also a symbolic revolt against the western philosophical and political influences of capitalistic expansionism,  the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the French and Americans. Since its revolution, the Vietnamese communists maintained their balancing act among communist benefactors and influences, with ever increasing difficulty.

The dismal conditions that exist currently in the nation of Vietnam preclude non- practical solutions to the VCP’s contemporary political ineffectiveness and bureaucratic incompetence (Nguyen 1990). Marxist practicality has not worked. The suffering that exists among the people of Vietnam is shameful. Nonetheless, Vietnam’s population has experienced the cultural virtues and vices of both bourgeoisie and proletariat-based political systems. Its national economy, depending on region and period, has been both energized and restricted by capitalistic and communistic systems, alike (Greene 1990). Today, Vietnam must change, if it is able, and reform against its feeble but monopolistic and thus far unchallenged communistic government. Although Vietnam has never produced its own communist philosophy, nor has Vietnam produced any true political philosophers, its Marxist leaders have aped Marxist-Leninist-Maoist proletariat rhetoric to their advantage since the fall of Hanoi (Nguyen 1990).

Evaluating Consequences of Revolution in Vietnam

It may be argued that Vietnam is the perfect venue for evaluating the polemic between property-based systems and classless ones. Its unique history provides an advantageous setting for examining various revolutionary political consequences within this developing but politically tumultuous nation-state. Vietnam is also an ideal venue for studying revolutionary conflicts and the ensuing civil wars that seem to follow them, as evidenced by the histories of the United States and Russia. The focus on Vietnam will allow a dialectical examination of its political future and will also allow us to begin to answer the following questions. Is revolutionary change possible in Vietnam today, without violent counterinsurgency? If revolutionary overthrow occurred in Vietnam, as was possible during the late 1980s when the fervor of perestroika was high and the economy was wrecked with runaway inflation, could the ensuing nation have been held together amidst its chronic regional bickering and cultural infighting (Nguyen 1990)? Could Vietnam succeed as a Neo-Platonic republic, or will it continue to languish under its current tyranny of the proletariat masses? The first step to finding answers to these questions is to examine the current political milieu in Vietnam and to trace its antecedent conditions. Much of Vietnam’s modern revolutionary history is directly related to the teachings of Karl Marx. However, the Vietnamese also have a rich heritage of administrative excellence, as well as a strong and abiding revolutionary desire for Vietnamese-based home rule that pre-dates Marx by centuries.


  1. Karl Marx and modern Revolution

Following the publication of the Communist Manifesto, in 1848, the rules of engagement were changed with regard to historical revolution and the study of revolutionary political behavior (1998). According to Marx and Engels, the proletariat revolution is a non-political event that ruptures cultural boundaries. On Revolution describes a form of insurrection, which replaces class-based political systems with classless social orders, where no hierarchical or political separation is necessary (Marx 1971). Indeed, Karl Marx has become the worldwide personification of revolution in the twentieth century. The very words Marxism and Marxist acquired the direct connotation of revolution in the twentieth century. Many consider them to be equivalent. In 1850, Marx called for permanent revolution to telescope bourgeois and socialist revolutions into a single movement (Malia 1998). However, although Karl Marx was a highly educated middỉeclass intellectual and achieved a doctorate, at a time when the Ph.D. was an achievement of but a select few, he diverged from bourgeois norms the whole of his adult life. His completely revolutionary outlook and divergence from capitalistic norms included retaliation against the comforts that are afforded by property including intellectual property, philosophy and religion. His anarchistic lifestyle and writings brought Marx many hardships with his notoriety, but he lived the life of revolutionary until the end. Marx’s leonine head, with its wild hair, bushy beard and flashing eyes is in itself the personification of a revolutionist (Padover 1971).

History has been less kind to communist philosophy and Karl Marx’s attempts at system building than it has been to his revolutionary persona and anarchistic spirit. Albert Brisbane, an American newspaperman who saw Marx in Cologne in 1848, later wrote that Karl Marx possessed the “passionate fire of an intrepid spirit” (Padover 1971, hi). Many idealistic believers followed Marxist rhetoric and its communist gilding, but communism’s real life adherents also misled these people. Their ideological interpretations led to several of the most barbarous tyrannies in history. Nevertheless, as Marx and later Engels explain, some inevitable variations in the fulfillment of the communist solution require ongoing evolutionary adjustments, because of the complexity associated with the progression of history. Theirs is a theory based on a scientific knowledge of history’s laws. The scientific system of the Communist Manifesto is based on internal contradictions governing history’s culminating stage, the bourgeois mode of production (1998). Karl Marx claims that there is dialectic working, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, to seal the bourgeoisie’s doom and produce communistic results. This is the most deterministic aspect of his Marx’s system, to which Engels added that Karl Marx was truly the Darwin of social science (Malia 1998). This accolade will be apprised from both a scientific and philosophical political perspective. The record of communism and its historical and political results will be examined in the following chapters of this dissertation. We will assess the scientific rigor of Marx’s social system. Communism is based on proletariat-based monopolistic control of the entire governmental and socio-cultural system, which according to Marx represents an organized, standing, and prepared to act, minimal winning majority waiting for historical exigencies.

  1. Bases for Studying Revolution in Vietnam

Philosophically, it is assumed that the nature of revolution is stochastic, and indeed, beyond deterministic classification. This philosophical and scientific point also leads to the ultimate conclusion of this dissertation study. In short, it is the deterministic historical progression Marx describes that limits the scientific validity of his theory. His manifesto is designed to seize political power in order to extract, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie. After removing the capital from the middle class, Marx intends that society centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State. The final stage regards the proletariat being organized as the ruling class (Marx and Engels 1998). The resulting monopolistic power, described in the Communist Manifesto, turns out to be Marx’s undoing. Monopoly inevitably invites competition. Indeed, a hundred and fifty years of empirical history should partially confirm that the communist failure stems from the intractable logic of the project itself. The very science that Marx uses to prove his case also proves it to be uncertain. The two main axes of Marx’s theory, historical necessity and revolutionary worker consciousness have never intersected in everyday life. Marxism in practice produced the opposite of the results intended in theory, because force was required to draw historical necessity and the revolutionary workers consciousness into intersecting conflagration (Malia 1998).

The burgeoning moments that immediately follow the initiation of revolutionary conflagration are intense phenomena that require scientific scrutiny and intellectual consideration. A logical starting point for analyzing political revolution is the irrevocable nature of revolutionary beginnings. Thus, the evidentiary base for this analysis includes the modern revolutions and counterinsurgencies that occurred and are occurring in Vietnam. Vietnam’s revolutionary evolution will be considered in order to examine and study the dynamics of revolutionary propagation. Hence, the dissertation will develop a stimulus-based theory of revolutionary conflagration. The stimulus theory of revolution that is developed and tested in this dissertation is a conceptually justifiable mathematical idealization, but the non-linear model remains statistically unconfirmed. Consequently, the intention of this dissertation is to identify and classify the components of dissident political innovation and revolutionary political action, by differentiating factors that bring about or prevent demonstrable and lasting political change.

  1. Guidelines for Dissertation Research

What follows is an ongoing representation of my dissertation work in progress. Because of the changes I am making, to keep my hypotheses more focused and my research project on track, much of what follows will be modified or completely changed. It is presented here, in order to suggest the nature of my project and direction of my methodology. The case of Vietnam most closely reflects the essential nature of my hypothesis concerning revolution. The original catalyst analogy was changed because the definition of a catalyst implies something that initiates a reaction, but does not get involved in that reaction or is not changed by the reaction. This is not exactly what I had in mind, because freedom fighters and genuine revolutionaries are inherently involved and are almost always directly effected by reactions caused by their revolutionary political actions. Hence, 1 have broadened my theoretical construct, with a slight modification from the catalyst analogy to a stimulus-response related improvement. Inessence, I am simultaneously narrowing the scope of my case study to one case only, and broadening my theory to present a dialectic between catalysts of revolution (something like Karl Marx) and the stimuli of revolution (more like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, or even Lenin and Mao). However, even if we are able to differentiate among the causal propensities of revolutionary political action, the line of demarcation will be abstract and inexact. The other cases of Russia, China and Cuba will be used for cross-comparisons and anecdotal reflection throughout. By comparing revolutionary political theories with the political and humanitarian-related consequences those theories initiate or discourage, this dissertation will differentiate among hypotheses concerning revolution and the consequences of revolutionary political action.











Table of Contents


A . The Essence of Revolutionary Action and Political Precipitates…………. 26

B . Classification OF Revolutionary Stimuli…………………………… 28

  1. Abstract Rupturing Motivations and Consequences 32
  2. Identifying and Analyzing the Actual Stimuli of Revolution 33
  3. The Unpredictable Dynamics and Outcomes of Revolution 34
  4. The Impact of Western Civilization on Modern Revolution……………….. 36
  5. Historical Progression of modern Governments… 36
  6. The Extreme Nature of Revolution…………… 37
  7. Pushing against the Obstacles of Governmental Change  39
  8. Narrowing the Definition of Revolution……… 40
  9. Successful Revolutionary Scenarios…………. 41


D . Prime Justifications FOR Revolution………………………………. 42

1 . Liberty as a Condition of Freedom…………. 43

  1. Impact of Revolutionary Philosophy on Modern Society   45
  2. Western Nature of Social and Political Revolution 47

E . The Socratic Heuristic of Plato & Aristotle………………………… 48

  1. A Platonic Republic and the Nature of Justice.. 49


  1. Distinguishing the Private from Public in Government   50
  2. Aristotelian Modifications to the Platonic Model 51

F . Political Instability and the Steadiness of the Middle Class…………… 53

G . The Durability of Ideologies within Nation-States…………………… 56

  1. Developments that Lead toward Various Governments 59
  2. Identifying Classical Causes of Revolution….. 60
  3. Attempts to Prevent Revolution…………….. 62

H . The Democratic Route to Revolutionary Modernization………………….. 64


  1. Justifying Extreme Measures for the Cause of Freedom………………….. 67
  2. The State of Nature as Non-Automatic in Nature. 67
  3. The Paradox of Studying Revolution…………. 69
  4. Believing in the Revolutionary Faith……….. 70
  5. Platonic Tendencies of the Early Christian Church 71
  6. Aristotelianism and St. Thomas Aquinas……….. 72
  7. The Corruption of Absolute Papal Power……….. 72
  8. An Augustinian Monk Named Martin Luther………. 73


J . The New Beginnings of Political Action………………………………. 74

  1. Rising Expectations and Revolution…………… 75
  2. Loss Aversion as a Strategic Value Function…… 76
  3. Uncompromising Political Action and Revolutionary Behavior   78
  4. Marginal Ideological Preferences and Planning for Revolution 79
  5. Anchor Derivatives of Core Issues……………. 81


K . Discovering the Causal Ingredients of Political Action………………….. 82

  1. The Inflationary Nature of Revolutionary Conflagration 83
  2. Rising Expectations and Revolution…………… 84

L . Characteristic Thresholds of Change and Revolution……………………… 86

1 . Temporal Progression and Revolutionary Potentiality   87


2 . Far-From-Equilibrium Conditions………………. 88


  1. Cognitive Theories of Time……………………. 89
  2. The Relation between Being and Becoming……………………………….. 90
  3. Digging for Hidden Meaning………………….. 91


  1. The Effects of Revolutionary Science…………. 92
  2. Modern Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives. 93
  3. Establishing A Definition of Revolution……………………………….. 95
  4. Nourishing the Revolutionary Élan in Europe…… 95
  5. Marxist Philosophy and Revolution in America….. 97
  6. Strategic Analysis of the Risks of Revolution…. 98
  7. Lenin and the Vanguard Party……………….. 100
  8. Lenin and Marx-Engels Philosophy……………. 101
  9. Zedong and the Spirit of Party Directed Revolution     102
  10. The Effects of Social and Economic Stability on Revolution…………………………………………… 103
  11. Class Consciousness and Insurrection………… 104


  1. Liberation and Replacement………………………………………… 105

P . Combining the Rupturing Ingredients to Foment Revolution……………….. 107


A . Communication and Revolutionary Political Action………………………. 115

  1. Core Issue Attraction and the Political Support it Engenders   116

2 . Political Power and the Efficacy of the Separation of Power   117

  1. Political Power and Human Subjectivity………. 118


B . Measurements of Political Action and Mathematical Forms…………………. 119

  1. Theories on Uncompromising Innovative Behavior and Revolution……………. 120.
  2. Properties of Uncompromising Political Action and Revolution………………………….121
  3. The Incendiary Spark of Revolutionary Conflagration……………………………………… 122
  4. Hypotheses Concerning Revolutionary Political Behavior   123
  5. The Philosophies of Mo Tzũ and Hobbes……….. 124
  6. Hitler on Authority and Responsibility………. 125


D . Types and Classes of Revolutionary Political Activity………………….. 125

1 . Governmental Rule and the Stimuli of Revolution 127

2 . Irresistible and Irrevocable Revolutionary Conflagration   127

3 .       Cultural Assessments of Revolutionary Stimuli   129

  1. The Nature of Revolutionary Stimuli…………. 129
  2. The Complexity of Rupturing Influences………. 131


E . THE Frequency and Normalcy of Revolution…………………………….. 132

  1. Necessity and Unequal Distribution………….. 134
  2. Persistence of Uncompromising Political Behavior 135
  3. Classification of Revolution Based on Modernization 136
  4. The Ends and Means of Revolution……………. 137
  5. Revolution as a Continuum of Collective Behavior 138

F . Fundamental Change in the Revolutionary Environment……………………. 140

  1. Modernization and Revolutionary Political Theory 140
  2. Relations between Revolution and Modernization.. 141

G . Stimulus theory of Revolutionary Political Action……………………… 143

1 . Endogenous Stimuli……………………….. 144

2 . Exogenous Stimuli………………………… 145

H . Summaries of Theoretical Classifications of Revolution………………….. 147

  1. Marxist Theory……………………………. 147
  2. Systems Theory- Functionalism and Structural -Functionalism   148
  3. Modernization Theory………………………. 148
  4. Frusfration-Aggression Theory………………. 148
  5. Stimulus theory of Uncompromising Political Action 149


  1. Hypothetical Formula of Revolutionary Political Action………………….. 149
  2. Stochastic Processes as an Operational Yardstick 152
  3. Case Studies and the Attempt to Test Rupturing Assumptions   153
  4. Perspectives of the Revolutionary…………… 154
  5. The Exogenous Stimulus of a Single Revolutionary 156

5 .  One-Man Disruptive Element-As-Stimulus Perspective   158


  1. Classes of Revolutionary Stimuli and a Theory of Types………………….. 159

1 . Relations of Mathematics and Logic…………. 161


2 . The Principle of Economy Known as Ockham’s Razor 161

K . Additional Implications Concerning Revolution and Communism……………… 163


A . The Development of Leninist Communism………………………………. 165

  1. The Spark of Revolution……………………. 166
  2. Cascading Stimuli and the Avalanche of Circumstances  167
  3. The New Revolutionary Government……………. 168


B . Consequences of Revolution and Warnings of St. Thomas………………….. 169

  1. Trotsky’s Leadership and the Russian Civil War.. 170
  2. Lenin’s Death and the Rise of Stalin………… 171
  3. Communist Empire in Russia………………………………………… 172
  4. Communist Encirclement…………………….. 172


  1. Belief that Russia Would Fail as a Communist State 173
  2. Lenin and the Bolsheviks…………………… 174

D . Marx and Engels’ World System of Political Economy…………………….. 174

1 . Differentiation of the Continuum of Communism.. 176

  1. Varying Degrees of Socialism……………….. 176
  2. Ideological Development……………………. 177

E . The Rupturing Effect of Lenin…………………………………….. 178

  1. Maturation of Communism in Russia…………… 179
  2. Consequences of Revolutionary Development……. 179

F . The Dream of Revolution and the Reality of Conquest……………………. 180

  1. Power Vacuum in the Shifting Balance………… 181
  2. An Unlikely Confluence of Circumstances and Events 182
  3. Russia after October 1917………………….. 183
  4. Joseph Stalin and the Spread of Communism……. 183
  5. The Lasting Legacy of Lenin………………… 184

G………………………………………………………. 185
























Table 1. Typology OF REVOLUTIONARY STIMULI………………………… 32

FIGURE 1. HYPOTHETICAL value function of loss aversion………………… 78

FIGURE 2. THEORETICAL relationship between the modern mechanics of REVOLUTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONS……………………………….. 143




Political revolutions, by definition, are innovative and uncompromising in their intention to remove the status quo replacing it with a preferred alternative. The concept of political revolution most commonly implies an insurrection engineered to reconstitute the state and bring about radical social change. Schematically, revolutions are political events that inevitably confront us directly with the consequences and responsibilities of new beginnings. in modern times, revolutions challenge simple descriptions and create empirical problems of measurement and prediction. The burgeoning or inflationary moments that immediately follow the spark of revolutionary conflagration are both intense and complex phenomena inviting scholarly dissection.

A logical starting point is the nonreversible nature of revolutionary beginnings. Although St. Thomas exhorts that the spiritual domination of rationality dictates that revolutionaries withstand minor tyrannies rather than rebel against them, Dante Alighieri asserts that the duality of spirit and reason ordains that reason should have its own global prescription for existence, because ethical jurisdiction exists before judges. Although the consequences of revolution are grave, it is necessary to ascertain the nature and complexity of revolution through reason and acumen, as well as according to spiritual obedience.In this research project, Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam will be considered as case studies in order to test an active Stimulus theory of revolution. This research searches to uncover the charismatic, powerful and influential aspects of fomenting revolution. Because revolution is multidimensional, the formulation of the causal model of dynamic propagation is non-linear and quasi-deterministic. Hence, mathematical idealizations and the implications of complexity will be taken into account to help identify revolutionary tenets and assign theoretic probabilities to the dynamics of revolutionary propagation. The research will propose a theory of revolution, evaluate it against the experiences of Russia, China and Cuba, and use it to examine the Vietnamese experience with revolution. To further disclose and communicate the charismatic, powerful and influential aspects of fomenting revolution, the research will also examine the author’s own experiences in Vietnam and Cuba. The intention of this dissertation is to separate and classify the components of political innovation and revolutionary political action, by differentiating factors that bring about or prevent demonstrable and lasting political change.Much of what is commonly referred to, as revolutionary modernization is a function of the underlying principles that epitomize the success of western civilization. However, the spread of the west should not be confused with mere colonial expansion. The beginnings of modern revolution are enigmatic and sometimes esoteric. Scholars must integrate the probable eastern influences of Socrates with the reality that modern revolution is firmly established upon western philosophical truths (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). Nevertheless, western civilization is not a geographical concept. Although its birthplace was the Mediterranean, the western principles of modern revolution have spread throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East. However, it was in Europe where western civilization and modern revolution thrived. In addition, it was Europe that transplanted western civilization and modern revolution to other countries over the last five hundred years.


This research develops a stimulus theory of political revolution. It is based on an analysis of revolutionary change that occurs in established governments. In general, political systems, their institutions and the relationships of which they are composed, tend to be stable and resistant to change, because of the legitimacy and lawfulness of the established body politic (Frendreis, Gleiber, and Browne 1986). Moreover, the rate of political interaction among the dogmatic and pragmatic partisan elements in a regime helps provide insight into the nature of its political evolution (Nguyen 1990). According to Locke, political structures represent the fence of citizens’ property, and are affected by the intensification of partisan factions and conditional arrangements that exist in particular political environments (1967). But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them; and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world; they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but on him that invades his neighbour’s (Locke 2000, 405).Formal political structures can be affected by the nagging presence of revolutionary political influences or revolutionaries that endeavor to modify the nature of political interaction without being changed personally in the process. In the context of system theory, these Stimuli are aimed at changing the flow of demands, (i.e., increasing them), and supports (i.e., decreasing them), which together determine the degree of oppositional efficacy in a society to the political system or government. Nevertheless, it normally takes a big jolt to produce consequences in both biological and anthropological systems that are in equilibrium or in near-equilibrial states (Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Toffler 1984). We should expect no less for otherwise stable political systems.The stimuli of revolution are the communicators of dissatisfaction and also spur oppositional efficacy. How regimes respond to these indicators of dissatisfaction and oppositional efficacy enhances or deters revolutionary efforts. Revolutionary Stimuli act as tests of mass public dissatisfaction. They also serve to promote demonstrable oppositional efficacy but are unlikely to result in spontaneous political action. In a political sense, revolution is a fundamental and violent change in the values, political institutions, social structure, leadership, and policies of a society. The totality of change implicit in this definition distinguishes it from coups, rebellions, and wars of independence, which involve only partial change. Ironically, the word revolution is borrowed from astronomy. It took on its political meaning in 17thCentury England. There it meant a return or restoration of a former situation.It was not until the 18lh Century, with the French Revolution, that the word revolution began to mean a new beginning (Arebdt 1977). Since Aristotle, economic inequality has been recognized as an important cause of revolution. Alexis de Toqueville’s pointed out that it was not absolute poverty but relative deprivation that contributed to revolutions (1974). Tocqueville was a philosopher whose deepest commitment was to human freedom. He believed that political democracy and social equality would, inevitably, replace the aristocratic institutions of Europe.He analyzed the American attempt to have both liberty and equality in terms of what lessons Europe could learn from American successes and failures. Hence, the fall of the old order also depends on the ruling elite losing its authority and self-confidence. These conditions are often present in a country that has just fought a debilitating war. Both the Russian and Chinese revolutions in the 20th Century followed incapacitating wars (Nguyen 1990). Contemporary thinking about revolution is dominated by Marxist ideas although there have also been counter­communist revolutions. Therefore, modern revolution is the means for removing reactionary classes from power and transferring power to progressive ones. During the development of this opening chapter, we will consider several important indicators of revolutionary propagation and their antecedent conditions. The following more closely maps the furtherance of these arguments. This chapter makes 13 major points, which we look at in detail below:1.       We begin by examining the essence of revolutionary action and political propagation. The characteristics of revolutionary propagation will be considered within the context of contemporary revolution in the modern political milieu.2.       Next, we will regard specific variations and metastases of revolutionary propagation, including less obvious and abstract Rupturing motivations and aftereffects. Typological classes will be broken into endogenous, exogenous, internal, and external, groups. Identifying and analyzing the actual Stimuli of revolution will follow, by exploring the unpredictable dynamics and outcomes of revolution.3.       The ensuing section concerns the impact of western civilization on modern revolution, and historical progression of modern governments. In developing this segment, theextreme nature of revolution will be examined. The inevitable need for pushing against the obstacles of governmental change will be determined by narrowing the developing definition of revolution, including review of the optimal successful revolutionary scenario.4.     In order, the prime justifications for revolution will be considered in the ensuing segment. We will take into account the need for liberty, as a condition of freedom, and also ascertain the impact of revolutionary philosophy on modern society, as well as the western nature of social and political revolution.5.     To help understand revolution, we will then consider Plato & Aristotle’s perspectives. Included will be an examination of the Platonic Republic, and a discussion concerning the nature of justice. Therefore, we will attempt to distinguish the private from public in government to help characterize Aristotelian modifications to the Platonic model.6.     Political instability and the steadying nature of the middleclass will be reviewed. We will discuss the durability of ideologies within nation-states, including developments that lead toward various governments and institutions. In this endeavor, classical causes of revolution will be identified and remedies that prevent revolutions will be discussed.7.     Reflections concerning the democratic route to revolutionary modernization will be examined, and we will also adjudge defenses for using extreme measures for the cause of freedom. We will examine the state of nature and consider it in terms of being non­automatic in nature. This section concludes by analyzing the incongruities of studying revolution. It also traces historical belief-system, like reform and revolution, which represent much of the progress of western philosophy. We also explore the platonic tendencies of the early Christian church, as well as the Aristotelianism of St. Thomas Aquinas. We conclude this part by examining the corruption of absolute papal power and the emergence of Martin Luther.8.      Here we delve into the new beginnings of political action, and the rising expectations of revolution and loss aversion. We focus on uncompromising political action and revolutionary behavior, by reflecting on marginal ideological preferences and the planning necessary for revolutions.9.      Next, we map out attempts to discover the causal ingredients of political action by exploring the inflationary nature of revolutionary conflagration, including the rising expectations of revolution.10.   Here we review the characteristic thresholds of political change and revolution, by analyzing temporal progression and revolutionary potentiality, including implications of far-from-equilibrium conditions and cognitive theories of time.11.   In this section, the relation between being and becoming, is examined as well as are the effects of revolutionary science, and modern scientific and philosophical perspectives.12.   Finally, at this point we are ready to establish a definition of revolution. We examine Marxist philosophy and the Revolution in America, as well as consider strategic analyses of the risks of revolution. Here Lenin and the Vanguard Party, as well as Marx-Engels Philosophy, will be contrasted with Mao Zedong and the spirit of party directedrevolution. Finally, the effects of social and economic stability on revolution will be inspected.13.   The chapter concludes by discussion the different stages of revolution: liberation and replacement. We presume that by categorizing these Rupturing ingredients that tend to foment revolution we will more clearly understand dissatisfaction and the causes that mitigate or support oppositional efficacy.A.   THE ESSENCE OF REVOLUTIONARY ACTION AND POLITICAL PRECIPITATESPolitical actors, their decisions and actions, the situations within which they find themselves, as well as the timing of such events, all have the potential to combine as revolutionary Stimuli to disrupt the normal flow of political interaction in any political system. Revolution is an extreme condition. Indeed, political revolution is usually classified as a general insurrection involving a reconstitution of the state that leads to radical social change (Tonnesson 1991). However, successful revolution begins in the human consciousness, while its endogeny is rooted in political reality and physical existence (Arendt 1977). The impulse to understand the nature and meaning of revolution also begins in the mind, but must also probe the realities of the world to satisfy mankind’s urge to understand. The fundamental problems associated with predicting revolution may be similar to the problems associated with predicting earthquakes and the weather (Greene 1990). All phenomena of this nature are impelled by inherent complexity and potential cascading effects that develop from seemingly non-causal influences (Prigogine and Stengers 1984).At the very best, we theorize only in terms of probabilities. However, even random change can produce probabilistic patterns. That probability plays a role in the description of complex phenomena is not surprising. The innovative research of James C. Maxwell appears to have been influenced by Adolphe Quetelet’s classification of the average man in sociology based on probabilities (Prigogine and Stengers 1984). The innovation was to introduce probability in physics, but not as a means of approximation. It was introduced as an explanatory principle. Probabilities were used to show that a system could display a new type of behavior by virtue of its being composed of a large population to which the laws of probability could be applied. Maxwell demonstrated that the state of equilibrium becomes the bell-shaped curve, which Quetelet, the founder of social physics, had considered to be the very expression of randomness. Therefore, because many systems tend to be chaotic, interdisciplinary attempts have proliferated that attempt to reveal structure in seemingly unpredictable dynamic systems (Gleick 1987; Prigogine and Stengers 1984).


  1. CLASSIFICATION of Revolutionary StimuliIn the following chapters, the nature and arrangement of the types and classes of revolutionary Stimuli will be considered. For the purpose of scholarly investigation, revolutionary Stimuli can be divided into Endogenous and Exogenous groups, as well as internally motivated and externally triggered varieties. Seemingly tranquil governmental forces and inconsequential civic matters that mount to help spawn revolutionary political action will also be taken into account. Indeed, no political Stimuli are expected to be decisive or fully deterministic, but their logical classification provides a rational approach to examine the process of revolution more closely. Endogenous revolutionary Stimuli are extraneous and unchangeable measures taken in rebellion. These are stimuli that are directly observable, tangible and concrete. Conversely, exogenous stimuli are illusory and often misleading, but essential and substantial components of revolution. These are Stimuli that represent the introspective impulses and personal motivations of the large body of citizens. Discriminating Endogenous from exogenous stimuli is the first step in the revolutionary stimulus classification procedure. Indications of the broad classifications concerning revolutionary political stimuli are listed in greater detail, below:1. Endogenous Stimuli: These types of Stimuli include publicly perceptible and obvious revolutionary activities thatdirectly result in a substantive causal reaction within a political system. Contributory precipitates of this nature, in a typical monarchical or autocratic system, usually involve conditional impetuses like the disintegration of empires, politically motivated marriages, royal claims, and thedeaths of monarchs. They may also include enclosures, rack-renting, ecclesiastical tithes, and religious transubstantiation within the dictatorial system. Still, other causal factors may include political crises at the end of lost wars, succession struggles, a dramatic change in a standing government, or a related bureaucratic revolt within a regime. Endogenous Stimuli, which manifest from within a regime, may in some instances consist of political put downs, the prosecution and execution of internationally celebrated rebels, or even the senseless massacre of peaceful strikers. The bases of these types of internally based Endogenous Stimuli are far reaching. Even in capitalist systems, Endogenous Stimuli might arise in the form of politically imposed and economically heavy new taxes. The contribution to inciting political action might also include high-stakes competition and economic decentralization, or politically oriented round-tables, as well as visually competitive elections, and unchecked political liberalization. Sometimes, Endogenous Stimuli mount from outside the immediacy of the political regime. These types of externally Endogenous Stimuli originate from other geographic venues or countries, as is partially the case with the Gorbachev factor. Another example of externally Endogenous Stimuli might include some form of American foreign policy. The multiplicity of these types of external Stimuli can take on many faces. Other, less understandable indicators include indirect causal influences brought on by geographically contiguous warfare, an external sanctuary or supply routes for insurgents, also including material and guerrilla training. Endogenous external influences are characterized by discernibly higher stakes, because they incorporatedirect military assistance, globally motivated intervention, foreign invasion, arms supply; diplomatically provoked promises of support, imported leadership, and, foreign economic assistance.2.     Exogenous Stimuli: All publicly obscured or ostensibly camouflaged political activities within a regime, as well as internationally insubstantial political actions that result in a substantive causal reaction within a political system, are classified as Exogenous Stimuli within the context of this research. These types of political activity mainly include illegitimate or illegal measures. Often, illegitimate or illegal measures of this nature take the form of political assassinations, counter-elite insurgence movements, abortive coups, sabotage and bombing, localized rioting, terrorism, mutinies and even kidnapping. However, Exogenous Stimuli may also include legally sanctioned and officially legitimate measures. Legitimized Stimuli take the form of election boycotts, sit-down strikes, marches, rallies, demonstrations and political meetings. Less blatant, but equally as symbolic, are the distribution of local petitions and the wholesale distribution of ideologically motivated literature. Still other legally allowable activities may emerge with the mass occupation of factories, or with major strikes and dissident movements. Protest can run in cycles, ranging from mass exoduses and hunger strikes, to self-burning suicides. Although demonstrably significant, these types of political activities are generally assumed to be less obvious and Exogenous in nature. Symbolically, Exogenous Stimuli provoke revolutionary dissent beneath the political insurrection that may be latent within political systems. All symbolically


oriented revolutionary political action, like building coalitions and federations, or developing increased regime access provides additional reasons for the beginnings of revolution. With additional charismatic leadership, organizational competence, popular and logistical support thrown in to the mix, the unexposed ingredients of rebellion combine to act in conjunction in order to bolster rather than overtly foment all-encompassing revolutionary political action.After dividing Stimuli into endogenous and exogenous groups, we may then differentiate internally motivated and externally triggered varieties among them. These underling subdivisions are insinuated within the definitions of Endogenous and Exogenous Stimuli listed above. Internal Stimuli are those that are inherent and develop from within the system. Internal Stimuli materialize, either within the regime itself, or no further than its immediate social and economic environment. They emanate from domestic affairs, indigenous motivations and produce constitutional consequences. External revolutionary Stimuli are prominent, non-domestic or foreign in nature, and depend on peripheral, exogenous and exoteric motivations to implement. Although citizens may become discontented and antagonistic toward an oppressive political regime, they are usually less inclined to revolt than to accept their fate. Therefore, because pre-revolutionary regimes are typically authoritarian, despotic and brutal in nature, a believable Stimulus must be present, and is required, to crystallize latent citizen disaffection. In certain political environments, there may be instances where quasi-self-catalyzing conditions exist to trigger spontaneous revolutionary political action. However, these situations are very rare. These classifications of the Stimuli of revolutionary political action are presented as heuristic guidelines. They are based on two types and two sub-divisions of those types. Foremost are the Endogenous Stimuli, of which there are internal and external varieties. In addition, the Stimuli of revolution can be subdivided into Exogenous Stimuli. These involve actions of individuals, small group and organizations. However, Stimuli are necessary but not sufficient to incite revolutionary political action.1.   Abstract Rupturing MOTIvations and ConsequencesInternally motivated Endogenous Stimuli are those politically provoked activities that are fixed by the government, its leaders, or by the domestic environment. The second type, externally motivated, or exogenous and manifest revolutionary political activities, ultimately overflow into a political system and provoke political consequences within its organizational or governmental system. Individuals often initiate Exogenously motivated Stimuli, because they become necessary and sufficient to foment demonstrable need for change. These individuals can take the form of protestors, non-conformists, dissidents, revolutionaries or rebels in the countries where the uncompromising revolutionary political action manifests. External-Exogenous Stimuli come from abroad, outside the nation-state. Therefore, Exogenous Stimuli are indefinite in nature, by definition, and are thus named.TABLE 1. TYPOLOGY OF Revolutionary STIMULIEndogenous Stimuli are not necessarily decisive factors, as invasions, a death of a monarch, a lost war or a reverse policy of the successor can be, but they are culturally and politically significant. Accordingly, Stimuli can be positive or negative. The positive Stimuli


precipitate revolution or counter-revolution, and the negative Stimuli hinder or attenuate

TABLE 1. TYPOLOGY OF Revolutionary Stimulae

Revolutionary Stimulae Internal Stimulae External Stimulae
Endogenous Stimulae Includes all publicly perceptible and obvious political action thatdirectly results in a substantive causal reaction within a political system where revolution has the potential to occur. Includes all prominent and manifest factors that originate or develop from geographic venues and countries other than the nation­state within which the revolution has the potential or is likely to occur.
Exogenous Stimulae Includes all publicly obscured or ostensibly camouflaged political activities that eminate from within a nation-state and result in a substantive causal reaction within the geographical boundaries of that political system. Includes all symbolically oriented revolutionary political action, like building coalitions and federations, or developing increased regime access, including internationally insubstantial political activities that contribute to the revolutionary potential within any particular political regime.


revolutionary processes. The relative thresholds among classes are complex and indefinite.


The Stimuli of real world revolutions can be identified and analyzed. However, no revolutionary Stimuli are decisive or fully deterministic, as are Stimuli for chemical reactions. Rather, this idea of Stimulus involves changing demands on, or supports for, the political system. Because these flow from the citizens and other components in the environment of the political system, Stimuli function to change the sources of supports and demands. Stimuli build to a point where some particular spark of change ignites public sentiments into open revolutionary conflagration. The cumulative effect of small and inconsequential matters of


dissidence and political disobedience may eventually add to a point of self-conflagration (Lenin 1969).In Politics, Aristotle references the cumulative nature of insignificant or “small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state” (2000, 113). This erosion of supports and the obedience to the laws of the state is like the constant occurrence of small expenses that, over time, consumes a fortune. Of course, the political regime can also act through policies and programs generating outputs intended to equilibrate the system. Even in autocratic and dictatorial regimes, the degree to which governments attempt to remain dedicated to the citizens helps resolve whether the spark of revolution will extinguish or explode.3.   The Unpredictable Dynamics and Outcomes of RevolutionUnpredictability of outcomes can result from stochastic forces but also from some forms of non-linear dynamics or causality. Many systems, including physical and chemical, as well as social and anthropological, exhibit lasting unpredictability, even in the absence of random influences; and truly stochastic circumstances are measurable as system probabilities (Gardner 1990; Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Toffler 1984). Even so, the calculation of social scientific probabilities is likely to be more an exercise of intuition than a demonstration of definitive empiricism (Plato 1945). Of course, while exercising our social scientific intuition, our personal prejudices invariably get mixed into the analysis as in the case of Karl Marx (Greene 1990). Thus, my research is designed to help better understand past political changes and to provide practical guidance to future generations dissatisfied with tyrannies and injustices that may become manifest in their governments.This project attempts to systematically address the various extreme and radical forms of political innovation more commonly referred to as revolutionary in the sense that it precedes or initiates events that result in radical regime or system changes. However, before attempting to develop a description of the dynamics of revolution, it is important to clearly designate what forms of political action characterize revolution. Although modern revolutions are globally pervasive, much of extant political theory concerning revolution emanates from a western philosophical perspective. Therefore, according to my contemporary Stimulus theory, revolution is defined as the forcible, or pervasive, and often violent change of a social or political order by a volatile segment of the country’s population. Many of the elements that we call revolutionary effect large portions of the population but do not involve their actions or participation. Nonetheless, it is important to trace the historical genesis of revolutionary conflagration in modern times. Although rebellions and revolts have erupted periodically within most political cultures, the western variety of revolution has developed into a political tool that has ushered lasting and durable change. The following explains the importance of the evolution of revolution in the west.


  1. THE IMPACT OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION ON MODERN REVOLUTIONThe roots of western life – Greek rationalism, Jewish monotheism and Christian love – are so encompassing that it is extremely difficult to derive specific social, economic, and political systems or determine appropriate courses of social, economic and political action from the tenets of western civilization. Although these three aspects of the west are admirable and noble philosophies for humanity, they are mutually exclusive, in many respects, and are also very unrealistic in others. Indeed, both the Old and New Testaments have been invoked to justify slavery and human freedom, obedience to government and revolution, democracy and monarchy, and capitalism and socialism. Similarly, Greek rationalism has been appealed to in support of authoritarianism and liberalism, a planned economy and free enterprise, censorship and freedom of thought, as well as many other contradictory political and philosophical systems (Ebenstein 1961). These contradictions have two causes. The first is that all tenets have never been fully lived up to in the western world; and, the second is that these three sources of western thought are not completely complementary (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000).1. Historical Progression of modern GovernmentsWestern civilization is not a fixed geographical entity, because it largely revolves around quasi-universal ideas rather than limited ethnocentric links. The supra-national and supra-racial quality of western civilization is the distinctive feature that has made it so adaptable, dynamic and enduring. It is not tied to a particular race, nation or geographical area.In addition, its epicenter has shifted throughout its evolution from the Eastern Mediterranean through Europe to a community of nations in both the eastern and western hemispheres. However, some European nations have not consistently demonstrated a strictly western outlook. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy provide the most glaring examples of European renunciation of western democratic values (Moore 1966).Over the past five hundred years, hardly a comer of the world has not felt the impact of western civilization. There has never been a civilization of such scope and magnitude in the history of human existence on earth. The technological and scientific impact of the west is undisputed. Its spiritual and intellectual influence, though controversial, is hardly less different. Certainly, the influence of the west is pervasive. For instance, Asian and African societies only gained independence after they developed a class of leaders trained in the west or at least according to western methods. Ironically, the revolt of the non-western societies against their western overlords occurred following their indoctrination by the west in the concepts of individual rights to happiness and dignity. Asians and Africans did not revolt against the west, but against its failure to practice its own teachings in dealing with non-western peoples (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000).2. The Extreme NATURE of RevolutionRevolution is an extreme political option for a dissenting group. In this sense, revolution involves the complete withdrawal of regime supports and demands that require the overhaul or replacement of the political system for satisfaction. Revolution comes in degrees, because it is partially determined by citizens’ desire for change and partially determined by thesusceptibility of the regime attempting to change. Mikhail Gorbachev was aware of this paradox when he simultaneously attempted to implement perestroika and the new atmosphere of glasnost (Nguyen 1990). Change was always slow or difficult in the former Soviet Union. The apparatus found itself prisoner of old regulations and instructions because the system worked by inertia and did not want to renounce its rights endowed by the dogmas of ideology (Gorbachev 1987). The communists’ attitude towards perestroika was comparable to that of the rats in the following fable:The rats are aware of the danger presented by the cat. After much deliberation, the solution they found to deal with this danger is to attach a bell to their enemy’s neck. The bell would signal the cat’s presence and allow the rats to keeptheir distance at all times. The measure is approved by everyone, but a problem arises when they must decide who will be responsible for carrying out the project, for no one will risk its skin for the common cause (Nguyen 1990, 21).The communists were more or less convinced by their leaders of the necessity of change and all accepted perestroika in principle. However, when the time arrived to put the reforms of perestroika into practice, most of them did not want to commit themselves, because the necessary change could destroy their privileged status. Hence, enthusiasts of perestroika constituted a minority. They included intellectuals aware of national interest and activists moved by the ideal of freedom. They were also fervent members of the communist party revolted by the nepotism and corruption of their superiors and comrades, as well as an able and dynamic group of entrepreneurs ready to risk the venture into a new way of life. Unfortunately for the former Soviet Union, many were restrained by the fear inherent in the communist regimeand dared not commit themselves. 3.   PUSHING AGAINST THE Obstacles of Governmental ChangeTo push them to go forward, the advocates of perestroika attempted to alleviate their fear to mobilize them against the obstacles that hindered necessary reforms. For this purpose, the SUCP General Secretary declared that the forbidden zone of censorship and the medicinal lie which escaped criticism in the past be opened to public scrutiny. Gorbachev considered openness as an efficient form of popular control and ensured his support to efforts of the media that developed criticism and self-criticism in the Soviet system (1987). Glasnost aimed at shaking the party apparatus and weakening the resistance of the defenders of orthodoxy. These actions were intended to awaken those people who had fallen asleep in an attempt to make them truly concerned about the change in the country’s situation. Glasnost became a necessary complement to perestroika, because it could not proceed without it, but it also became a danger for it as well. By sweeping away the atmosphere of fear created by the party to maintain the population by strict obedience and by allowing free criticism against the communist leaders, the promoters of perestroika opened a Pandora’s box. Once started, the process of liberalization became impossible to contain. Consequently, the nature of true revolution, whether it is political, social, technological, or scientific, possesses tendencies that burgeon after their original precipitation or spark of conflagration.4.   Narrowing the Definition of Revolution

Although many and various conditions seem to contribute to revolution, there also appear to be necessary Endogenous conditions for revolution. Essentially, revolution can be defined as the outcome of nonreversible political action. There is an old Vietnamese axiom that states that “the past is undoable,” and the wisdom of this proverb helps specifies the unrelenting nature of the progression of time. Triggering the spark of hot-tempered and impassioned revolution within a regime is the most extreme irreversible act. Irrecoverable rebelliousness involves two stages or forms of action.

The first, are attempts that deny, or cause citizens to withhold supports for the regime. These kinds of activities and denials may emerge from a break-down in the legitimacy of the regime, or in governmental exploitation aimed at utilizing governmental resources for the rulers rather that the ruled. Requisite change, or increased demands that are unsatisfied, lead to withholding supports. The second, are attempts to change the popular perceptions of governmental outputs and increase public demands on the system. Activities of this nature provide citizens with the erroneous notion that conditions are improving or that their government is prospering. These inaccurate or specious perceptions initiate increased demands that are founded on inane or misleading expectations.

A change of perception concerning the conditions or output of a regime leads to withholding supports. Thus, preconditions include popular dissatisfaction of the populace, or feelings of exploitation that cascade into open conflict during a critical historical juncture in the overall balance of economic and political balance in a particular nation-state (Moore 1966). Revolution is a definitive course of political action taken when more moderate and legal attempts to achieve recognition or reform adequate to relieving such dissatisfaction have failed. Even when fomented by a political minority or vanguard party that stirs the general populace into a clash with their leaders, revolutionary actions typically exacerbate the general climate of discontent in a regime.

  1. Successful Revolutionary ScenariosWhether occurring spontaneously, or through careful planning, successful revolutions depend on revolutionary actions involving crucial timing, the fostering of popular support, and the leadership capable of forming the nucleus of a new governmental organization. Schematically, successful revolution depends on a popular movement capable of fomenting a significant change in the administrative and organizational structure of a nation or society. Usually, the ultimate goal of such an overthrow of the existing government is the substitution by another followed by significant social and economic changes (Gottschalk 1949). Truong Chinh, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party, has indicated that a seizure of power is a revolution, if and only if, it generates radical change, uses violence, involves participation by the masses, and transfers power to the people.Historically, this perception is biased on experience because this is not true in many revolutionary scenarios, like India (Moore 1966). Indeed, Plato reminds us that in any form of government, revolution naturally develops from the outbreak of internal dissention in the ruling class (Comford 1945). Whether the ensuing regime becomes autocratic or democratic is another matter. Aristotle notes that the importance of the middle class in the mix with the nobility and peasantry is a strong determining factor, which steers newly reforming governments toward democracy or oligarchy. According to modern comparative analyses, internal relations among the ruling class and the upper-class peasantry may also be a critical link to determining the ultimate outcome of revolutionary political action, because those relations help determine whether a fascism, democracy or communism will result (Moore 1966).D. PRIME justifications for revolutionIn Plato’s Republic, Socrates develops the structure of a state that is gentle to its own people and dangerous only to enemies (1945). Beyond any other quality, Socrates teaches that justice is most important. The Republic goes on to say that it is even more important than freedom, for if rulers are just, even peasants and slaves will not be treated unfairly. However, Hannah Arendt disagrees with Plato on this point, because to her, the only justification for modern revolution is the triumph of freedom over tyranny (1977). Arendt adds that without freedom to move about without restrictions, voicing injustices and exercising one’s freedom is obviated. Political innovations aimed at liberation from governments that have over-stepped their rightful authority and infringed upon well-established rights are a secondary issue to Arendt. The difficulty lies in the fact that revolution in the modern age is almost always concerned with both liberation and freedom. Differentiating just causes and the antecedents of fairness is difficult, inherently complex and dualistic in nature. Concepts of morality and the rule of law are often involved and impractical to distinguish. By violating the rule of law, John of Salisbury says, tyrants assail the grace of God, and “it is God himself who in a sense is challenged to battle” (2000, 204). Unfortunately, the natural complexity and innate duality of inconspicuous philosophical motivations drives revolutionaries in often-unpredictable ways. Modern revolution is also almost always associated with violence and therefore has the potential for protracted conflict as well.1.   Liberty AS A Condition of FreedomTheoretically, liberation frees the populace from restraint and affords them with the power of mobility and the right of passage. Thus liberation is usually an important condition of freedom. Nobody would ever be able to arrive at a place where freedom rules, if he could not move without restraint. As a result, it is very difficult to determine where the desire to be free from oppression ends, and the desire for freedom as a way of life begins. In many ways, political freedom is ubiquitous participation in public affairs and aggregated admission to the public realm (Arendt 1977).John Locke asserts that it is property that establishes individual liberty in a society, but his definition of property is based on the fruits of an individual’s labor. The essence of anyone’s property in a society is the vested interest each individual feels they have in the system. Having stakes in the game establishes feelings of loyalty and liberty simultaneously. It is the protection of personal property that establishes the legitimacy of a regime. The guardianship is important whether it is protecting intellectual property, intangible property like information, or even tangible property like real estate and precious metals.That in the golden age, wise men only governed kingdoms; they kept themselves within the bounds of moderation, and preserved the meanest from the oppression of the greatest. They persuaded and dissuaded, according as it advantaged and disadvantaged the public profit; by their wisdom, they furnished the public with plenty of all the necessaries, and by their discretion prevented scarcity, by their valor and courage they expelled dangers, by their many benefits they increased and enriched their subjects; they pleaded not their duty in making pompous shows, but in well governing their people. No man made trial what he was able to do against them, because every one received what he was capable of from them (Seneca 2000, 334).Therefore, to govern is nothing else but to provide for the people’s good. The charge of ruler is not a title of honor but a weighty and burdensome responsibility. It is not a discharge or vacation from affairs to run an unprincipled course of liberty, but a charge and vocation to all industriousness for the good of the commonwealth (Stephen Junius Brutus 2000). Upon the issue of liberty, we are often swayed. Our theories may range from trying to identify definitive thresholds of lost liberty that iưeversibly catalyzes into rebellion. We approach these complex antecedents of revolution by the emotionally pivotal point when people stop obeying their leaders over their a priori rights. Aristotle asserts that true governments can not be strictly defined by the structure of their systems, but by the degree to which the rulers administer for the ruled (1905). The proportion that rulers rule for themselves defines the level of perversion in that administration from true government. Often quoting Aristotle, Marsilio of Padua’s asserts that the degree to which states defend their right to maintain peace and liberty is best estimated with common sense approaches that empirically verify elements of revolution, rather than with absfract speculation and authoritative dogma (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000).We think we have adequately shown, then, that the authority to make or establish laws, and to give a command with a regard to their observance, belongs only to the whole body of the citizens or to the weightier part thereof as efficient cause, or else to the person or persons to whom the aforesaid whole body has granted this authority (Marsilio of Padua 2000, 278).In the final analysis, Marsilio breaks with Aristotle and the philosophers of the middle ages concerning his conception of the rule of law as the manifestation of political authority. He defines law as a coercive command of the legislator that is enforceable in the courts. This positivist conception of the law is a significant deviation from the medieval tradition of natural law, and reminds one of modern anti-metaphysical views (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). The development of political philosophy many times coincides with the political and technological development of states and nations.2.   Impact of Revolutionary Philosophy on Modern SocietyIn many ways, modern social and political institutions have been shaped by past revolutionary uprisings waged against repressive governments, stagnant or restrictive economic conditions, and rigid class divisions (Moore 1966). The free governments of today owe much to the struggles of the forefathers of freedom. Western Democracy exists in part, because of the Parliamentarians that took control during the Puritan Revolution and the Christian Humanists that employed an enlightened fusion to carry them from the excesses of Alexander VI andCaesar Borgia (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). The Parisian Huguenots that followed John Calvin’s teachings of resistance to tyranny to their deaths also affected the course of modern freedom. However, western freedom has also been influenced by other circumstances. In Germany, the peasants misinterpreted Lutheran perspectives concerning revolution and languished during the great German peasant war, the Bauernkrieg (1524-1525). Shortly after Luther published his revolutionary religious theses, German peasants, driven by social and political oppression, translated Lutheran ideals of Christian equality into practical terms and began to rebel. The rebellion of 1525 was the only genuine popular revolution in German history, and the subsequent history of the German people might have been different if the rebellion had succeeded at least in part. Nevertheless, Martin Luther instigated the princes to take the sternest measures during the conflict, including wholesale bloodshed, against the ‘mad dogs,’ ‘scoundrels,’ and ‘swine’ as he called the rebellious peasants (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000, 303).There is a two step process in the general progression of revolution. The general overthrow of the extant regime generally requires and resorts to coercive force. Once a formula for motivating revolution is ethically justified and philosophically accepted, it often replaces the status quo. This is especially the case when its users are successful and must convert their revolutionary aspirations to the creation and implementation of a new regime rather than opposition and conflict with the old regime. In this conversion, the once revolutionary freedom fighters resort to force for the cause of stability, and violence is habituated. Therefore, a strong potential exists for catastrophe. Revolutions have often replaced one baneful institution with another in the course of trying to establish an enduring successor to the old government. In many instances, revolutionary parties become intrinsically tied to violence and terror, as Lenin’s new party was bound to the horror of Stalin during the revolutionary beginnings of the Soviet Union (Nguyen 1990).3 . WESTERN NATURE OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL REVOLUTIONThe shortcoming of many hypotheses concerning revolution is that they focus too much attention on the role of the peasantry (Moore 1966). Communism, although often a perversion and distortion of western ideas and ideals was Western in origin. As Lenin convincingly observed, Marx derived his economic ideas from British economics, his political ideas from the French revolutionary politics, and his philosophy from German thinkers (Lenin 1986). Therefore, to some non-westerners, communism appeared the quickest way to western modernization and technological self-sufficiency. As a result, we must scrutinize the essential capabilities in the structure of western civilization to determine those that keep western civilization stable as well as the qualities that lend to its instability.Within the context of the modern evolution of governments, it is critically important to consider on what principles are western civilization’s ethical, legal, economic, social and political structures founded? Certainly, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know what the true essence or fundamental core of western civilization represents, because every aspect calls for attention. Nonetheless, the process of theoretical and comparative political analyses will allow us to reflect upon Modern governments that have been influenced by western revolutionary philosophies. It is the intention of this project to begin to explain what circumstances, temporal conditions, and Stimuli contribute to radical change, via revolutionary overthrow, in political settings where tyrannies of government exist as a function of the exploitation of the governed. Undeniably, it is beyond the scope of this research to attempt to uncover all the relevant aspects of modern revolution, western civilization and democratic modernization.E.   THE socratic heuristic of Plato & ARISTOTLEThe Greek discovery of nature is one of the few great intellectual equivocations of all times. This revolution freed thinking. Greek thinkers were firmly convinced that nature could be understood. Ironically, the modern distinction between scientist and philosopher was unknown to the Greeks. The emphasis for the Greeks, whether scientific or philosophic in inflection, was on the activity of searching for knowledge and understanding. This search was conducted, regardless of what the results might be. Thus the Greeks transcended from a quest to understand natural phenomena to a quest to understand all of nature. This step led to the conclusion that everything was part of nature and was thus subject to its laws. This conclusion denied the existence of the supernatural. The arbitrary whims of demons and gods came into question. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that there is only one phenomenon, and that is nature. Everything is subject to its laws. Human feelings and desires cannot sway nature. Indeed, the gods and demons are not exempt from the inexorable influences of nature. Whereas primitive man aspired to influence and control the phenomena of natural causality, the Greeks were first to observe and begin to understand the basic essence of the laws of nature. They were the first to realize that the only way to begin to master the universe was to decipher the tenets of nature.1.  A Platonic Republic and the Nature of JusticeApplication of this rationality led to the ideal state of Plato’s Republic (1945). Although the narrator and presumed original inventor of the Republic is Socrates, Plato influences the work in its telling. The Republic is not a utopia but the work of a philosopher that is passionately interested in the pursuit of practical politics. It develops from dialectics concerning the virtues of justice and how they influence the development of the ideal state. “And it will be the business of reason,” Plato says, “to rule with wisdom and forethought on behalf of the entire soul; while the spiritual element ought to act as its subordinate and ally” (2000, 55). Plato’s insight that government is more than machinery, because its essence is determined by the quality of the men and women who compose it, may still not be grasped today.The twentieth century has been strewn with constitutions that failed, because they were not suited to the predominate representatives in the societies for which they were devised. Consequently, it is important that rational research begins with an abstract or ideal toward which future political innovation and revolutionary change should progress.Rejecting the doctrine that man must fatally and inextricably remain a prisoner of natural or social circumstances, Plato has faith in man’s ability to create a community that will correspond to the ideal of knowledge and, therefore, justice. If philosophy and the vision of the Good are the highest forms of human activity,‘there can be no rest from troubles’ for states or for all mankind, ‘unless eitherphilosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless, that is to say, political power and philosophy meet together.’ This passage, probably the most famous in the Republic, summarizes Plato’s conception of a society in which the best rule, and it makes little difference to him whether this rule is monarchy (‘when there is one man who stands out above the rest of the rulers’) or aristocracy (‘when there are more than one’). The plan of such a perfect constitution and of a ‘perfect man’ might be difficult, ‘but not impossible’ (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000, 28).By seeking to disprove Plato on a point of political doctrine or practice, anti-Platonists are simultaneously conceding to Plato the most important point in his argument that political and social issues can be clarified by argument rather than by force and dogma. Plato never starts out with a homo politicus, an abstract political man. who is not related to the complexity and richness of individuals and societies as a whole. He is convinced that no theory of politics can be sound unless it is based on the study of man. Modern psychology has taught us enough in modern times to know that a healthy society cannot be composed of men and women who are haunted by fear and insecurity (Copleston 1967; Ebenstein 1961).2.  Distinguishing the Private from Public in GovernmentPlato’s Republic also introduced the concept of private versus public in the context of governmental relations. But, because of the nature of the pantheistic city-state, Plato never contemplated the differences between the individual and the state. The city-state was a spiritual and religious unity, as well as a social, economic and political one. In the polytheistic religions of the city-states, gods were community gods. There could be no question of an individual being in one respect a member of his community, and in another not. Yet, if Plato was unaware of the opposition of the individual versus the state, the dominant theme of western speculation since the seventeenth century, he was keenly aware of the res publica, the “common thing” in the reciprocal relations of human beings (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000, 20).Socrates, Plato’s mentor and chief figure of the Republic, has been contemptuously called the first Social Democrat by some modern totalitarians. What they hate in Socratic philosophy is that it is constantly searching through polemics for the reasons that lie behind accepted ideas and institutions. Other totalitarians, penetrating less deeply into Plato, have usurped him as their first intellectual ancestor, because there is so much in the Republic that is explicitly undemocratic, or antidemocratic. But, implicit in Plato’s Republic, as well as in Socrates’ belief systems and pedagogy, is the assumption that man’s intellect can discover the nature of the good life, and the means of attaining it, through philosophical inquiry without violence (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). These lessons do not seem to have been learned by revolutionaries, insinuating as Aristotle did, that Socrates was unrealistic in his approach to attainable governmental processes.3.  Aristotelian Modifications to the Platonic ModelIn manv ways Aristotle develops and improves upon the strict philosophical idealizations of Plato’s Republic by identifying that the life of guardians is too ascetic to be endured by anyone. The extreme hardships required by guardian membership lead to intrinsic difficulties within the Republic. Politic perfection must be reconsidered to fit the conditional power structure at the level where more humanly realistic political action exists. Previously, Socrates would answer to Thrasymachus and the sophists, that if we are to consider ideal forms of government, those idealizations should be unfettered by what might be temporary human failings (Plato, Republic 2000). Yet, the degree of difference between ideal and real is important and critical to real world politics. This slippage can also represents a measure of governmental abandon, because a state may attain such a level of unity that it becomes perverse, since its views are purely focused by the politically influential (Aristotle 2000).An ideal state must blend the deterministically real with Utopian idealsto produce an evolving pluralistic blend. Attaining the greatest unity is not necessarily the best route for developing or reforming governments. Uncompromising unanimity leads to the destruction of the middle class, since increasing unity entices the state from a plural perspective, to a familial or syndicated bias, and eventually to individual control of the body politic (Aristotle 1962). Accordingly, there are two parts to good government. One part of good government is the actual obedience of citizens to the laws of the state. The other is the goodness of the laws they obey. Laws, like men, can be good or bad, despite whether people obey them or not. We assume that men innately follow good laws and tend to disobey evil ones (Rousseau 2000).


  1. POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND THE Steadiness of the middle Class

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act (George

Orwell: 1903-1950).

Historically, a dominant middle-class, strong upper lower-class and influential lower upper-class strongly equate with the success or failure of revolutions (Moore 1966). Plato might add that political virtue is a middle ground based on moderation of existence. Aristotle also asserts that the Platonic mean is attainable to every citizen and suggests that the mean or middle class in society is most valuable to governmental stability and durability. The mean standard of existence is preferred. Aristotle’s Politics concludes that the same principles of virtue and vice are characteristic of all governmental organizations and constitutions. Although all nation-states are comprised of the rich and poor, the most politically stabilizing class is the middle class. The classical Socratic perspective asserts that moderation and the median are best. Political fortunes are to be enjoyed in moderation. In that condition of life, men are most rational. We assume that minimal catalyzing political ingredients emanate from this socio-economic section of society.
George Orwell describes many middle-class political scenarios within society that are less than ideal (1954). From his writings, one comes to the conclusion that it is not the middle class that is questioned in these literary masterpieces, but those who use the middle and lower classes to advance their own personal ideologies. Orwell holds great disdain for ideologues. He asserts, with regard to nationalism, among upper-class and middleclass intellectuals convinced of the superiority of the proletariat, that public opinion is held supreme. Inside the intelligentsia, the pressure of public opinion is overwhelming (Orwell 1990). Nationalistic loyalties toward the proletariat, and most vicious theoretical hatred of the bourgeoisie, can and often do co-exist with ordinary snobbishness in everyday life.

The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point that it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human individuals. No doubt alcohol, tobacco, and so forth, are things that a saint must avoid, but sainthood is also a thing that human beings must avoid (Orwell 1954, 182).

Throughout his writing, Orwell dealt with the plight of the common people. He pointed out the exploitation of the Russian peasantry by the Communists, and also showed his compassion for the very poor miners of the English north countries. Orwell used personal experiences to educate himself on the lives of the poor and working class people, including the Spanish Civil War (1968a; 1968b; 1968c). While there, he joined the militias of the Spanish Republicans and found himself fighting both Fascists and Communists. During the war, the Republican armies were divided into ideological rivalries between the Anarchists, the Trotskyists and the Marxists (Orwell 1968a, 249-267). However, the Anarchists quickly lost control of the militias to the Marxists.
Officially, the Soviet Union was the only country to support the Spanish Republic with arms and materiel. Gradually, the Marxists came to control the Republican government. The Marxists were bitterly opposed to the Trotskyists. This was during the time of the public trials and purges in Stalinist Russia. All Russians not adhering to party doctrine were thought of as traitors and were accordingly dealt with. The Trotskyists and the Marxists differed sharply over the matter of the Spanish war. The Trotskyists saw the civil war as an opportunity to pursue the social revolution, just as Lenin had said that the Great War could be used to foment the People’s Revolution (Orwell 1968b, 316-328). The Marxists disagreed and felt that all efforts should go towards winning the war and then the proper social changes could be implemented. Eventually the Marxists came to hegemony in the Republic and the Trotskyist factions were purged, forcing Orwell and his wife to flee the country in order to save their lives (Orwell 1968c, 269- 276).
George Orwell’s strength lies primarily in his criticism of the British left-wing intelligentsia and the burgeoning totalitarian powers. His apparent weakness lies in his suggestions for reforming the world order. It is in this light that we must view Orwell, as first a writer and second a political theorist. However, Orwell did appreciate the plight of the working middle class. He always put the aims of the common man before all other politics. He forced himself to leave the Independent Labour Party because of their conciliatory views on fighting totalitarianism. “To survive you often have to fight,” he wrote in 1943, “and to fight you have to dirty yourself’ (Orwell 1968a, 251-252). Workers do not uniformly share a sense of class-consciousness. To an extent varying among different subgroups and workers, most members of the working class identify with the middle class (Key 1964). Generally, radical differences in class attachment are associated with variations in skills among wage earners, as is illustrated in the table below (Centers 1949, 86).

The Psychology of Social Classes (all in percentages)
  Upper Class Middle Class Working Class Lower Class
White-collar 2% 61% 34% 0.6%
Skilled Manual 2 26 71 1
Semiskilled 1 14 83 1
Unskilled 0 18 75 7


Those who excel in wealth, fame or fortune, as well as those who are very poor and weak, or even disgraced, find it difficult to follow rational principles concerning revolution. Successful revolutionary arousal is based on cascading revolutionary consequences that rationally develop, along with revolutionary Stimuli, to evoke open revolution. These consequences develop most readily according to logical and strategic revolutionary planning (Lenin 1986). Thus, it is the middle class that is probably most able to discern the need and consequences of revolution. Aristotle reaches the conclusion that the middle class is least likely to shrink from rule, or to be over-ambitious for power, both of which are injurious to the state. It is also apparent that the middle class is most likely to foment successful revolution (Moore 1966).
The most durable and stable state should be composed, as much as possible, of equals and similarly disposed citizens. Although competition is probably very healthy, true competition can not occur when the competitors are not fairly matched or handicapped. The differences between the wealthy and abject poor are extreme and no amount of handicapping can make competition between the affluent and peasants fair. Although the middle class is not intrinsically just, nor are they inherently fair, their median qualifications and average personal wealth makes them more likely to barter and exchange rights and privileges than less egalitarian classes. Democratic characteristics are generally associated with middle class mores. There are historical data that suggest that the middle class is also an extremely important element to consider in the preconditional circumstances that produce significant revolutionary political action. Discovering the definitive outcomes of revolution may not be possible by studying the middle class. However, the middle class has been directly associated with many of the successes and failures of revolutions throughout history toward pluralistic polities, or conversely, in the direction of other more autocratic forms of government (Moore 1966). The middle class tends to be most secure in a state, because they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors’ goods. Moreover, the middle classes infrequently plot against others nor have they intrinsic propensity to be plotted against (Aristotle 1962). This is not to say that the middle class has not become the cannon fodder of revolution at certain times in modern history. When the middle class constitute the upper peasantry or merchant class of burgeoning industrial centers and the nobility and peasants are at odds over common rights and properties, as in England and Germany, the middle class has become the focus of intense political pressure and coercion (Moore 1966).
Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme – either out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of the middle constitutions and those akin to them (Aristotle from Politics in Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000, 112).
Theoretically, the mean condition of states is the best for no other reason than middle class polities tend to be free from factions. The influence of factious leaders may kindle a revolutionary spark within their own sphere of influence, but they will be unable to spread a general conflagration among the majority consensus within a government (Madison 1961).
Maurice Duverger suggests that the more factions that tend to exist in a polity, the more likely other factions will develop or come into existence (1972). Thus, where the middle class is large, there is less probability that there will be jurisdictional tearing factions and dissension, because of the equilibrating nature of middle class norms (Key 1964). For similar reasons, large states are usually less likely to fall victim to the divisiveness of factions (Madison 1961). This is generally the case, because the middle class is normally larger in larger states. On the other hand, where the population of a state is smaller there is more likelihood that the population will bifurcate into the rich and poor only, and leave nothing to the consensual middle. This bifurcating duality is enigmatic politically and its precise nature remains elusive. But this type of political duality is often described as a popular consensus of fundamentals. Powerful mechanisms like education and ideological indoctrination act along with accidents of history to maintain broad agreement and even universal conformity among political essentials. “At times, it can be said, with a color of truth, that we are all liberals; at another time, it may be equally true that we are all conservatives” (Key 1964, 210).
The tug of the durable foundation of strong support within each class or party in society tends to fix the fundamental policy orientation of each group. The makeup of each political group also tends to restrain zealots from rising to positions of leadership, whom may advocate the cause of any single element within the group (Key 1964). The attitudes underlying the political dualism that exists among the ruled and rulers in a polity do not consist solely in the absence of blocks of people with irreconcilable differences. Thus, Aristotle maintains that democracies are safer and more permanent than oligarchies because they have a median ideology and middle-class that is more abundant and has a greater share in government (1945). Consequently, when there is no middle class and the poor generally exceed in number, trouble arises and the state soon comes to an end.

1. Developments that Lead toward Various Governments
Revolution is synonymous with evolution in many ways, because it implies an adaptive strategy to accommodate changing environments and political circumstances in a particular economic and sociological milieu. Unless revolutions fail or are perverted from their egalitarian causes, it is assumed that they help propel regimes and nation-states toward more adaptive governmental forms and modern cultural arrangements. Political considerations concerning the sizes and dynamics of nation-states and factions within nations help us understand why governments tend to be democratic or oligarchic in nature (Madison 1961). The reason pertains to the mediating potential, economically, ideologically and militarily, of the middle class. The middle class is most often missing in the presence of extreme forms of either democracy or oligarchy. This does not foreordain that consensus cannot be reached by totally disparate political cliques, but only suggests that a median class tends to arbitrate the needs and desires of the population as a whole. It is assumed that the middle class possesses minimal winning elements, which can be used or abused by the nobility or peasantry in their quests for dominance in society. In exceptional instances, the middle class provides a stabilizing role in the polity and comes to be regarded as the balancing constituent within government (Key 1964).
Depending on what political or economic faction dominates and seizes the minimal winning point of control and predominates, the direction of the ensuing regime is predicated by the contributing influence of the middleclass (Moore 1964). Moreover, the rich and poor are prone to quarrel over essentials (Aristotle 1945). Whichever side gets the upper hand sets up a government, more democratic or more oligarchic, depending on the direction of control. Even in modern times the middle class and its relation to the nobility and peasantry has played a major role in revolutionary conflagration from England to Japan (Moore 1966). Nevertheless, it is not readily possible for revolutionaries to judge the best form of government according to any particular standard of governmental efficacy, because a particular government may be preferable, but another form may be better for some people. The winds of change must fill the sails of the middleclass for the revolutionary shift to begin. Although the middle class is not directly related to fomenting revolution, their technological, economic and entrepreneurial influence predisposes revolutionary consequences.
2. Identifying Classical Causes of Revolution
There are several distinct causes of revolution that can be identified from this general desire for equality. The ubiquitous and often leading cause of revolution is the desire for equality (Aristotle 2000). However, equality, like liberty and freedom are mutually exclusive philosophical tenets in many ways. Without the establishment of some fundamental spirit of the laws, or consensus on fundamentals, political differences of this nature become deleterious for the state, because suffrage is based on the will of the sovereign (Montesquieu 2000). Without mediation, inequality metamorphoses from cultural diversity into factional jealousy. Revolutions occur when men think that their equals have more wealth, riches and political power than they do. Revolutions may also ensue when the desire for inequality and superiority overwhelms those who conceive themselves to be superior, and realize that they do not have more political properties. They fear they only have the same or less than their inferiors may.
Revolutionary motivations are diversified because they emanate from both the desires for gain and honor, as well as from the fear of dishonor and loss. Disentangling these multifaceted ingredients of revolution from the historical record is difficult and sometimes impossible. The organizers of revolutions normally want to divert punishment or dishonor from themselves, as well as from their friends, and thus, usually revise and correct historical accounts of their escapades once they are in power. Likewise, regimes that overthrow revolutionary attempts disguise all good intentions of the rebellious by casting their efforts in the phraseology of subversion. Consequently, there are many distinct and manifold causes of revolution that can be identified from mankind’s general desire for equality.
Men are excited to revolution by another type of passion for gain and honor. This feeling is the vicarious emotion that is set in motion at seeing others, justly or unjustly, absorbed in revolutionary activities. Additional causes of revolution include insolence, fear and excessive predominance by a factional element within the polity. Contempt, as well as a disproportionate increase in some part of the state, also predisposes the political circumstances toward instability. Therefore, any sort of election intrigues, carelessness, or neglect about trifles and dissimilarities among political elements destabilizes otherwise durable polities (Aristotle 2000). Naturally, any feelings of depravation that comes from commission or omission of the regime provides a necessary condition for its overthrow. In essence, if there is a feeling of exploitation by the governed and the cause is indeed traced back to the government, there is an increased propensity for revolutionary outbreak (Moore 1966).
3.  Attempts to Prevent RevolutionAccording to Aristotle, preserving the structural disposition and rule of laws among equals controls, or at least mitigates, the risk of revolution. It is evident that if we strive to ascertain the causes that destroy constitutional polities, we will also come to appreciate the potential causes, which preserve them. Accordingly, men should guard against the beginnings of change and should not rely upon political devices invented only to deceive the people, for they invariably fail in reality. Aristotle made it clear that oligarchies and aristocracies prevail not as a function of inherent stability, but because the leaders are on good terms with both the disenfranchised and with the governing class. Thus it is critical that rulers neither maltreat any that are excluded from government nor fail to introduce leading spirits among them into the governmental calculus.
They should never wrong the ambitious in a matter of honour, or the common people in a matter of money; and they should treat one another and their fellow-citizens in a spirit of equality. The equality which the friends of democracy seek to establish for the multitude is not only just but likewise expedient among equals. Hence, if the governing classes are numerous, many democratic institutions are useful; for example, the restriction of the tenure of offices to six months, that all those who are of equal rank may share in them. Indeed, equals or peers when they are numerous become a kind of democracy, and therefore demagogues are likely to arise among them, as I have already remarked (Aristotle 2000, 113).
It is clear that rotation of office is important to preserving the constitution and polity. Aristotle exhorts that the aspirants to tyranny are either the principal men of state, who in democracies are demagogues and members of a ruling house in oligarchies; or, those who hold great offices, and have long tenures of office. Terms of office ensure that no one ruler or ruling elite becomes Balkanized in office thereby excluding true participation among equals. Thus, it is equally important that the laws of the constitution in a durable nation-state should provide against anyone having too much power. If a person has too much power, whether it is derived through friends or money, that person should be removed from the protection of the polity. Consequently, since political innovation is usually born within the private lives of the citizenry, it is the responsibility of the nation-state and its corps of magistrates to check those citizens whose lives are not in harmony with the government.
The cure for concentration of power in government lies in keeping the management of affairs and offices of state in the hands of opposite elements within the polity. Another method, according to Aristotle, is to combine the rich and poor or elite and masses in one governmental body. Still another way to preserve stability and limit unhealthy concentrations of power in government is to increase the size and significance of the middle class (Moore 1966). Thus, an end will be put to the revolutions that arise from inequality.

  1. THE DEMOCRATIC ROUTE TO Revolutionary modernization

Modernization is usually preceded by political, cultural, or even scientific revolutions that forever change the accepted status quo and venerable ways of doing things. Although the differences may caused by the need for revolutionary replacement of existing regimes, there are three basic forms of modern political revolution – bourgeois revolution, reactionary revolution from the plutocratic elite, and communist revolution. The differences are mentioned here because it is unrealizable to completely unsnarl the causes from effects of revolutionary conflagration in a purely deterministic manner.
The development of these three types of revolution is central to the development of the historical progression of western civilization. One of the earliest routes to modernization combined capitalism and parliamentary democracy after a series of revolutions, including the Puritan Revolution, the French revolution, and the American Revolution and Civil War. This is the path to modernization that was taken by England, France and the United States. All were nation-states that entered the scene of modernity at succeeding points in time with profoundly different societies at the starting point. The second path was also capitalist in nature, but in the absence of a strong revolutionary escalation, passed through revolutionary forms to culminate in fascism. Through a revolution from above of this nature, industry is still able to grow and flourish as it did in Germany, Italy and Japan. The third course of revolutionary political action is the communist route. In Russia and in China, revolutions were carried on with central but not exclusive origins among the peasants. To a limited extent, these classifications of revolutionary modernization constitute alternative routes and choices. However, as in the case of modern India, the idiosyncratic nature of the caste system has kept the former English colony from these more common revolutionary paths to modernity.
Although bourgeois revolutions culminating in the western form of democracy, conservative revolutions from above ending in fascism, and peasant revolutions have all led to radical sociological change and political innovation, they are more clearly classified as successive stages in the historical progression of civilization. As such, they exhibit a limited deterministic relation with each other. “The methods of modernization chosen in one country change the dimensions of the process for the next countries who take up the step, as Veblen recognized when he coined the now fashionable term, ‘the advantages of backwardness’” (Moore 1966, 414). Thus, without the prior democratic modernization of England, the reactionary tactics employed in Germany and Japan would have been impossible. Moreover, lacking both capitalist and reactionary experiences, the communist method would likely have been something different than what occurred historically. Consequently, although there have been common problems and solutions in the construction of industrial societies, the job of revolutionary, or politically innovative, modification remains continually changing. Clearly, the preconditions of each revolutionary form and rebellion scenario differ sharply from other historic types of political organizations and nation-states.
Revolutions can be designed from their infancy to retard or devolve stable governmental regimes and arrangements for the sake of digressing back to the Stone Age. However, we assume that revolutionaries most often aspire to better or modernize their governments in an attempt to compete globally with other developing nation-states. The dream of a better way is paramount for recruiting revolutionaries into an activist vanguard party (Lenin 1986). It is possible, but unlikely, that revolutionaries desire to worsen all conditions in their nation for the sake of chaotic or anarchistic change alone. Even in the case of Maoist China, the revolutionary spirit has eventually evolved from a purely peasant consciousness, into one that desires modernization and technological advancement (Nguyen 1990). Consequently, although this research focuses specifically on the revolutionary overthrow of existing regimes, it is assumed that the rational motivations of almost all revolutionaries are not capricious, whimsical or incautious of the future.
Within the context of this research, revolutionary overthrow and the adaptive development of egalitarian polities is defined as a long and continuous struggle to do three closely related things. First, egalitarian adaptation is intended to stop, arrest or inhibit arbitrary rulers. Second, it is intended to replace arbitrary rulers with just and rational leaders; and third, it is designed to provide a means by which the majority of citizens obtain a share in the making of the laws and rules of the country. The first feature has been characterized by activities as diverse as declarations of independence and the beheading of kings. Efforts to establish the rule of law, the power of a legislature and the eventual use of the government administrative mechanisms for social welfare and reform are recognizable aspects of the second and third features of the development of Western pluralities. On the other hand, the starting point does not completely determine the subsequent course of revolutionary modernization. But, even if the starting point is not decisive in itself, some preconditions of the social order and circumstances of the political organization may be more favorable to egalitarian developments than others.

I. JUSTIFYING Extreme measures for the Cause of freedom

Condorcet summed up what most of his contemporaries asserted: “The word ‘revolutionary’ can be applied only to revolutions whose aim is freedom” (Arendt 1977, 29). Not only laws but also everything and everybody must fall silent where violence rules absolutely. It is because of this silence that violence is a marginal phenomenon in the political realm. Moreover, to the extent that man is a political being, he is gifted with the power of speech (Arendt 1977). Along these lines, Aristotle defined man as a political being endowed with speech (Barker 1962). The point is that violence is incapable of speech and not that speech is helpless when confronted with violence. Because of this speechlessness, political theory has little to say about the phenomenon of violence, for political thought can only follow the articulation of political phenomena themselves. Political theory remains bound to what appears in the domain of human affairs. These appearances, in contradiction to physical matters, need speech and articulation, which transcend mere physical visibility and audibility, in order to be manifest at all. Consequently, theories of war or revolution can only deal with the justification of violence. This justification constitutes its political limitation. Once a theory arrives at a glorification or justification of violence, it is no longer political, but apolitical (Arendt 1977).

  1. The State of Nature as Non-automatic in Nature

A political realm does not automatically come into being wherever men live together. There exist events, which, though they may occur in a strictly historical context, are not really political and perhaps not even connected with politics. This paradox led many philosophers throughout history to the assumption of a pre-political state. This pre-political state, or state of nature, was not taken as a historical fact, but as a logical or theoretical premise.
And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, are properly in the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and ‘tis the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject (Locke 2000, 393).
In many ways, the notion of a state of nature alludes to a reality that is not readily comprehensible according to nineteenth century ideas of development. The technological revolution and its advancements completely changed the political climate of Europe, America, and much of the Far East. The classical state of nature was beyond contemporary purview. Whether in the form of cause and effect, or of potentiality and actuality, or of a dialectic movement, or even of simple coherence and sequence in occurrences, the modern world of technology changed perceptions concerning mankind (Arendt 1977). Nevertheless, the hypothesis of a state of nature implies a philosophical idealization and thus hypothesizes about the existence of a primordial beginning that is separated from everything that follows. Likewise, the relevance of the problem of new beginnings is applicable to the phenomenon of revolution because, like the Cosmological Big Bang, once started there is no turning back. Indeed, the past is undoable. Revolutions are the only political events that confront us directly and inevitably with the problem of new beginnings, because the spark of revolution always leads to unexpected circumstances that develop randomly during the chaotic course of revolutionary conflagration.

2.    The Paradox of Studying RevolutionOne enigma that is associated with the study of revolution concerns the notion that it may be easier to begin and carry out a revolution than it is to understand one. Just as the innovation of revolutionary acts demand the ideological commitment and physical courage of individuals to instigate them, developing unique hypotheses and writing an original exposition about revolution demands intellectual audacity (Greene 1990). Revolution is a subject whose topic, theme and focus are far too grave to be taken capriciously. Paradigmatically, the social scientist feels apprehensive about presenting his argument, because of the gaps and uncertainties associated with his or her assertions. However, from the first spark of rebellion, the revolutionary is infected with effrontery and assaults injustices against his or her freedom with self-ordained license.Specifying and identifying the Stimuli of revolution from the perspectives of revolutionary and academic is laborious. Needless to say, social scientists are skeptical of claims to certainty and irrefutable knowledge in their interpretation of historical events and social interrelationships (Popper 1989). Indeed, skepticism increases when the events and social interrelations are stochastic, complex, or intrinsically undoable from a temporal perspective (Wildgen 1999). Most spatial and dimensional models of political change maintain a role for conditions in the environment while rejecting simple mechanistic determinism (King 1989, 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986, 1984). However, unlike the scholar, the typical revolutionary is often the model of self-confidence and hopefulness.3.    Believing in the Revolutionary FaithOnly the religious zealot’s faith in service to divine will rivals the revolutionary’s conviction of absolute righteousness in the pursuit of perfect justice (Greene 1990). Hence, the arrogance and presumption of the revolutionary freedom fighter is ironic counterpoint to the apprehension and skepticism of the dissertation scholar who studies revolution. Nevertheless, the intrinsic uncertainties of new beginnings bring scholar and revolutionary alike into a bond described by Plato’s revelation that a philosophical ruler is not impossible, (See Chap. XXII, in Comford’s 1945 translation, The Republic of Plato). It is the hope of this research that we are able to bring the perspectives of revolutionary and academic together more closely. Aristotle and Plato are both Socratic. Their differences are concerned with perspective.Plato’s metaphysical idealizations of a perfect Republic is more academic than Aristotle’s rational visions of a well ordered Aristocracy. Aristotle identified critical conditions for revolutionary evolution. In history, the slight evolutionary changes in the perspectives of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy magnify over time. Although the Catholic Church was consolidated after the fall of Rome to the Visigoths in 410 A. D., guided in part under St. Augustine’s vision of the City of God, his idealization was closely modeled after Plato’s Republic. St. Augustine was especially moved by the pagan attacks that attributed the fall of Rome to the victory of Christianity (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). As the church grew more authoritative, its needs changed. Its philosophical perspective also transfigured from ones with beliefs supporting an individual personal relationship with God, into a fully integrated and unconditionally influential administrative papal machine.4.    Platonic Tendencies of the Early Christian ChurchPlato’s doctrine of vision as the ultimate form of knowing the Good and his concept of God, as well as his tendency toward mysticism, and his contempt of matter were not unlike the beliefs of many early Christians. Moreover his idealization of spirit, his conception of Ideas as the essence of reality, and his scheme of an ideal society in which the spiritual element would rule could be easily woven into the texture of early Christian life and thought (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). As long as Christianity was primarily faith and revelation, and ideas rather than institutions, Augustine Platonic vision applied. As long as people believed in a fraternal community of love rather than a hierarchical organization endowed with the power of law, Plato seemed appropriate.St. Augustine was thoroughly imbued with Platonic ideas. He was a Platonist not only on intellectual grounds, but also in personality, character and style. But as the church became more and more political and evolved into and organization struggling for world hegemony, its entire outlook changed. When papal power reached its peak in the 13th Century, the intellectual need of the institutionalized church was not so much mystic visions of a highly personalized nature, but a systematic and realistic elaboration of all thought in light of collective tradition and newly emerging political forces.5.                ARISTOTELIANISM AND ST. THOMAS AQUINASThe influence of the Inquisition was a major limitation for insuppressible research and unchecked inquiry. The prospect of being burned alive probably tended to discourage unorthodox thinkers from going overboard in theirexploration of new ideas. Thus, when St. Thomas Aquinas professed his rational and judicious vision of Aristotelian virtues, they were to establish logical rules of law in a hostile environment of harsh and dogmatic ecclesiastical rule. At first, the church was concerned about the spread of Aquinas’ new doctrines and sought to condemn them by prohibition. Eventually, their attitude changed. Aristotle moved from toleration into official acceptance (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). In one sense, Aquinas slightly modified Aristotle’s epistemological views. He assumed that unity was desirable in a state, because rationality would always naturally come under the final authority of the unity of God. Aquinas asserted that unity could balance plurality. Henceforth, the ideal of the unity of knowledge remained the driving force of European universities.6.                The Corruption of Absolute Papal PowerIn due time, the Catholic Church became so powerful and corrupt that philosophers desired a reestablishment of more basic and ethical virtues than those supported by the Pope Alexander VI, of the Borgia family. Some of these reformers believed that the hope of salvation lay in reforming Christians as individuals rather than in attempting basic institutional change of the church as an organization. The best known reformer of this time period is Savonarola, a Dominican friar and preacher in Florence, who managed to exercise complete and independent control over Florence from 1494 until 1498 (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). In the end, Caesar Borgia’s father, Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, then Pope Alex VI excommunicated Savonarola. Afterwards, he was tried and burned. Others followed, like the Christian Humanists, who hoped that the church could reform through enlightened blending with the ethics of early Christianity and humanism of classical culture. However, while contributing significantly to the moral and intellectual climate of Europe, the Christian Humanists failed in their immediate goals. They could not reform the church from within, through means of peaceful appeals and exhortations of faith.7.   AN AUGUSTINIAN MONK NAMED MARTIN LUTHERThe pendulum swung again and the idealizations of Plato rose once more in a St. Augustinian Monk known as Martin Luther. Luther professed that each individual should seek their own personal relationship with God, and he also questioned many authoritarian dogmas of the Catholic Church. The reformist tendencies grew more vigorously, now driven into revolution by the obstinacy of the church. Revolutionary reformists were also more successful, because they were allied with other social and cultural forces of the 16th Century. Wherever Protestant Reform was associated with the monarchy, like in Northern Germany, England and Scandinavia, its victory was never in question. Where Protestantism was not favored by the monarchy, as in France, it did not succeed. Although the age of Reformation was truly religious, religion was readily used to cloak less lofty aspirations (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000).J. THE NEW BEGINNINGS OF POLITICAL ACTIONThe governmental replacement stage is the second, after overthrow, in the process of new political beginnings. It hasoccuưed in many ways besides the infrequent evolution of post­revolutionary constitutions and stabile republics following radical political action. Revolution is certainly associated more often with its hollow victories that include harsh recriminations, self-serving leadership, and a universal betrayal of the people. Indeed, in many instances, these kinds of excesses have a propensity to lead to opposing counterrevolutions. Therefore, a sudden challenge to a given social order can in itself be beneficial in awakening and testing a society, a point that was often attested to by Thomas Jefferson during and following the American Revolution (Arendt 1977). Nonetheless, the full revolutionary process is not so easily classified. Marx and de Tocqueville reached opposite conclusions concerning the changing expectations that should be associated with revolution (Barnes and Kaase 1979). Marx associated revolution with declining expectations and increasing tribulation (Mann 1968). Alexis de Tocqueville countered that revolution resulted from rising expectations. It occurred when those rising expectations exceeded a particular political system’s organizational capacity (Greene 1990). These different perspectives provide insight into the effect that the Industrial Revolution had on the hopes of workers and expectations of man. 1.  Rising Expectations and RevolutionAlexis de Tocqueville believed that revolution resulted from rising expectations that exceeded a political system’s organizational capacity (Greene 1990). Writing in the 1850s with regard to the French Revolution, de Tocqueville proposed a generalization that applies equally well today as it did then.Revolution does not always come when things are going from bad to worse. It occurs most often when a nation that has accepted, and indeed, has given no sign of even having noticed the most crushing laws, rejects them at the very moment when their weight is being lightened. The regime that is destroyed by a revolution is almost always better than the one preceding it, and experience teaches us that usually the most dangerous time for a bad government is when it attempts to reform itself.[1]James Davies describes a J-curve relationship that exists between changes in popular expectations and revolutionary political action (1962). The essential relationship posited by the J-curve is that expectations rise over time along with achievement to a point where any downturn in achievement creates an intolerable gap between what people have come to expect and what they actually achieve (Davies 1962, 5-19). This gap provides a perfect place to look for the spark of oppositional efficacy. For example, oppressive regimes repress, because they maintain control, not via legitimate authority, but through coercion. However, where coercion is relaxed, the regime admits that it has lost the will to overturn opposition by force.2.  Loss Aversion AS A Strategic Value FunctionIn terms of revolution, this intolerable gap represents a definitive point of reference with regard to political actors’ valence for political action. Hence, uncompromising political action and revolution are the purest forms of political behavior, because they are defined almost entirely by the uncertainty of the critical threshold this intolerable gap represents. According to Davies J-curve analogy, revolutionaries test the most hazardous political environments over a poorly hedged wager betting their lives. However, expected utility theory and prospect theories yield different predictions with regard to perspectives concerning losses (Quattrone and Tversky 1988).Both the regime and revolutionaries have much to lose in the confrontation of revolutionary conflagration (Lenin 1986). Classical utility theory predicts risk aversion independent of a point of reference. On the other hand, prospect theory implies that shifts in the reference point induced by the framing of the problem will have discemable effects on people’s risk preferences. What defines the freedom fighter or differentiates the rebel from the terrorist? Unfortunately, prospect theory is less clear with regard to these nuances. It does provide valuable additional insights.Based on prospect theory, an important property of the hypothetical value function of loss aversion is that the downside is considerably steeper than the upside, as illustrated in Figure 1, on the following page (Quattrone and Tversky 1988, 721). This value function is clearly similar to Davie J-curve analogy from a four coordinate system perspective. In most instances where political actors are prospect seeking, losses loom larger than corresponding gains. At least revolutionaries are aware of the mortal consequences of their sedition, because it is a political act sanctioned by almost all governmental constitutions. Consequently, individual actors, averting losses and adjusting to situational uncertainty, produce irregular, but clearly discernible behavioral patterns, in strategic and collective contests.Although we are still in the preliminary stages of this research, it is clear from the theoretical logic of these related premises that these derivations of behavior can be traced in more formal statistical analyses of revolutionary and war data. Moreover, spatial patterns of behavior are almost certain to come forth given adequate or exhaustive discovery. For that reason, collective consistency in an unpredictable or situational environment describes levels of coalition strength and governmental stability (King 1989, 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986, 1984; Fiorina and Shepsle 1982).




                                                                                                                      Perceived Value




  1. Uncompromising Political Action and Revolutionary Beha viorUncompromising political action and revolutionary behavior are dominated by strong coalitions that emerge as factions, that when successful, become majoritarian ingredients within the balance of geo-political power (Lenin 1986). According to theory, a faction consists of two or more coalitions; each endowed with limited members based upon two or more ideological preference perspectives (Riker 1986, 1982, 1962; Shepsle 1986; Olson 1971). This differentialprovides a sfrategic avenue for further analytical dissection of this subject matter once my theoretical model has been justified and logically tested. Strategic loss aversion establishes an immutable and consistent one-way sequence of interactive events. It mirrors the consequences of setting a revolutionary spark to the volatile fuel of revolutionary conflagration.In Figure 1, on the preceding page and adapted from George Quattrone and Amos Tversky’s seminal work on rational and psychological analyses of political choice, a hypothetical value function of loss aversion is portrayed to provide a visual construct to illustrate the complexity of this non-linear relationship (1988, 719-736). Vanguards of revolutioninspiring the benefits of revolution must direct neophytes attention to the slow ascending curve associated with the inevitable gains and utopian vision of their revolution, while knowing that the consequences they offer are far more likely to end up in the realm of ever-increasing losses. Yet, people naturally avoid risk when there is something at stake or considerable to lose. They seek risk when it seems there is nothing left to lose. The role of revolutionary organizer is to infect revolutionaries with the logical discipline to wait until the time for conflagration is right, while balancing this inner strength with risk-taking passion poised for action under the realization that there is little or nothing left to lose (Lenin 1986).4. Marginal Ideological Preferences and Planning for RevolutionThe Davies J-curve also illustrates that losses always threaten strategies more than their corresponding gains (1962). Marginal ideological preferences, defined by the mortal consequences of the uncertainty involved, serve as the cohesive elements of revolutionary coalitions. These characteristic attributes, possessed by all members of the revolution, are desirable to each faction member and freedom is sufficiently scarce as to preclude satiation. Only death or discovery awaits members who attempt to leave revolutionary alliances. Each individual’s preferences are represented by continuous indifference curves, which establish a basis for exchange because marginal rates of substitution differ between ideological properties and characteristic attributes possessed by all members in the community of interest (Mumphrey 1975a, 1975b).As governments and revolutionaries become more sophisticated in the future, all varieties of computer simulation and geographical information technology will come into the planning of future revolutionary conflicts, as well as in the defense from their eventuality. The relative value functions for ideological properties are assumed to be concave above an individual’s ideal reference point (Arrow 1982; Fiorina and Shepsle 1982; Buchanan 1972a, 1982b). This assumption provides an indicator that can be spatially mapped. These theoretical underpinnings also imply that although revolutionaries are the ultimate risk takers, they are still perspicacious and act with bounded rationality. Accounting for the asymmetrical nature of loss aversion, which appears similar to Davies curvilinear perspective of the J-curve, revolutionary preferences are continuous and convex below the theoretical ideal referents of innovative and uncompromising political action (Quattrone and Tverskv 1988; Barnes and Kaase 1979; Davies 1962).


  1. Anchor Derivatives of Core IssuesIt may be possible to transform measures of stochastic individual behavior into an observer’s point of view while remaining quite close to the observable phenomena in reality (Huckfeldt 1990; King 1989; 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986; 1984; Laver 1986). Despite the stochastic nature of demonstrating political choice, core issues establish anchor derivatives of adaptive, durable and factional majorities (Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986). Each political actor comes to learn the value of each political position which others are willing to offer or accept in exchange for his or her allegiance (Lijphart 1977; Buchanan 1972a; 1972b; Olson 1971).Classical utility theory predicts risk aversion to be independent of an individual’s ideal reference point. However, prospect theories predict risk aversion concerning gains and, except for small probabilities, risk seeking in the domain of losses (Quattrone and Tversky 1988, 721). Consequently, reversals of preference are possible only as a consequence of the perspective symmetries of choice (Quattrone and Tversky 1988, 719-36). At equilibrium, the collective behavior of exchange should lie along a contract curve whose precise location depends on the initial endowment and relative bargaining strengths of the negotiating actors (Shepsle 1986; Olson 1971; Riker 1962).K. DISCOVERING THE Causal ingredients of political actionSchematically, reasonable elements of political action and decision-making must be discovered rather than taken for granted, and their discovery almost always requires an assessment of the various influences bearing on every decision made (Feld and Jordan 1983). We assume that the perspicuous nature and bounded rationality of potentially violent revolutionaries is not beyond discovery and mitigation. We also assume that open revolution is the most radical solution. Before such a drastic and far-reaching solution is considered, all other courses of action should be considered first. If through this research we can offer any possibilities of alternative solutions to open conflagration, this project will have succeeded. Consequently, this research is intended to open new vistas for the study of the varied and often complicated influences that bear upon the conduct and adaptations of individual political actors in revolutionary settings.Normally when discussions among adversaries ceases, open conflict ensues. Communication is paramount to diplomatic solutions and tactful conflict resolution. First, however, we must consider the nature of communication and communicative competence among political actors thrown into the cauldron of fomenting revolution. If, as this research project suggests, revolutionary conflagration can be systematically broken down into its basal elements, the sequences of behavior that cause revolution will be more closely understood. If the sequences of behavior are more closely understood, scholars and diplomats will more realistically understand the ever-increasing and burgeoning nature of revolutionary conflagration. Political discourse and communicative competence must be discriminated into its cognitive interactive networks to determine which factors induce these types of sequences of behavior to be exhibited (Johnson 1993). Indeed, as the Vietnamese axiom states, the past is undoable. We must plan our actions carefully, to avoid having to try the impossible of re-living the past. The direction of temporal sequence is uniform and omnipresent in the workings of our minds. The Davies J-curve and loss aversion curve predict the nature of time’s unrelenting progress from the past into the future. Thus, modeling unique political decisions, as occurring within the narrowest slices of a funnel of causality, requires that the funnel axis delineates a cognitive arrow of time (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960). According to Einstein, who only accepted irreversibility at the phenomenological level, the arrow of temporal progression may only be an illusion that is produced by improbable initial conditions (Einstein 1961; 1954; Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen 1935). Consequently, the new beginnings of revolution may intrinsically operate at primal levels that are as volatile as the nature of their mission.1.  The Inflationary Nature of Revolutionary ConflagrationIt is seemingly increasingly more difficult to predict or measure the inflationary moments that immediately follow the veritable Big Bang of revolutionary conflagration. The most logical starting point begins with the irreversible nature of revolutionary beginnings (Arendt 1977). Therefore, taking striated random cross sections of the funnel of causality leads to probabilities, rather than memories, concerning future behavior (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960). A substantive ordering of prospects and political behavior is possible when interactive transactions are compared to loss aversive asymmetries of strategic competence (Quattrone and Tversky 1988). In addition, perceptions of the threshold of minimal winning factions tend to be slightly inflated (Olson 1971). Long-run disequilibrium often follows from leader’s tendency to compensate slightly more for winning than it is Endogenously worth (Mitchell 1982; Riker 1962). In the end, exorbitant side-payments outstrip governmental systems with political bankruptcy. Also, political behavior is very likely to be a function of bounded rationality, which only heightens the anxiety associated with uncertainty (Simon 1986; 1979). Thus, all political actors are probably incompletely informed and driven by retrospective motivations to search incrementally for ideological positions in an evolving revolutionary environment. Thus stipulated, both Marx and de Tocqueville describe the same revolutionary phenomenon from different but related perspectives that are theoretically joined by the J-curve continuum (Barnes and Kaase 1979). Therefore, these perspectives can be translated with an irreversible value function, operationalized according to shared continuity with the consistent yet stochastic yardstick of temporal progression.2.  Rising Expectations and RevolutionDespite this compliant correspondence, it has also been shown that the highest protest potential is found among groups whose expectations are increasing (Barnes and Kaase 1979). Hence, it is crucial, in some way or other, to differentiate among less decisive forms of political protest like dissident political action and all out revolution. It is also important to discover the mechanisms that provoke individual freedom fighters to become dissident factions and then cascade into movements, councils, and eventually, political parties (Arendt 1977; Duverger 1954). Several distinctions should be drawn concerning the increasing stages of political action and their relativistic influences on the avalanche of spontaneous revolutionary political action. A revolution is distinguished from a coup d’etat. A coup is a sudden seizure of state power by a small faction or element of the government. Revolutions connote a veritable avalanche of mass public insurrection. Degrees of revolution are difficult to establish. They are even harder to differentiate. In the end, a coup does not necessarily cause profound, far-reaching change in the social system. The coup d’etat cannot be called a revolution, since only elites bring about the change, and thus, are usually the only class influenced by the results. Nonetheless, the coup d’état and revolutions are related political action.Symbolically speaking, the stage was set for revolutions in the modern sense of a complete change of society. John Adams said years before the American Revolution, “I always consider the settlement of America as the opening of a grand scheme and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth” (Quoted in Arendt 1977, 23). Therefore, distinctions should also be drawn between a revolution and revolt or a rebellion. The stage for universal revolution was set when Locke and Adam Smith both alleged that labor and toil, far from being the appendage of poverty to which poverty condemned those who were without property, but on the contrary, were actually the source of wealth (Arendt 1977). Thus, revolts and rebellions may be either failed attempts at revolution, violent expressions of grievances with limited purpose, or merely changes in allegiance. In this sense revolts and rebellions are not revolutionary. For the purposes of this research, the coup d’etat and revolt are part of the act of overthrow, but not meaningful in theformer, and of limited value in the later.L. CHARACTERISTIC THRESHOLDS OF CHANGE AND REVOLUTIONThis research project considers the stacking admixture of injurious political and cultural constituents that spark inflationary revolutionary political activity. Although determining exactly what component mixtures are necessary and at what thresholds these ingredients become volatile is impossible, it is assumed that there is a real nonlinear valence that is reached before the cascading effect of irreversible political action begins to change the political environment. Much of change is determined by the illusive cadence of temporal progression. Indeed, the chronicle of change has an oscillating, and occasionally lurching, sometimes even frenetic quality. The names for change are varied and diverse. The past cannot be done over. Most scholars perceive change as irrevocable. Just make “the past is undoable” one of Ly Tong’s axioms.Benewick and Wingrove note that the social scientific categorizations of political change in modern Post-Maoist China are as diverse as descriptions that read like entries in a thesaurus (1988). This condition exists, because human behavioral change is unsurprisingly complex. This intrinsic complexity expresses the multidimensional nature and importance of continuity and legitimacy in Post-Maoist governments as well as most others. But flexible methodologies combine and conflict with the rigidly expressed hypotheses constructed by those who have, for example, a penchant for models of bureaucratic modes of collective behavior (Benewik and Wingrove 1988). Nevertheless, the situational complexity that is associated with the oscillating and lurching progression of time is not insoluble.1.  Temporal Progression and Revolutionary PotentialityDespite that change is oscillating, its nonreversible progression provides us with a probability constant. The lurching nature of ordinal time and its relative advancement affords us with a potentiality constant that assists reliable social scientific research. Kuhn emphasis that it is by repeating exercises, in the form of solutions to the paradigmatic problems of previous generations, that students learn the concepts upon which research is based (Kuhn 1997, 1996). The new beginnings of revolution are like the introduction of a new paradigm into the research community. Groups that by cultural socialization were homogenous become diversified. In many cultural and pedagogical settings, the emergence of new paradigms further increases the vehemence of intellectual debates and philosophical discussions. Political theories of these types of descriptions purport to show that portrayals of this nature include incomplete symbols and possess a dualistic existence because it is both grammatical and logical (Russell 1945). Consequently, the confusion spawned from this duality is lessened by the reductive rationales employed in this research to organize revolutionary political acts into generalized classifications portrayed within the context of irreversible temporal progression.2.  Far-From-EQUILIBRIUM ConditionsIn far-from-equilibrium conditions, we find that very small perturbations or fluctuations can become amplified into strong structure-breaking forces. This sheds light on qualitative and revolutionary changes. When one combines the new insights gained from far-from-equilibrium states and nonlinear processes with complicated feedback systems and catalyzing processes, a whole new approach to scientific study is made possible (Toffler 1984). There is also analogical significance for social, economic and political realities. Concepts like revolution, economic crash, technological upheaval and paradigm shift take on new meaning when we begin thinking of them in terms of fluctuations, feedback amplification, dissipative structures, and bifurcations. Beyond this, there is still the puzzling and pervasive issue of time, and timing. Part of today’s vast revolution in both science and culture is a reconsideration of time.In social science, time remains a largely unmapped terrain. Anthropology has taught us that cultures differ sharply in the way they conceive of time. For some, time is cyclical – history endlessly recurrent. For other cultures, our own included, time is a highway stretched between past and future, and people or whole societies march along it. In still other cultures, human lives are seen as stationary in time; the future advances toward us, instead of us toward it (Toffler 1984, xvii).Unfortunately, differing time horizons are an overlooked source of social and political friction. We often miss that the nature of time is perhaps among the more important qualities in human causality. Differing time horizons are recognizable and remind us of the nature of generational biases. This variation in time horizons provides a relatively unified constant by which punctilious measurement can take place against the backdrop of its standard. There is growing recognition that cultural conceptions of time differ. Social scientists must do more todevelop coherent theories of time and compatible hypotheses concerning timing.In this dissertation, timing plays a pivotal role. For the inexperienced, it is not easy to imagine the nature of revolutionary timing in revolutionary acts. Sometimes, revolutionaries act in ways that mimic the precision of jumping onto a revolving surface, like a giant record player, walking over to someone on the edge to hand them a cup of hot coffee, while traveling by at sixty miles an hour, without spilling a drop. Human recognition of the moment when these heroic acts become possible is now believed to be hard wired into primordial networks within the brain (Hameroff and Penrose 1996). Recognizing the conditional patterns that indicate when ingenious people can do shrewd things must also emanate according to survival instincts genetically coded in the human species. No one can fully explain what drives a hero or heroine to risk his or her life to save another. Likewise, it is impossible to fully explain what drives a revolutionary to risk life, family, friends, community and state because of his country.3.  COGNITIVE Theories of TimeCognitive theories of time offer the most plausible direction for future social scientific research, because of the recent advancements in statistical topology and information systems manipulation. Future social scientific models must reach across other scientific disciplines. Politic science should join together with group dynamics and interpersonal psychology, as chemistry has coalesced with physics and mathematics. Models will become sophisticated enough to account for what Toffler calls “durational expectancies,” which are our culturally induced assumptions about how long certain processes are supposed to take (1990b, 42-44). The revolutionary knows full well that his revolutionary act will only take a short time, but will rely on precision timing. If it fails, he will die. If it does not fail, but he is caught, he will spend years in prison, maybe being tortured or eventually murdered.Only under the most remote possibilities will his mission succeed. The force that not only drives humans to try or imagine that they can succeed against such odds is fascinating. Realizing that they sometimes succeed is tantalizing. Almost everyone can imagine how fast falling from a jet airplane actually feels like. They can also imagine how long twenty years seems like when you have just been sentenced for a revolutionary political conviction. These are the time scales of a revolutionary. Consequently, this research attempts to recognize relevant cultural expectations concerning time, but it also takes advantage of the constant of universal temporal progression that is perceived by everyone.
  2. THE RELATION BETWEEN Being and Becoming

Because the security of stable nation-states seems to be increasingly at risk in the modern world of crashingempires and national unions that absorb smaller nation-states into increasingly larger amalgams, there is an ever-present hazard of terrorism and revolution in our world today. In many ways, with the proliferation of global communications and Internet access to almost any information, the contemporary condition gives one the impression that the permanent rules of human interaction and intercommunication are no longer valid or applicable. We live in a large complex system where singular actors or solitary events can have far-reaching and long-lasting revolutionary effects. Indeed, humanity is living in a dangerous and uncertain global environment.

Freedom fighting revolutionaries and impassioned terrorists need not only look to the communicative access that is afforded to citizens of the World Wide Web. Although some areas of the world still have limited access to the Web, the economic driving force pushing the marketing of desktop computers to every venue and walk of life is staggering. Hopefully, the Internet will also spread the political philosophy and intellectual wisdom to these same dissidents in order that they may understand how to use these new and wondrous technological tools of the 21st Century. Many of the explanations provided in this research to justify the activities of freedom fighting revolutionaries also seem to provide pragmatic rationales for the motivations of terrorists as well. Hauntingly, these explanations imply that terrorists have the same potential for effectiveness as revolutionaries, and seemingly more probability of success.

  1. Digging for Hidden Meaning

Perhaps, as George Orwell seems to suggest, the importance of media appeal and public opinion accepts the lawlessness of terrorism because it is so newsworthy for our modern newsmonger society. Terrorism, unlike revolutionary insurrection, implies the need for more authoritarian administrative establishments, as well as prying investigative news organizations, in order to thwart the modern pagans of the new-world-order theology. In many ways this condition is representative of Orwellian visions of the future. To many, individual freedom seems a reasonable price to pay to rid the world from terrorists and non-believers. Many are quick to forget the struggle that provided their luxurious existence in the modern free world. Inside the intelligentsia, the pressure of public opinion is overwhelming even if it erodes the fabric of what is intelligent (Orwell 1990). Revolutionaries force us to examine our own sense of values, because their activities hint at absolute and endemic cultural, sociological and political change.

  1. The Effects of Revolutionary ScienceThe emphases of modern sciences have begun to shift from obvious continuities to more hidden and esoteric ones. They are the less noticeable continuities involving difficult questions rejected by many as illegitimate or false, but that keep coming back to haunt generation after generation. These questions include the dynamics of complex systems and the relation of the irreversible world of reality with the reversible description provided by classical statistical mechanics. Modern non-linear perspectives of statistical mechanics provide us with a broader multidimensionalabstraction of physical and social reality (Wildgen 1999, 1995a, 1995b, 1992; Greene 1999; Huckfeldt 1990; King 1989, 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986, 1984; Prigogine and Stengers 1984). This new perspective is possible, because the recent history of both social science and the hard sciences are characterized by a series of problems that are the consequence of deliberate and lucid questions asked by individuals who knew thatthe questions had both scientific and philosophical aspects.3.  MODERN Scientific AND Philosophical Perspectives

Modern research continues to approach the central epistemological problems of Western ontologism through investigations of the relation between Being and Becoming (Prigogine and Stengers 1984). Both Whitehead and Heidegger addressed this relation, where the aim is to go beyond the identification of Being with timelessness, inProcess and Reality, and Sein und Zeit, respectively (Whitehead 1975, 1969; Heidegger 1977). For both Whitehead and Heidegger, being is inseparable from becoming. Becoming eventually implies progress, which also implies the innate nature of temporal progression. No single idea has been more important than, or as important as, the idea of progress in Western civilization for nearly three thousand years (Nisbet 1980).

For most of the founders of classical science – even for Einstein – science was an attempt to go beyond the world of appearances, to reach a timeless world of supreme rationality – the world of Spinoza. But perhaps there is a more subtle form of reality that involves both laws and games, time and eternity” (Prigogine and Stengers 1984, 310).

It is hard to avoid the impression that the distinction, between what irreversibly exists in time and what is eternal and outside of time, is at the origin of human symbolic activity. It is quite remarkable that mankind is experiencing profound changes in both our scientific conceptualizations of nature and perceptions of the structure of human society as a result of the demographic explosion. There is a need for new relations between man and nature, as well as between man and man. We can no longer accept the old a priori or self-evident distinctions between scientific and ethical values (Arendt 1977). Contemporary physics, mathematics, and the hard sciences have become as enigmatic as the most recondite philosophical cabalism (Greene 1999). This was possible at a time when the external world and our internal world appeared to conflict, to be nearly orthogonal. Today we know that time is a construction and therefore carries an ethical responsibility. Societies are immensely complex systems involving enormous numbers of bifurcations. Indeed, the bifurcating nature of collective behavior is a potentiality indicator of coalition strength and minimal winning proclivities (Wildgen 1995a, 1995b, 1992).It is now known that all systems, physical as well as social, can be highly sensitive to seemingly minimalistic fluctuations (Gleick 1987; Prigogine and Stengers 1984). However, this revelation leads us to both hope and a threat. There is hope, since even small fluctuations may grow and change the overall structure. As a result, individual activity is not doomed to insignificance. Individual revolutionaries can initiate the cascading of political events that eventually brings freedom and liberty to millions. However, on the other hand, there is also a threat, because in our universe the security of stable, permanent rules seems to be gone forever (Prigogine and Stengers 1984). We are living in a dangerous and uncertain world that inspires no blind confidence. There is a very fine, almost indistinguishable line of difference, between freedom fighting revolutionaries and the zealousness of terrorism. Nevertheless, there may still be room for some feelings of qualified hope.


In systematic terms of a definition, the expression revolution is more broadly applied to any significant historical transformation. Perhaps the most important revolution, in terms of modern history and with regard to its contagious effect on other nations, was the American Revolution. The American revolutionary experience is unique because it has endured. However, some political scientists and historians define the American Revolution as a war of independence rather than a revolution. Somewhat different than revolution, a war of independence is an armed struggle by one nation against an alien colonial power. Wars of independence are revolutionary overthrows even if they are not followed by revolutionary replacement. Theoretically, a war for independence need not lead to revolutionary changes but only to a new indigenous government in a foreign but sovereign state.[2]

  1. Nourishing the Revolutionary élan in Europe

During the years before its uncompromising struggle for independence, America had become the symbol of a society without poverty long before the modern age and its unique technological ability. The early Americans discovered the means to abolish that abject misery of sheer want that had been held eternal before Columbus discovered the New World. Only after this technological addition to revolution did the European populace become aware that the social question and the rebellion of the poor could come to play a true role in revolution (Arendt 1977). The ancient cycle was always based on a dichotomy between rich and poor.

The factual existence of American social and political arrangements prior to the outbreak of the Revolution broke this cycle forever. However, the philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution were unable to support the public opinion pressures that the abject poor were able to bring to bare on the leaders of the French Revolution. Not the American Revolution, but the social and economic conditions in America, nourished the revolutionary élan in Europe. If it were true that nothing else was at stake in the modern revolutions than a radical change of social conditions, then the discovery of America and the colonization of a new continent constituted their origins. This counter intuitive approach implies that the lovely equality that had developed so naturally in the New World could only be achieved through the violence and bloodshed of revolution in the Old World (Arendt 1977). This bloodshed became an irreversible consequence, once word of the New Hope had spread to the Old World.

To establish the differences between successful overthrow and revolutionary catastrophe it is important to compare the American Revolution with the French Revolution. Although many complex and obscure influences brought about the differing outcomes, these differences are extremely difficult to distinguish and describe. At best, we can examine some of the conditional circumstances that existed in each nation before their conflagrations began. The new continent had become a refuge for the poor and was essentially run by a poor man’s government. Crèvecceurdescribed the new continent as a refuge where a new race of men were united by the bonds of mild government and were living under conditions of a welcome uniformity from which absolute poverty, worse than death, was banished (Arendt 1977, 24). Ironically, Crèvecceur was against the American Revolution, because he saw it as a kind ofconspiracy against the common ranks of men. In modern revolutions, from the later stages of the French revolution to current revolutions, it seems to have appeared to revolutionary freedom fighters more important to change the fabric of society, as in colonial America before the revolution, than to change the political realm. These aims are unclear, however, and should only temper our ever-improving perspective of the conditions of successful and disastrous revolutionary overthrow.


Numerous Marxists support the notion that economic and sociological conditions tempered the American Revolution. This assertion is supported by Marx himself who believes that his prophecies for the fixture of capitalism and the coming proletariat revolution did not apply to the social developments of the United States (Marx 1978). Indeed, the American Revolution is the antithesis of Marxist Philosophy (Moore 1966). Whatever the merits of Marx’s qualifications, his theories themselves are refuted by the simple fact of the American Revolution (Arendt 1977). Yet, Marx indicates that the introduction of machinery into the United States was due to competition with other countries. He also asserts that the American system was spawned by a disproportionate distribution of property, production capabilities and raw materials, between the American population and its industrial needs and not the result of revolutionary, technological, and political developments (Marx 1978). With regard to American history to date, Marx was incorrect. In fact, it has been implied that democratic systems are much more immune to major revolutionary upheaval than authoritarian systems (Huntington 1993). Philosophically, it is not surprising that in a political system where citizens have inalienable rights of free expression and dissention, there are fewer opportunities for discord and disagreement to rankle to a point where open revolutionary conflagration becomes necessary.

  1. Strategic Analysis of the Risks of RevolutionStrategically, revolutions cannot succeed against a legitimate government, particularly one that “has come into power through some popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutionality” (Guevara 1961, 2). The freedom of popular enfranchisement may be the only solitary legitimate cause for revolution (Arendt 1977). Freedom appears to be the only known immunization against the fulminating vehemence of future revolutions (Huntington 1993). Regardless of how delusional it mat seem to purely logical academic unity, freedom to someone imprisoned for half their adult life is a principal justification for political legitimacy (Ly Tong 1990). In one sense, feelings of freedom, whether real or imagined, are part of primordial bases that connote political legitimacy according to prescripts of liberty, freedom and justice.

Only when regimes can leave the proverbial cage door open will they really know if citizens return, unrestrained, obeying the dictates of their authority. Without freedom, expression is tainted with such venom that almost no constructive good can come from those truths affirmed from behind prison bars. A perfect example is Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1999), which eventually provided the philosophical groundwork that came to threaten western civilization. This famous work was Hitler’s acrimonious autobiography. It was written while he was in prison for his beer-hall putsch of 1923, and gives his theories of Aryan superiority, Jewish conspiracy and democratic degeneracy. Mein Kampf provides a blueprint of his totalitarian regime and war aims. The book is a compilation of Hitler’s most famous prison writings of 1923 and later become the bible of National Socialism and the blueprint for the Third Reich. However, the opposite may also be true from non-authoritarian perspectives. Corruption and perversion are more insidious and likely to occur in an egalitarian republic, than in any other form of government, because human vices emerge more easily when private interests invade the public domain (Arendt 1977). Individual private interest springs from below, unlike Lenin’s party discipline that emanates from above. All the same, this potentiality assessment still does not explain why different levels of social and economic conditions are related to the successful exercise of innovative or uncompromising political action and revolution. Sound and common conditions are important only in so far as they determine the perception of freedom.


  1. LENIN AND THE Vanguard Party

In many ways, Lenin departed from Marx in What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement, by providing a skeleton plan of the role of a revolutionary socialist party as leadership within the new government that he envisioned (Allen 1986). Lenin was convinced that a strong party organization was necessary to carry the revolution through to a successful overthrow and replacement of the Czarist Regime. It is critical to the revolutionary movement, according to Lenin, for the party elite to direct that conclusion. Lenin’s concept of a revolutionary Marxist party emerged from his dynamic theory of revolution, and his malevolence spawned by the death of his brother. His theory was based on the leading role that the working class was to play within the party, but his strategies were tempered by the foolish openness of the revolutionaries that made the loss of his brother possible. There was a desperate need for a liberating vanguard party in late 19th Century Russia to lead the large uncohesive proletariat class against the tyranny of the Czar.

This vanguard party could, in the midst of revolutionary spontaneity, impart socialist consciousness to the workers (Allen 1986). Lenin believed that, because it is not an automatic result of the class struggle for socialist aims to emanate from the masses, outside influence from the party are acceptable to initiate revolutionary political action (Lenin 1986). He believed the role of imparting the socialist consciousness to the worker was to be fulfilled by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory. Here is found his famous phrase: “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” (Lenin 1986, 2). However, it is very difficult to glance into the consciousness of a revolutionary seeking the calculus of overthrow, without also being affected by the glow of their revolutionary passion for a better way. Indeed, it may be impossible to separate the means of overthrow from the ends of its consequences. Machiavelli is a significant political philosopher whom effectively disassociated the means of political action from theends of that activity, and although Niccolò Machiavelli is compelling, this omission seriously crippled the acceptance of his philosophical work (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000).


These variations to Marx and Engels’ theories became paramount in modern Marxism. Much of the eventual collapse of the Soviet Empire was directly due to ideological attempts to surgically remove any association of Stalin from Lenin. This was undertaken in an attempt to re-legitimize Leninism in the philosophical context of Marx and Engels (Nguyen 1990). Modifications to Marx and Engels utopian vision, including Lenin and Mao, have addressed an assortment of problems from party theory, education, and overcoming primitive means of production, to revolutionary approaches to reform, the role of terrorism, the role of the press and making use of the experiences of other countries. With respect to the experiences of other countries, Lenin believed that the party could analyze the experiences critically and test them independently, because he envisioned a party that was an organization of revolutionaries capable of guiding the entire proletarian struggle for emancipation (Lenin 1986). The party principles Lenin developed were in accordance with his theoretical view that a revolutionary Marxist party must go beyond the recognition of the historical necessity of socialism to ask for its realization (Allen 1986). The unemotional and cruel truth to Lenin’s modern prescription is its strategic utilization of Plato’s medicinal lie and guardian censorship. A study of modern revolutionary overthrow is incomplete without full appreciation of Lenin’s tactics, and his corresponding justifications to the revolutionary party members associated with the Russian Revolutionary Movement.

  1. Mao Zedong and the Spirit of Party Directed RevolutionThroughout Mao Zedong’s association with the Chinese revolutionary movement, from when Mao gained control of the party after the legendary Long March from Jiangxi to Yan’an until the Cultural Revolution, he followed a similar departure from Marx as Lenin. Almost all of Mao’s theoretical debate was centered on cultural issues. He also believed that a strong party organization was vital to the revolutionary conversion of the populace. The party of Mao has always insisted that its members celebrate the nationalistic and proletariat values of socialist society, by rejecting the values of traditional China and of foreign or domestic class enemies (Townsend and Womack 1986). Maoist goals generally upheld ideals of populism, political activism and self-sacrifice for collective interests, while vehemently protesting against those aspects of Chinese lifestyle that seemed opposed to the Maoist virtues. Old ideas, culture, customs, and habits were unacceptable. Selfish desires for material gains, personal ties that diluted political organizations, bureaucratic or elitist behavior, and the honor or status accorded intellectual pursuits were aspects of Chinese culture that Mao felt compelled to reform (Townsend and Womack 1986). Such concerns were obviously political, but that was the Maoist mission. For Maoists, a revolutionary campaign was necessary to establish leaders who


would promote cultural transformation. However, only cultural transformation would ensure that the correct leadership would prevail and endure.


Mao and Lenin depart from Marx in that they both assert that a strong party organization is necessary to foment revolutions because the historical forces that come to bear are not sufficient in and of themselves to initiate innovative and uncompromising political behavior and revolution. Every agent, even individual atypical players in the revolutionary movement, should be assigned and fulfill a revolutionary role in the collective effort of the revolutionary party (Lenin 1986). Indeed, the most important causes of peasant revolutions have been the absence of a commercial revolution in agriculture led by the landed upper classes and the concurrent survival of peasant institutions into the modern era when they are subject to the stresses and strains associated with modernization (Moore 1966). The key feature is the absence of a network of cooperative relationships like the English Charters of the American Colonies (Arendt 1977). Only after the establishments of a capitalist legal framework, and only after commerce and industry have made a substantial impact, can peasant society reach a new form of conservative stability (Moore 1966). In general, an integral cause of peasant revolution has been the weakness of the institutional links binding peasants to the upper classes. Although this is not a patent formula for revolutionary overthrow, this condition is significant because it strengthens the natural link of the middleclass between peasants and upper class in the process of revolution.


  1. Class Consciousness and Insurrection

The middleclass is a necessary condition for insurrection, but it is not sufficient to foment widespread revolutionary war against the regime by itself. In many ways the middleclass balances the differences between the lower-class or peasants and the upper-class or elite. The polarized foundation that develops relative to the middleclass is compounded by the exploitative nature of the peasant-aristocrat relationship. Historically, the great agrarian bureaucracies of royal absolutism have been especially liable to the combination of factors favoring peasant revolution. The established strength of the upper class allows them to inhibit the growth of an independent commercial and manufacturing class (Arendt 1977).

When peasants revolt, it is unlikely that they will progress successfully and independently from spontaneous overthrow attempts to organize and far-reaching open revolution without the support of assistance of an independent commercial and manufacturing class. By taming the bourgeoisie, the upper classes and aristocrats reduce the impetus toward further egalitarian processes, or modernization, in the form of bourgeois revolutionary breakthrough. This effect has been noticeable in France, Russia, and in China. However, while escaping the consequences of bourgeois revolution, the political establishment was made more vulnerable to peasant revolutions in these nations (Moore 1966). It is the combinatorial effect that seems to cause revolution to spark and cascade into inflamed revolution. Although these cases are anecdotal and do not directly fit a definitive formulization of revolutionary overthrow, they  do provide additional examples of the substantive conditions for such processes.



The most acceptable definition of revolution breaks down the revolutionary process into two basic steps. The first and most obvious subdivision is the process of overthrow. The second is the new beginning associated with the formation of a new government. However, identifying the precise point of phase transition from overthrow to new beginnings may be impossible. Nonetheless, it is empirically important to distinguish the activity of overthrow, or liberation, from the beginning formation of a succeeding government, because overthrow must be accomplished before new forms of government can be put in place. Although there is a general understanding and intent concerning the governmental forms that will follow most revolutionary movements, they are not intrinsically connected to the actual act of revolution. The consideration of a new form of government can even be part of the legitimization of overthrow, and still remain functionally and conceptually independent. Thomas Jefferson made this distinction very clearly in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. His intent was decisive overthrow first and then the production of subsequent forms of legitimate governance later.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is

their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[3]

Correspondingly, for simplification and clarification, we focus specifically on overthrow and not upon the transfer or mediation of political or regime power. The research will only mention the replacement of the political regime for illustration and philosophical continuity. Although the regime that follows a revolution is related to and often determined by subsequent counter-revolutionary political action, new beginnings are not intrinsically connected to liberation, and thus are not inherently related. Overthrows and new beginnings will be separated, as best as possible, with a classification scheme based on types. Typologies are first steps toward identifying reliable sources where observations can be collected and verified as substantive data. As a result, even though post-revolutionary forms of government develop as a consequence of revolutionary overthrow, they are not always directly related to the actual political acts of revolution. The theory of revolutionary overthrow that is developed in this dissertation expands the limiting idea of measurable conditions that are necessary and sufficient to evoke successful overthrow antecedent to enduring revolutionary activity. There are two such antecedent conditions: they are general dissatisfaction and revolutionary Stimuli. Because general societal dissatisfaction is always necessary but not sufficient, the research will focus on the taxonomy of revolutionary Stimuli and their timing to explain revolutionary overthrow.

Dissatisfaction always precedes revolutionary action and overthrow of the regime, but revolution is not the necessary consequence of dissatisfaction. Rather dissatisfaction must be translated into oppositional efficacy, which when it reaches an undefined critical level, revolutionary action follows. But even then, overthrow is not inevitable if the regime can change outputs or inputs enough to restore equilibrium.

  1. COMBINING THE Rupturing ingredients to foment revolution

According to the above-described theory of revolution, the condition of dissatisfaction is not always sufficient to foment revolution. Likewise, in most cases, revolutions are not generally sustained as a function of particular revolutionary Stimuli. Therefore, both common and conditional Stimuli are intrinsically indispensable to successful revolutionary overthrow. Overthrow results from a continuing flow of Rupturing events whose influences depend on stochastic temporal progression and the critical timing of revolutionary events. They also depend on the content of revolutionary ideology and chronic societal dissatisfaction.

Theoretically, revolutionary overthrow occurs when dissatisfaction has become the status quo and reaches the valence of mass public perception, so the flow of confluent revolutionary Stimuli is sufficient to trigger oppositional efficacy or aggressive political innovation. Attention to, perception of, as well as all logistic responses of societies and regimes to disruptive Rupturing events, are sufficiently complex to preclude deterministic prediction (Huckfeldt 1990; Gleick 1987; Prigogine and Stengers 1984). Thomas Jefferson asserts that revolutionary behavior can sometimes be an antidotal prescription for governments useful to reduce widespread dissatisfaction (Arendt 1977). However, because dissatisfaction triggers revolutionary dissention, the overthrow of an existing regime is a function of the replacement focus of dissidents.

Although the future political organization or structure may be ideologically connected to overthrow it is not necessarily directly related as justification for the revolutionary action. Generalized dissatisfaction that has become the status quo provides futile soil for subsequent dissidence. Dissatisfaction is generally not sufficient to complete successful revolutionary overthrow, even if it is radical terrorism or a learned publicized attack (Lenin l986). Normally, the dissatisfaction of the mass public requires additional motivations, like a vanguard party or a militia of revolutionary minutemen, to provoke full-scale rabble-rousing activity. Ultimately, revolutionary Stimuli can range from the ones that are Exogenous in nature to those that are very Endogenous. Therefore, the next substantive step in the development of a realistic theory about innovative or uncompromising political action is to establish a Stimulus theory of revolutionary political action.Despite the conviction of many revolutionary leaders in the American experience that the struggle for independence was primarily an issue of political and national independence, large segments of the colonial population organized against the emergence of any ruling oligarchic force (Lipset 1968). Many Colonialists, including Jefferson, who strongly supported a system of political wards to ensure unencumbered admittance to government, insisted that the franchise of freedom and unrestrained public access be extended to everyone (Arendt 1977). Although liberation and new beginnings are not exactly the same, they are surely bound by the multifaceted continuum of political freedom.

The Stimuli of revolution are the communicators of dissatisfaction and also spur oppositional efficacy. How regimes respond to these indicators of dissatisfaction and oppositional efficacy enhances or deters such revolutionary efforts. Consequently, revolutionary Stimuli act as tests of mass public dissatisfaction and public oppositional efficacy but are unlikely to result in spontaneous political action. Therefore, modern revolution is the means for removing reactionary classes from power and transferring power to progressive ones. The following chapters will discuss Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam as case studies to discover characteristics of revolutionary propagation.

During the development of this opening chapter, we have tried to examine, and explain, as well as more closely consider important indicators of revolutionary propagation and their antecedent conditions. The following more closely maps the furtherance of these arguments. This chapter has tried to make 13 major points, which we will review, once again, in detail below:

  1. We examined the essence of revolutionary action and political propagation. The characteristics of revolutionary propagation were explained within the context of contemporary revolution in the modern political milieu.
  2. Next, we classified specific variations and metastases of revolutionary propagation, including less obvious and absfract Rupturing motivations and effects. Our typologicalclasses have been broken into Endogenous, Exogenous, internal, and external, groups. We also identified and analyzed the actual Stimuli of revolution, by exploring the unpredictable dynamics and outcomes of revolution.
  3. The impact of western civilization on modern revolution and historical progression of present governments have been explained in detail. In developing this segment, the extreme nature of revolution has also been examined. The individual needs of revolutionaries have been considered, by narrowing the working definition of revolution. We also included a review of optimal successful revolutionary scenario.
  4. Prime justifications for revolutions have been explained. The need for liberty is a condition of freedom. We showed the impact of revolutionary philosophy on Modern society.
  5. Plato & Aristotle’s perspectives were reviewed and we also distinguished among Aristotelian and Platonic models.
  6. Political instability and the steadying nature of the middleclass were reviewed. We discussed the durability of ideologies within nation-states, and developments that lead toward various governments and institutions. Classical causes of revolution were identified and remedies that prevent revolutions were investigated.
  7. Reflections concerning the democratic route to revolutionary modernization were weighed, and discriminated various defenses for using extreme measures in the cause of freedom. It also traced historical belief-systems, like reform and revolution, which represent much of the progress of the west. We explored the platonic tendencies of the early Christian church, as well as the Aristotelianism of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as the corruption of absolute papal power and the emergence of Martin Luther.
  8. Here we delved into the new beginnings of political action. We explained the rising expectations of revolution and loss aversion and focused on uncompromising political action and revolutionary behavior, by reflecting on marginal ideological preferences and the planning necessary to foment revolution.
  9. Next, we mapped discoveries concerning the causal ingredients of political action, by exploring the inflationary nature of revolutionary conflagration, which provide rising expectations of revolution.
  10. We showed characteristic thresholds of political change and revolution, by analyzing temporal progression and revolutionary potentiality, as well as implications of far-from-equilibrium conditions and cognitive theories of time.
  11. In this section, the relation between being and becoming was examined. Also the effects of revolutionary science, and modern scientific and philosophical perspectives were carefully studied.
  12. We define revolution, by examining Marxist philosophy and the Revolution in America. We considered sfrategic analyses of the risks of revolution. Here Lenin and the Vanguard Party, as well as Marx-Engels Philosophy, were contrasted with Mao Zedong and the spirit of party directed revolution. Effects of social and economicstability were inspected.
  13. There are two different stages of revolution: liberationand replacement.By categorizing these Rupturing ingredients, which tend to foment revolution, we more clearly understand dissatisfactionand the causes that mitigate and support oppositional efficacy.

The historical evidence examined in the following chapters begins with the more recognizable Stimuli of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The significance of Lenin’s skeleton plan for a Vanguard Party and its impact on Russian culture and society are portrayed according to observable Stimuli that helped foment revolution. The Russian case study attempts to draw inferences concerning the Soviet conceptualization of communism and the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991. This fundamental perspective concerning the ideological and historical roots of Communism and its intrinsic relation to the developments of revolutionary political action provides us with additional insights into the nature of the relationship between modern revolutions and Communism.

The chapter following the discussions concerning Russia provides insights into the theoretical, historical and political developments of the communist and failed counter­communist revolution in China. This section addresses this causal perspective from a vantage that weighs the political success of the Chinese with the economic and administrative purges that stifled its advancements. It examines post-Maoist changes, which ascribe to purer Marxist doctrines than Lenin or Mao. Indeed, despite somewhat related socialist-based political ideologies, the Soviet brand of communism and the Chinese political outlook seldom if ever agreed. The estrangement of China introduced a negative factor in the general global correlation that drastically reversed or hindered any progressive realignment of world forces. Historically, there was as much competition between the Chinese and Soviets as there was with Western democracies.

The following chapter provides narratives concerning the historical and political developments of the communist revolution in Cuba and the reason why there was no counter­communist revolution in Cuba. Without Castro there would have been no social revolution in Cuba, even though many dispute the great man of history thesis. For many years Castro maintained a hand on approach in Cuba that provided a means for much of the citizenry to maintain direct contact with the charismatic leader. Castro also balanced the generous economic assistance Cuba received from the Soviet’s with a strict non-Soviet party line in his own political movement. Eventually, even the economic assistance provided by the Soviets evaporated, but no political opposition rabble-rousers existed in the country of Cuba at that point. Earlier, Castro opened all his jails to allow criminals as well as political dissidents to flee to other countries. Consequently, there were no indigenous or volatile Stimuli available to incite a counter-revolutionary mechanism from within.

Following the expose on Cuba, we will explore the political situation and totalitarian regime in Vietnam. The case study, concerning Vietnam, is intended to ascertain the utility and test the Stimulus theory of revolution. We will examine how and whether it is possible to initiate measures to emancipate the enslaved peoples of Vietnam, through reorganization and restructuring processes, in order to implement an idealized version of a Neo-Platonic Republican solution there. Accordingly, these philosophical overviews and historical synopses are primarily intended to identify, characterize and differentiate the various kinds of Stimuli and trigger mechanisms that tend to bring about demonstrable revolutionary political change. Following the review of Vietnam and the Vietnamese situation, in the concluding chapter, the implications of this study will be considered in light of the future development of political alliances, and regimes, in the world of the 21st Century.














Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions. Aristotle 343 BC[4]

  1. COMMUNICATION and revolutionary political action

The major difference between my Stimulus theory of revolution and theories of organized political behavior is the absence of a common language of political communication and exchange. Therefore, ideological expression constitutes a useful substitute for a common language of political communication and exchange in political settings (Habermas 1990; 1984; 1979). Moreover, levels of political discourse also measure the political resources of political actors in consociational settings (Dahl 1971; Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960). It is my hypothesis that participating freedom fighters’ ability to acquire additional political and revolutionary influence is derived from their initial endowment of these types of political resources. Therefore, the summation of influence in a revolutionary setting is a theoretical function of mass public perspectives about issues and relative ideological values, as well as the accumulated influence of the individual revolutionary political actors.

It is obvious that only under conditions of a rectilinear time concept are phenomena like the uniqueness of events and the novelty of new beginnings possible (Arendt 1977). But the evolving impact of factional inertia helps predict the temporal progression of marginal grouping preferences (Wildgen 1995a; 1995b; 1992; Gardner 1990; Gleick 1987; Frendreis, Gleiber and Browne 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986; 1984). This type of group mechanics perspective has a different view of reality (Jacoby 1991). Indeed, the improbabilities associated with non-linear statistical mechanics contradicts the classical philosophical perspective of reality in which an object or event has a definite and singular history (Greene 1999; Penrose 1999; 1994; 1991; 1987; Hawking 1996; 1993; 1988; Feynman 1989; Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Pagels 1983).

  1. Core ISSUE Attraction AND THE POLITICAL Support IT Engenders

The exchange of political influence often results if core issues attract sufficient support to establish mass public attention. The proximal associations of political resources along issue prospects create an issue economy (Quattrone and Tversky 1988; Arrow 1982; Fiorina and Shepsle 1982). Thus identification of individual ideologies in a revolutionary setting is relative to the conservation of political parity in a governmental regime and the inertial political spin of the partisan system. If a situation exists where there are a number of alternatives, which if implemented would have an impact on a number of groups, demoralization costs and compensation decision rules are pertinent to the selection of effective alternatives (Mumphrey 1975a). Consequently, effective freedom fighters are most likely to prevail and become durable majorities if they are able to compensate demoralizing victimization of the mass public most effectively. As a result, the asymmetric choices and tradeoffs associated with interactive strategic competence define the boundaries of most revolutionary transactions.

  1. POLITICAL POWER AND THE EFFICACY OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERPolitical power succeeds by persuading us to desire and collude with it (Olson 1971). The separation of powers, as well as checks and balances of political power, help divide total political control into some form of oppositional bipartisanism (Arendt 1977; George 1972). Citizens always have needs and desires which political power, however partially or distortedly, is able to fulfill (Eagleton 1990). Among the various modes of production of any social order is the mode of human subjectivity. This Exogenous human production is made up from a whole range of institutions, including church, family, school and culture (Eagleton 1990). Political science is celebrating the impact of Democracy on the progress of civilization. Democracy has existed for over 2,500 years. However, it is essential to translate the relative perspective from which our recollections of the Greeks’ influence spring (Grofman 1993). From Plato and Aristotle onward, philosophical limits have been set. Scientific, cultural, and political thought has been channeled in socially accepted directions (Prigogine and Stengers 1984).

The tenets of political theory should continue to recognize the institutional richness of the Athenian system, despite its eventual demise and the failures of the city-state and Polis. However, we should also be suspicious of overly sentimentalized notions of Athenian democracy. Socrates was quite adamant about the failures of unrestricted democracy (Plato 1945). Some render it indistinguishable from notions of pure participatory democracy. More exactly, some forms of Greek democracy were able to exercise collective power in order to prevent elite domination (Grofman 1993). Unfortunately, as the writings of Plato and Aristotle made clear, Greek democracy also exhibited anarchistic tendencies because the self-serving appetite of the masses could become as tyrannical and perverse as any king or timocracy (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). Hence, it is essential to judge all political and revolutionary processes within the unique arrow of time in which they occur.

  1. Political Power and Human Subjectivity

For power to inscribe itself effectively within human subjectivity, there must be something in it for individuals themselves. “We must be in some ways gratified as well as frustrated by it; otherwise the state will be forced to have recourse to naked coercion, thus suffering a drastic loss of ideological credibility” (Eagleton 1990, 37). Individual and collective choice depends on the strength and direction of Exogenous elements comprising a “field of psychological forces” whose elements represent attitudes toward perceived objects of preference (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960, 9). Sir Isaac Newton based his astounding model upon a similarly conceived measurement field of abstraction. Thus, potentiality derivatives of a system help describe aspects of the field of psychological forces within that system’s institutional setting (Frendreis. Gleiber and Browne 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986; 1984; Laver 1986; Mumphrey 1975a; 1975b). The coming of the Newtonian system marks the beginning of a new universality for humanity. Newton unified what until then was divided. He demonstrated that it is science, not its results, that is the subject of philosophy. Kant’s transcendental inquiry made this clear (Gardner 1990). “The a priori conditions of experience are also the conditions for the existence of experience” (Prigogine and Stengers 1984, 87).

  1. MEASUREMENTS of political action and Mathematical forms

In order to encapsulate the profound issues related to the volatility of revolutionary political action, the measurement topic is forged from the perspective of three different worlds of perceptual understanding in this research. The worlds are somewhat related to those of Popper by the emphasis is slightly different (Popper 1989; Popper and Eccles 1977). It becomes increasingly accepted that the social hard sciences are both preoccupied with describing what the universe is and not why it is. It is impossible avoid thinking about the similarities between the new beginnings of revolution and the accepted new beginning of the universe. We are blessed by the philosophy of science and it’s forever mystifying us with its complexity. Hence, the mathematical schemes worked out by the Greeks came to form the first body of abstract thought in European history. However, the Greeks did not start from scratch, because various Oriental peoples influenced them (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000). Nonetheless, Greek civilization, as it has imprinted itself on much of the world, was original. It was not derived from any earlier people in the same way that other peoples borrowed some of their basic ideas from the Greeks.

Mathematical idealizations and the resultant definitions and uncertainty expectations related by idealized Platonic perspectives provide an abstract viewpoint of complexity. Thus this idealization of assessment provides a compelling and rationally based portrayal of all complexity relationships (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000; Greene 1999; Penrose 1999, 1994; Hawking and Penrose 1996; Gardner 1997, 1990; Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Pagels 1983; Arendt 1977; Einstein 1961, 1954; Einstein and Freud 1961; Plato 1945; Comford 1945). There is a theoretical expectation that revolutionary motivations can be measured and also described in the context of their close relation with the universal cause of freedom. It is from this frame of reference that the following research will attempt to develop a modified Rupturing theory of revolutionary political action.

  1. THEORIES on uncompromising innovative behavior and REVOLUTION

My perspective concerning the cause of freedom, as well as the uncompromising innovative behavior and revolutionary political action it may affect, comes from a familial lineage of intense patriotism in the country of my birth, Vietnam. Because of my passion, I am deeply concerned why the privileges and inalienable rights that are afforded by freedom and liberty are not provided to the populace in Vietnam and all nation-states where tyrannies exist. My father chose to resist the French occupation forces in Vietnam and was beheaded by them. One of my brothers fought against the American occupation forces in Vietnam, because of his own extreme patriotism. In due course, the Communists in Vietnam killed another of my brothers. Hence, the rest of my family vehemently opposes the tyrannical Communist Regime in Vietnam, which exists today during the dawn of the Third Millennium, indeed, the members of my family are considered to be extremely reactionary by the Communist Regime in Vietnam. Therefore, despite my private vision of a Platonic solution to governmental organizations, my corporal impressions of political reality are calloused and very hardened. They are influenced by my somberly truthful perceptions concerning the foreign occupation and political oppression that has existed for many years in the country of my birth as well as in many other nation-states around the world.

  1. Properties of Uncompromising Political Action and Revolution

Before beginning to develop a Stimulus theory of revolution, it is necessary to define and outline the properties of uncompromising political action and revolution once again. As discussed in the prologue, a revolution is a general insurrection involving a reconstitution of the state that leads to radical political change (Tonnesson 1991). Revolutions are the political consequences of polities being unable or unwilling to change gradually under conditions of stability. Throughout the history of political theory, the understanding of revolution has varied in terms of its causes, participants, process, outcomes and eventual changes in the economic, social, and political spheres and structures. The problem with revolutionary political action is that its outcome does not always produce a better political arrangement than the political system that the revolutionary political action was intended to displace. Indeed, it has been said that, “You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”[5]

  1. The Incendiary Spark of Revolutionary ConflagrationA revolutionary conflagration often only needs an incendiary spark. Indeed, an important part of the history of mass-based revolution and revolutionary movements is the often unwritten and untold story of individuals compelled to participate in uncompromising political innovation, and even revolution, to bring about change. However, the decision-making motivations of these individuals are deeply rooted and very complex. Probably, individual freedom fighters calculate the astronomical risks and pitiable odds of their personal success, but also see what must be done to forward the universal causes of freedom and liberty. Moreover, they more than likely take the initiative by acting on their passionate intuitions. In summary, hypotheses concerning human decision-making behavior and small-group theory in general admits that there is no way of predicting when, or explaining why, these critical central persons undertake such initiatory acts. Yet the nature of dissipative systems combine with the organizing influences of auto-catalyzing positive-feedback loops to provide theoretical room to estimate the inflationary nature of turning an uncompromising political actors into a revolutionary movement (Toffler 1990, 1984; Prigogine and Stengers 1984).
  2. Hypotheses Concerning Revolutionary Political Behavior

Modern analyses must admit that some random element of complexity is innate in all human behavioral activity (Hameroff and Penrose 1996; Penrose 1994; Freedman 1994; Hameroff 1987; Hebb 1954). However, by characterizing this type of stochastic behavior and then classifying it into reasonable typologies, we are able to more closely model the stochastic realm of political reality (Frendreis, Gleiber and Browne 1986; Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986, 1984). Indeed, most social scientific research adroitly attempts to unambiguously identify the consistent initiating mechanisms of demonstrable political action (Barnes and Kasse 1975). However, from this social scientific research perspective, it may still be difficult to clearly define the primal mechanisms associated with the passionate intuition of freedom fighters and the uncompromising innovative political activity of revolution.

Inevitably, we will always be left with philosophical questions that are associated with science and measurement (Greene 1999). Thus we are not correct in assuming that revolutions always occur where governments are incapable of commanding authority and the respect that goes with authority. Indeed, the curious and sometimes weird longevity of obsolete bodies of politic is a matter of historical record (Moore 1966). These obsolete governmental systems are an outstanding phenomenon of Western political history prior to the First World War (Arendt 1977). Even where the lack of authority is manifest, revolutions cannot break out if there exists an insufficient number of men who are prepared for that governmental regime’s collapse. In addition, even if there are sufficient numbers, they must be willing to seize power, eager to organize, and act together for a common purpose. The number of such men need not be great. Comte de Mirabeau once said that ten men acting together “can make a hundred thousand tremble apart from each other” (Arendt 1977, 116).


  1. THE Philosophies of Mo Tzû and HobbesMuch of science, philosophy, and political theory are riddled with circuitous conundrums that can be theoretically solved through thought experiments. For example, the Chinese philosopher Mo Tzû proposed universal love as a fundamental remedy for war and many other evils (Creel 1954). Yet, he saw only weakness concerning family loyalty and condemned it completely. Mo Tzû believed that everyone should love everyone else in the world without distinction. However, he also advocated a rigidly disciplined organization of the state to maintain this universal harmony. Thus, Mo Tzû promoted that the organization of society should be cemented together with what he called theprinciple of identification with the superior. This is similar to an identification of will and interest. Accordingly, Mo Tzûthought that people first lived in a state of anarchy from which the chief deity had saved them by establishing an emperor. This is similar to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature, where incentives to peace include the fear of death, the desire to secure the necessities of common living, and the hope of obtaining them by effort and industry (Butler 1968). Nevertheless, Mo Tzû‘s bi-directional system of organizational subordination and political synchronicity has many resemblances to the political organization formed by Adolf Hitler (Creel 1953).5.  HITLER on AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

In Mein Kampf it is written that, “The principle of the establishment of a whole State constitution must be the authority of every leader to those below and his responsibility upwards” (Finer 1946, 19). Therefore, in a profoundly unsettling sense, predictions concerning the absolute certainty of impending political action, as well as guesses about its chances of success, can never be expected to be anything better than a reasonably informed deduction. From the perspective of an individual contemplating innovative or uncompromising political action, each freedom fighter must balance simpler axioms before speculating about outcomes of this magnitude. After all, freedom fighters are normally wagering their lives in the gamble. Consequently, there is an element of reckless abandon associated with extreme forms of political innovation that can only be approximated during thought experiments. Nevertheless, as one with personal experience with regard to this subject, I am concerned less with why revolutionary movements succeed or fail than with why they arise at all.

  1. TYPES AND Classes of Revolutionary political activity

This research study begins by classifying the types and nature of the causes of uncompromising political action, as well as related rebellious movements, with reference to those preconditions and circumstances that appear to be most frequently associated with the outbreak of all-out revolution. In a manner of speaking, these are necessary requirements for effective political revolution. The question this dissertation must answer is what conditions are sufficient to foment successful political innovation. One recurring theme of these types of preconditioned situations is long-term popular dissatisfaction and disaffection with the existing political regime. Apparently, when long-term popular dissatisfaction becomes the status quo, the conditions tend to reach a critical mass or threshold, which may cascade into political repressions, socio-economic crises, and cultural estrangement. The substantive mixture or threshold of these forceful levels of political activity is an affair of the human heart. Rousseau noted that the heart begins to beat properly only when it has been broken or is being tom in conflict. Nonetheless, this is a truth that cannot prevail outside the life of the soul and within the realm of human affairs (Arendt 1977).What is important is not deterministic formulas for revolution, but the realization that the irreversible and irrevocable nature of uncompromising political action tends to progress along a temporal path that is determined by human suffering which turns to rage and then eventually becomes the overwhelming force of revolution. Indeed, the accelerants or Stimuli of uncompromising political innovation represent the most identifiable final stages of pre- Revolutionary decision-making behavior. Theoretically, pre-Revolutionary decision-making behavior is comprised of Exogenous Stimuli and Endogenous Stimuli. The first of these classifications can be further subdivided into internally motivated Endogenous Stimuli and externally motivated Endogenous Stimuli. 1.                 GOVERNMENTAL RULE AND THE STIMULI OF REVOLUTION

All governmental rulership has its original and most legitimate source for being in man’s wish to be emancipated from life’s necessities. All too often, men achieve such liberation by means of violence or by forcing other men to bear the burden of their daily toils for them. This is the core justification for slavery. But, it is only the rise of technology and not the rise of political ideas that refuted the time worn and terrible truth that violence and rule over others could make some men free (Moore 1966). Indeed, nothing could be more obsolete than to attempt to liberate mankind from poverty by political means; nothing could be more futile and more dangerous (Arendt 1977). The violence that occurs between men who are emancipated from necessity is different from and less terrifying, though often not less cruel, than the primordial violence with which man pits himself against necessity. The result of the historically recorded events that brought man’s violent needs of necessity to the forefront in the French Revolution resulted in the fact that necessity invaded the political realm – the only realm where men can be truly free (Arendt 1977).

  1. IRRESISTIBLE AND Irrevocable Revolutionary Conflagration

Revolution has an essence of irresistibility and irrevocability once it has been started (Arendt 1977). However, the identifiable causes of revolution are many. Internally motivated Endogenous Stimuli are those politically provoked activities that are set by the government, its leaders, or by the domestic environment. These are similar to the political and cultural developments that developed in the Colonies prior to the American War for Independence. The second type, externally motivated, or exogenously manifested political action, ultimately results in a political consequence within an organizational or governmental system. These types of motivations are similar to the rising expectations experienced by the poor in France once they became aware of the prosperity of the American Colonies. Individuals often initiate Exogenously motivated Stimuli, because they become necessary and sufficient to foment demonstrablechange. These individuals can take the form of protestors, non-conformists, dissidents, revolutionaries or rebels in the countries where the political innovation manifests or may even come from other nation-states of from abroad. Exogenous Stimuli are indefinite in nature by definition and are thus named.

On the other hand, Endogenous Stimuli are not necessarily decisive factors, as invasions, a death of a monarch, a lost war or a reverse policy of the successor can be, but they are significant. Accordingly, Stimuli can be positive or negative. The positive precipitates revolution or counter-revolution, and the negative hinders or slows down its process. In any case it is the irresistibility of necessity and irreversibility of uncompromising political action that eventuate, the cascading avalanche of true revolution. Governmental reactions that resort to tyrannical reforms, political bullying or militaristic coercion usually provide much more significant hindrances to political innovation. These counteractions are intended to derail the explosive atmosphere of uncompromising political innovation and provide a definite example of negative Endogenous Stimuli.

  1. Cultural Assessments of Revolutionary Stimuli

For example, the Cultural Revolution in China and related scorched-earth policies cause more harm and bring about more casualties to the people than rules or rulers would probably exercise without the looming threat of revolutionary political action. They are a direct reaction to uncompromising political innovation and probably would not tend to occur if there were no overt dissident movements. Hypothetically, revolutionary political Stimuli manifest, create or solidify the efficacy of the opposition. Reaction of the populace or that of the government can measure this opposition effectiveness or degree of Rupturing motivation. Therefore, like most fortuitous activities in life, uncompromising political innovation and revolution is partially a matter of luck, partially a matter of skillfulness, and partially a matter of the unexplained. In other words, successful political action is intrinsically dependent on the chance admixture of necessary threshold conditions, critical events and uncompromising innovative political actors. Ultimately, the serendipitous combination of the appearance of a critical actor or the chance occurrence of a critical event hastens definitive political change. Indeed, these factors tend to be required to mix at a precise time of criticality and under very special and necessary political conditions. Too early or too late, and the revolution fails to occur, or fails to be successful.

  1. The Nature of Revolutionary Stimuli

In the following sections, we will analyze the some specific Stimuli that are associated with uncompromising political action and revolution. From these basic forms, we can begin to consider the circumstances when the ingredients coalesce into revolution. These Stimuli will include auto-Rupturing forces determined by the dissipative environment of revolution and cross-Rupturing forces of self-equilibrating governmental systems. However, the most obvious and clearly understandable are the following: military defeats, economic crises, governmental violence, elite fragmentation, reform movements and political change, as well as demonstration effects. In addition, the personal influences of protestors, non-conformists, dissidents, revolutionaries and rebels are also noteworthy. Indeed, it is probably the informal and spontaneous grouping of the latter, in just the right combination, that tends to develop or congeal into irresistible and irreversible revolution.

Through critical political events, and as a result of groundbreaking political activities, uncompromising political innovation is born. Therefore, revolutionary political Stimuli may spring up as a result ideological speeches that are delivered to protestors or may come into fruition in clandestine meetings where rebellious plans to overturn tyrannical rulers become tactics and revolutionary strategies. All the same, it is the charismatic freedom fighter or politically capable leader that transforms inert Stimuli into fomenting political action. Nevertheless, there is a fine line between political dissent and sedition. The transitional difference is minute but the characteristic qualities and difference of inherent moral fiber between them are immense. It takes tremendous ideological and political insight to inspireirreversible political action and the revolutionary spirit to a broad cross-section of the mass public or society in general.[6]


Although this section begins by indicating how important the individual and small group Stimuli are to the spark of revolutionary political action, existing political circumstances, critical events and extemporaneous conditions predicated by the timing of critical events are probably nearly or equally as important. Inevitably, all these mutually exclusive causal influences are interrelated and must combine in an abrupt admixture with incidental random events to dictate the outcome of most revolutionary political action. Therefore, the theories employed in this research, concerning the logical and quasi-empirical referents of revolution, provide a paradigmatic frame of reference to compare political systems and revolutionary political action. Although this research is not designed to predict the incidence or future likelihood of revolutionary political action, it is intended to provide an intrinsically realistic gauge with which to judge the circumstances and potentiality of uncompromising political action and its success, within a strict political theory framework.

Perception of the world and reality are apparently distorted and slightly biased by design; and, providence has provided us with an amazingly straightforward and accurate system for asking questions about the unknown (Einstein 1961). “The accumulation of knowledge consists of the process of gradual conformation and/or modification of the theories that serve as the general premises in the explanatory scheme” (Przeworski and Teune 1985, 20). Consequently, this research is my endeavor to assess the significance and consequences of other revolutions and revolutionary attempts with my own thwarted effort to foment revolutionary political action in Vietnam.[7]


From the theoretical assumptions presented thus far, we can begin to describe the characteristics that differentiate the nature of the propagation of uncompromising political action and revolution that will be examined in this dissertation. Fundamentally, Stimuli can be viewed from a positive to neutral and then negative classification. These Stimuli will include autoRupturing forces determined by the dissipative environment of revolution and cross-Rupturing forces of self-equilibrating governmental systems. If viewed as a positive Stimulus, that Stimulus would generally accelerate the revolutionary propagation process into cascading and irreversible change. Likewise, but from the opposite perspective, Stimuli that are negative would neutralize irrevocable and irresistibly occurring changes that may begin within cultural, social and political arenas. Finally Stimuli can be normal and precipitate fundamental political and cultural changes without falling prey to the snowballing effects that are often associated with revolution, including violence and terror. Unfortunately normal revolutionary propagation may be atypical.

And although the whole record of past revolutions demonstrates beyond doubt that every attempt to solve the social question with political means leads into terror, and that it is terror which sends revolutions to their doom, it can hardly be denied that to avoid this fatal mistake is almost impossible when a revolution breaks out under conditions of mass poverty (Arendt 1977, 112).

Those who subscribe to an equilibrium model of the social system implicitly view revolutions and the political violence that attend them as a deviation from the norms of social progress and change (Johnson 1966; 1964). Others regard the violence of internal violence and associated wars of independence as fundamentally opposed to the more typical and nonviolent manifestations of social progress and organization (Eckstein 1966; 1965; 1964). Still other theories of revolution dramatize the analysis of the stages of revolutions with analogies to fever in the human body, citingdelirium, convalescence, relapse and subsequently even immunization as metaphors to describe the more advanced and recuperative stages of the revolutionary process (Brinton 1965 16-17). This clearly means to say that revolution is not a characteristic of the healthy body politic.

  1. Necessity AND Unequal Distribution

Karl Marx approved of metaphors in social scientific discourse too. His most frequently employed metaphor was childbirth (Greene 1990). However, Marx saw revolutions and their underlying class conflicts as a natural part of societies that were based on an unequal distribution of the ownership of the means of production. Two centuries before Marx, Thomas Hobbes held much the same point of view, although his basic unit of social measure was the individual instead of economic class (Ebenstein 1961). In an updated revision of Marx’s thought it has been suggested that all industrial societies are best understood in terms of “the coercion theory of social structure” and that the group conflict is an abiding characteristic of social organization processes (Dehrendorf 1959, 237).Since the French Revolution, it has been increasingly tempting for revolutionary freedom fighters to follow on a foredoomed path to revolution that is based on the fact that liberation from necessity, because of it urgency, always takes precedence over the building of freedom. Moreover, most revolutionary movements are predisposed to failure, because of the important and dangerous fact that any uprising of the poor against the rich carries with it an altogether different and much greater momentum of force than the rebellion of the oppressed against their oppressors. This raging force is irresistible because it is fed by the necessities of biological life. ‘“The rebellions of the belly are the worst’, as Francis Bacon put it, discussing ‘discontentment’ and ‘poverty’ as causes for sedition” (Arendt 1977, 112). There should be no doubt to anyone familiar with the French Revolution that the women on their march to Versailles were genuinely acting as mothers whose children were starving in squalid home. Consequently, this maternal conscience of the French Revolution afforded motivation to the revolution, which the mothers neither shared nor understood, but provided the Rupturing aid of a diamond point of necessity that nothing could withstand (Acton 1959).

  1. Persistence of Uncompromising Political Behavior

Despite its intrinsic natural tendency toward failure, social conflict is also universal and it is unlikely to disappear, and also plays a vital role in social organizations (Simmel 1955). It is probably difficult to conclude that revolution and violent domestic conflict are an atypical manifestation of social organization and change. The majority of disturbances studied involve violence and bloodshed on a considerable scale and for every five years of relative tranquility there appears to accompany one of significant social disturbance (Sorokin 1970). Sorokin concluded his studies before the Second World War. However, his observation that the Twentieth Century was the bloodiest and the most turbulent period in history has been dramatically confirmed by the years since the end of World War II and the beginning of the Third Millennium.

Any difficulty that may be faced, as a result of definitional disputes, should be short lived. It often is the case that the definition of concepts fundamental to research and theory is endlessly disputed. However, this does not seem to impede the continuing research or the development of theory. However tempting, it would be unfair to leave the complexity associated with revolution to be explained by deterministic classification. It is well established that the term revolution derives from astronomy and was initially used by philosophers to imply a cycle process in human events (Arendt 1977). It entered common political parlance only after the French revolution of 1789 (Schrecker 1966; Kamenka 1966). Nonetheless, most agree that revolution also means an alteration in the personnel, structure, supporting myth and functions of government by methods that are not sanctioned by the prevailing constitution (Greene 1990). Revolutionary methods almost always involve violence or the threat of violence against political elites, citizens or both. Consequently, revolution is generally held to signify or include a relatively abrupt and significant change in the distribution of wealth and social status (Stone 1966; Neumann 1949; Hunter 1940)

  1. Classifica tion of Revolution Based on Modernization

Some research has restricted the classification of revolution to one that is described by characteristics of modernization alone (Huntington 1993; 1968; Hobsbawm 1959). In doing so, they exclude those political movements that are primarily religious in inspiration or that lack coherent organizational structures from truly revolutionary political action. Also, excluded are those revolutionary demands and interests that are poorly articulated or not expressed. But few scholars appear to agree with Hannah Arendt’s argument that revolution should apply only to those relatively infrequent and modern movements that have extended the scope of human freedom (Greene 1990). Yet lack of observational data is no reason to abandon the theoretically substantive insights of Arendt totally. For the cause of freedom is so pervasive in revolutionary movements that it is likely to be the intrinsic legitimizing factor of all variations of uncompromising innovative behavior and revolutionary political action (Arendt 1977). Although Arendt’s views of revolution may be overly restrictive, even though based on an understandable prejudice against the traumas generated by Communism, Nazism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century, they are extremely well supported historically and philosophically.

  1. The Ends and Means of Revolution

The dispute over the meaning of revolution is at least in part a result of confusing the ends of revolutionary movements with their individual techniques of implementation (Arendt 1977). Revolutionaries seek a major alteration in the prevailing distribution of economic well­being, cultural status and political power. However, their techniques may range from techniques that include terrorism to guerilla warfare, to general strikes and coup d’etat. These techniques may be executed sequentially, which brings into play the complexity of risk aversion uncertainties referenced earlier. However, they are also likely to occur as a result of many revolutionary techniques overlapping in the course of revolutionary mobilization (Greene 1990). Schematically, the more useful typologies of revolutionary movements focus on means rather than ends.

Revolutions have been classified according their specific revolutionary techniques and have also been classified according to the tactics the revolutionaries employ (Janos 1964; Smelser 1963). A litany of revolutionary typologies can be found in the revolutionary literature (Zimmerman 1983; Stone 1966; Beals 1970; Komhauser 1964; 1959; Rosenau 1964). “They are all different, and nobody likes anyone else’s “ (Andriole and Hopple 1984, 17). Nonetheless, it is still important to capture the shifting goals and complex processes typical of most revolutionary movements. Consequently, an important task for theories of uncompromising political action and revolutionary propagation is to determine the more Endogenous circumstances in which the revolutionary movements operate.

Basically, this argument leads to the conclusion that revolutions should be conceived of more as a process than as a specific end. Yet the ideology of revolution is as important as the theory of scientific research. Studies concerning modern revolution have indicated that most revolutionaries initiated their uncompromising political acts without revolutionary intent (Gusfield 1968; Lemarchand 1968). Only in the context of a regime’s response to the first manifestation of resistance or violence, and only with the revolutionary movement’s mobilization of unexpected resources, are the revolutionary Endogenouss and the movement itself given explicit definition (Greene 1990). As large a part of the revolution as any, is the role of substantive observer, usually played by the populace of the country in revolutionary turmoil or those peoples inspired by the revolutionary political activity (Arendt 1977).

  1. REVOLUTION AS A Continuum OF Collective BEHAVIOR

There is logical and empirical support that revolution should be understood as part of a continuum of patterns of collective behavior. Uncompromising political action and revolutionary patterns should intrinsically deviate from prevailing cultural and political norms. The same circumstances that are associated with increasing rates of suicide, criminal violence, religious revivalism, labor unrest, and constitutional movements; as well as for political and social reform, are thus often associated with those types of uncompromising violence and terror. This political behavior eventually finds expression as revolutionary action (Gurr 1980; 1970; 1968; Iglitzin 1972; Leiden and Schmitt 1968; Geschwender 1968; Parsons 1964; 1951; Smelser 1963). Nonetheless, to understand the characteristics of revolution and the circumstances of its development, we must study revolutions that have failed on an equal footing with those that have succeeded. No hypothesis or theory of revolution can be expected to provide additional insight to the phenomenon of revolution if it is exclusively focused on revolutions that have been successful insurrectionary movements (Greene 1990).

There is a close relationship between the process of revolution and the variables that describe uncompromising political action of this nature. Thus there is a definite and separable distinction between the dimensional levels of domestic conflict behavior in reality (Rummel 1966). Rummel breaks down domestic conflict of this nature into two distinct dimensions. The first dimension consists of coups, plots, internal warfare, mutiny and large-scale terrorism. The second dimension consists of riots, small-scale terrorism, quasi-private violence and turmoil. These classifications serve to describe the ever-increasing and irreversible nature of revolutionary conflagration. But, by imposing a strict definition of revolution on the complexity of the theoretical construct of revolution, there is a tendency to oversimplify the subject matter of revolutionary political action. Consequently, while these continua are not meant to imply a necessary progression from one form of violence to another, they are closely related to instability. The processes of revolution are important to understanding revolutionary political action but should not distort our understanding of the circumstances that encourage their irresistible presence in escalating political action.

  1. FUNDAMENTAL Change in the Revolutionary Environment

One of the fundamental preconditions for revolution is not so much the poverty of the populace, but economic change, which threatens the relative security and traditional status of citizens living according to norms of behavior that are rapidly becoming anachronistic (Greene 1990). Often, the threshold of revolutionary potential is heightened from the conscious political choices of the political elite. In an attempt to reform anachronistic regimes the political elite are willing to advance their governments economically and technologically to a point where the culture and politics cannot bear the added weight of the expectations of modernization. These technological and cultural advances blind the political elite to the social and psychological consequences of modernization (Arendt 1977). Therefore, revolutionary potential increases as the commercialization of agriculture coincides with industrialization. It also advances as urbanization proceeds at a faster rate than industrial development, and if industrialization is relatively rapid and telescoped in time (Greene 1990).

  1. Modernization AND Revolutionary Political Theory

The potential for major cultural and political instability is especially high where there is a developmental crisis related to a nation’s level of modernization. If these crises overlap in the temporal progression of revolutionary uncertainty, the situation is heightened. These politically incendiary developments include basic land reform that breaks up the landed estates to the advantage of a growing middle class peasantry. It also occurs with the replacement of subsistence farming with a market economy in agriculture. Still other circumstances can develop that also bring about this general developmental crisis (Greene 1990).

Industrialization without simultaneous urbanization causes increased strain on the cultural and political fiber of governmental institutions. The national integration of previously parochial subcultures or relatively autonomous political regions also tends to strain normalized cultural and political relations. Finally, even the secularization of the society through the separation of church and state and a reduction in the social and political roles of religion can heighten the legitimacy crises felt by nation-states in the state of preconditional revolutionary flux (Arendt 1977). Consequently, there is an apparent relationship between political organization and integration of the newly mobilized masses of modernizing society.

  1. Relations between revolution and Modernization

On the following page, in Figure 2, a matrix relationship is illustrated between the theories of revolution that have been addressed thus far and the levels of development and mechanics of revolution. Generally speaking, Marxist philosophies are associated with advanced societies where historical circumstances cause revolutions to occur spontaneously. In the next quadrant of the matrix moving clockwise, uncertainty relationships dominate because the consequences of spontaneous revolutionary political action in a non-advanced society are considered to be inherently complex. Therefore, because of this complexity, they are more completely described by the paradoxical relations described by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (Pagels 1983). The principle basically states that the more we know about the specific nature of systems, the less we know about their general nature. In addition, according to Heisenberg, the more we know about the generalizable in systems, the less we are able to ascertain about the specific through measurement.

Moving clockwise again, we come to the quadrant where agricultural societies are required to have a push from revolutionaries to inaugurate revolutionary conflagration. This situation describes the revolutionary perspectives of both Mao and Lenin. Finally, the last quadrant describes the planned revolutionary movements that occur where the economic situation is relatively advanced. This is a rare condition, and is thus described by Jefferson’s philosophies, which incite revolutionary political change even in light of economic modernization.

















Ad vancedNa tions


Retarded Nations


  1. STIMULUS theory of revolutionary political action

In this theory, I develop a classification of the Stimuli of revolutionary political action. The classification I develop is based on two types of Endogenous Stimuli: first, internal and second, external. It is then subdivided into Exogenous Stimuli, which involve actions of individuals, or small group, or organization. However, Stimuli are necessary but not sufficient to incite revolutionary political action. Although many people may become discontented and antagonistic toward an oppressive political regime, they are less inclined to revolt than accept their fate. Therefore, because those regimes are authoritarian, despotic and brutal in nature, a believable Stimulus must be present, and is required, to crystallize the disaffection. Although there may be instances where self-catalyzing conditions exist to trigger spontaneous revolutionary political action, in certain political environments, these situations are very rare. Consequently, my theory attempts to define the reasoning, methodology or even ideological alchemy behind the cognitively triggered and auto-catalyzing, or sometimes even self-catalyzing, agents of revolution and counter-revolutions. Indications of the broad classifications concerning revolutionary political Stimuli are listed below:


  1. Endogenous Stimuli

Endogenous Stimuli: Internally Endogenous Stimuli include publicly perceptible and obvious political action thatdirectly results in a substantive causal reaction within a political system. Contributory precipitates in a typical monarchical system include disintegration of empires, politically motivated marriages, royal claims, the deaths of monarchs, as well as enclosures, rack-renting, ecclesiastical tithes, as well as religious innovations in the dictatorial system. However, they also may include political crises at the end of lost wars, succession struggles, a dramatic change in a standing government, or a related bureaucratic revolt within a regime. Moreover, internally Endogenous Stimuli may in some instances consist of a political put down, the prosecution and execution of internationally celebrated rebels or even the senseless massacre of peaceful strikers. Consequently, the bases of internally Endogenous Stimuli are far reaching. Indeed, even in some capitalist systems. Endogenous Stimuli might arise in the form of politically imposed and economically heavy new taxes.

The contribution to inciting political action might also include high-stakes competition and economic decentralization, or politically oriented round-tables, as well as visually competitive elections, and unchecked political liberalization. Often times, externally Endogenous Stimuli originate from other geographic venues or countries, as is partially the case with the Gorbachev factor. Another example of externally Endogenous Stimuli might include some form of American foreign policy. Even so, the multiplicity of these types of external Stimuli can take on many faces. Other, less understandable indicators might include indirect causal influences brought on by geographically contiguous warfare, or even an external sanctuary or supply routes for insurgents, (also including material and guerrilla training). These influences are characterized by discernibly higher stakes, because they incorporate direct military assistance, globally motivated intervention, foreign invasion, arms supply; diplomatically provoked promises of support, imported leadership, and last but not least, foreign economic assistance.

  1. Exogenous Stimuli

Exogenous Stimuli: All publicly obscured or ostensibly camouflaged political activities and internationally insubstantial political actions that result in a substantive causal reaction within a political system are classified as Exogenous Stimuli within the context of this theoretically stipulated political paradigm. These types of political activity mainly include illegitimate or illegal measures. These illegitimate or illegal measures may take the form of political assassinations, counter-elite insurgence movements, abortive coups, sabotage and bombing, localized rioting, terrorism, mutinies and even kidnapping. However, Exogenous Stimuli may also include legally sanctioned and officially legitimate measures. Legitimized Stimuli of political innovation may take the form of election boycotts, sit-down stakes, marches, rallies, demonstrations and political meetings. Less blatant, but equally as symbolic, are the distribution of local petitions and the wholesale distribution of ideologically motivated literature. Still other legally allowable activities may emerge with the mass occupation of factories, or with major strikes and dissident movements.

Often times, protest can run in cycles, ranging from mass exoduses and hunger strikes, to self-burning suicides. Although demonstrably significant, these types of political activities are generally assumed to be less obvious and Exogenous in nature. Symbolically, Exogenous Stimuli stir the coals of dissent that glow beneath the political insurrection that is smoldering within. Consequently, all symbolically oriented political innovation, like building coalitions and federations, or developing increased regime access provides additional fuel for the proverbial fire. With additional charismatic leadership, organizational competence, popular and logistical support thrown in to the mix, the unexposed ingredients of political innovation combine to act in conjunction in order to bolster rather than overtly foment revolutionary political action.

  1. SUMMARIES OF Theoretical Classifications of revolution

In the section below, I outline some of the more familiar political theories concerning revolutionary political action. However, at the end of this broadly based summation, I have included my own personal paradigm concerning the subject of revolutionary political action. Please note that in no way do I propose to place my own unassuming theoretical calculations and hypothetical annotations concerning this serious and foreboding subject in the company with these sagacious reflections. Nevertheless, to test my own theory, I must place my ideas within the context of extant political paradigm. What follows is a compilation and summary of the standard theories of revolutionary political action:

  1. Marxist TheoryMarxist Theory: This theory generally specifies that revolutions occur when the social structure prevents further or significant economic development in a nation state. In Marxist terminology, the property relations of production become incompatible with the material forces of production. Ultimately, revolution results when worsening economic conditions combine with the inability of government to deal with the consequences of the ever-increasing economic strife. This theoretical explanation is sensible because it combines the logical referents of political action with the empirical indicators of economic well-being.2.          Systems Theory- Functionalism and Structural-Functionalism

System Theory (Functionalism and Structural-Functionalism): This theory generally specifies that revolutions occur when the existing political system or social structure fails to perform its essential or legitimate social functions. Like the Marxist theory above, this hypothesis combines the conditionality of demands exceeding output, but combines it with the spontaneity legitimacy shaking governmental inadequacy.

  1. Modernization Theory

Modernization Theory (Development theory): This theory is very similar to systems theory. It generally specifies that revolutions occur when the government, nation state or public authority is unaware, unable or unwilling to adapt and adjust to the public demands and politic interests that have been mobilized by the technological wonderment and creature comforts associated with modernization.

  1. Frustration-Aggression Theory

Frustration-Aggression Theory: This theory generally specifies that revolutions occur when sufficiently high levels of frustration provide indirect provocation or directly provoke individuals into collective aggression against the political interests of the state. This theoretical explanation is also reasonable because it combines the logical referents of ideological conditioning with logical indicators of rational pluralism and individual political interests.

  1. Stimulus theory of Uncompromising Political Action

Modified Theory of Uncompromising Political Action: This theory of uncompromising political innovation and revolutionary activity is based on an amalgamation of several factors that combine to give rise to measurable Stimuli of enduring and noticeable social evolution. The idealized multidimensional formula that is presented, on the following page, gives a rough indication of how these individual referents combine into an approximate mathematical admixture of independent ingredients to spontaneously spark revolutionary political action. However, the theoretical formulation that is defined in the body of this research is strictly an idealization. It is proposed to suggest the complex and evolving nature of all political activity. This embodiment of the logical formula is asserted to be multifaceted and dynamic. In addition, it is neither based on the commutative principle or any of the other rigorous principles of linear algebra. Indeed, there are many non-commutative aspects to the multidimensional portrayals that will be described in the context of this research.

  1. HYPOTHETICAL formula of Revolutionary political action

In the formula that follows, the Stimuli and propagation process of revolutionary political action are operationalized in a more rigorous mathematical fashion. The nature of this idealization is designed to provide a general non-deterministic overview of the conditional and irreversible nature of revolutionary conflagration. Consequently, the resulting mathematical form of the numeric idealization: I Ǝ Δ“Statistical Operator”➢ is neither meant to be misleading nor overly sophisticated. Hence it should be seen, and symbolically interpreted as, there exists, Ǝ, a changing, Δ, statistical operator that lies within a temporal continuum, T, that is represented by the probabilistic nature being included as a member of that circumstance to be affected by the irreversibility of the condition, I T➢.



The, ➸ , in the formula simply means that within the modified Stimuli theory, a combination of these basic ingredients in precisely the right amounts and under the right conditions will induce irreversible revolutionary change to be triggered. However, before conclusions about the truth of conditions and Stimuli can be determined, more description of the nature of the types of effects that are involved must be considered. It should be noted that the formula contains an exogenous factor, “e,” within the context of the idealization. Because the analysis puts theory into practice by applying paradigmatic details to an idealized model of uncompromising innovative political behavior, it approaches the true trigger event of cascading revolution. The stochastic nature of individual influence has significance to the model but is generally not tractable from a deterministic perspective. Consequently, the exogenous factor in my formula is the influence of individuals in the nebulous events of pre-revolutionary environments. This element reveals the nature of the one-man disruptive element-as-Stimulus philosophy to the causal structure of revolution. It may be possible that one of the most important elements of revolution is not tractable from causal triggers but appears as a non- causal virtual spark to activate the irreversible revolutionary slide. Those individuals considering pulling the revolutionary trigger must be informed of the overwhelming inflationary magnitude of their actions, but theoreticians are often outnumbered in the ranks of revolutionaries, and more Machiavellian motivations often supplant original revolutionary beginnings.

It is meaningful to recognize that a very essential ingredient of the idealized formula presented here is the inherent random influence of timing. Whether the timing is right has much to do with whether revolutionary activities fail or succeed. Because the formula presented here is strictly a theoretical idealization, it should not be regarded as linear in nature. In fact, the circumstances and conditions that are required to combine ideologically and politically, in just the right way, are truly complex, entirely multidimensional, and thus non-linear by definition. Ultimately, the revolutionary propagation formula is presented for illustrative purposes, and should not be considered a deterministic formulation or strict algebraic representation of what is demonstrably multidimensional by theoretical design.

Minor stochastic terms incorporated into any abstraction of this nature tend to make sensible identification of the underlying political structures and the patterns of individual social needs difficult, if not impossible (Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986; 1984). Nonetheless, political action, critical events, and political positions, as well as ideological motivations that are revealed by individual actors in idealized political situations intuitively portray complex governmental circumstances. This generalized model of revolutionary political action only attempts to theoretically describe the probabilistic nature of political behavior.

  1. Stochastic Processes AS AN Operational Yardstick

Organizational and structural attributes approaches have proven problematic in the study of political action, because these types of deterministic models strictly focus on purely mechanical indicators to account for political phenomena (Browne, Frendreis and Gleiber 1986; 1984; Browne and Franklin 1986). As a result of the increasing disorder that is inherent in reality, most classical models have failed to provide consistent and compelling empirical results (Dirac 1963; Einstein 1961). Ultimately, all human decision-making behavior and political action is complex. Studying human behavior requires broadly based theoretical specifications. Therefore, models of human behavior should include indicators of uncertainty in order to account for or describe the complexities of the behavior with probabilistic reliability (King 1986; Simon 1986; 1979; 1978). As a result, the assertions that result from this study are theoretically based, but methodologically justifiable.


  1. Case Studies AND THE Attempt to Test Rupturing AssumptionsOnce I have laid the theoretical foundation of my theory of innovative revolutionary political action, I will test the theory with three comparative communist case studies. First, I will examine Lenin’s influence concerning the orchestration and development of the Russian communist revolution, as well as the relation of Lenin’s influence to the developments of pure Marxism in Germany. This section will conclude by approximating how these seeds of change eventually grew into the elements of the successful counter-communist revolution or de­evolution of communism thatoccurred in modern Russia. Second, I will examine the Chinese successful communist revolution and unsuccessful counter-communist revolution. Third, I will examine the Cuban successful communist revolution and unsuccessful counter-communist revolution.For each test case I examine the theoretical elements of my hypothesis, the admixture of the condition of dissatisfaction and the presence of identifiable Stimuli. Once I have assessed the combination of predictable and stochastic influences in each, I will attempt to identify a pattern for successful and unsuccessful revolutionary overthrow, interpreted within the context of the timing of each revolutionary political activity. It is very important to note that my conclusions cannot and do not intend to predict revolutionary overthrow. However, these assessments can help prescribe a regime for the continuous testing of oppositional efficacy using Stimuli within the situational context of stochastic timing of innovative revolutionary political action. This can involve regime response to control Rupturing action and its impact on society, or regime action to change experience or perception of dissatisfaction.

Later in this research presentation, I intend to employ my theory to evaluate the Vietnam experiences of the past and present. In this application of my theory, I will develop prescriptions for those interested in overthrowing the state tyrannies. The modified Rupturing theory will also indicate dynamic prescriptions devised for the state, which enjoys freedom, to avoid overthrow. This theory attempts to contribute to the study of revolution and uncompromising and political innovation. The theory will focus on the overthrow stage of the process of revolution. It will also consider the role of timing and stochastic nature of revolutionary Stimuli. Consequently, the modified propagation theory of revolutionary change that is eventually developed will be dualistic, in that it will provide prescriptions for both revolutionaries and the state.

  1. Perspectives of the Revolutionary

By describing the causal logic of my own uncompromising political innovation and experiences with freedom fighting activity, I can better put forth a theoretical structure. The examination will compare the Vietnam situation by employing the modified Rupturing methodology to determine its revolutionary nature. This will allow me to reevaluate and systematically examine my personal attempts to precipitate the downfall of Vietnam’s communist regime. In doing so, I will also consider how I would have tried, if successful, to initiate measures to save Marx’s utopianism, through ameliorative processes, in order to facilitate a Neo-Platonic Republican solution in Vietnam. It must be kept in mind that Plato’s Republic is an idealization and is intended as a standard to which we strive yet perhaps never achieve (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 2000).From Aristotle’s Politics, we are presented a more realistically considered perception of revolution and governmental stability. Aristotle settles the discontinuities of Socrates’ idealized vision, which Plato has provided him. Although Aristotle was always a Platonist, he developed a prescription of pure government that went beyond Platonic ideals. This model was established from the conditional settings within which the ideal republican state should be established. Deferring to this proscriptive method for analyzing forms and perversions of government, I shall proceed on a similar course. Hence, the investigation that follows concerns definite and indefinite descriptions of the ingredients of revolutionary political action. However, attempting to provide an in-depth treatment concerning the implications of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist Communism, as well as its ideological and historical permanence, is beyond the scope and method of this research. Nevertheless, it is logically necessary to provide an ideological and historical background concerning Communism that is sufficient to establish a realistic perspective from which to examine the revolutionary’s perspective as freedom fighter.

The historical evidence examined in the following chapters begins with the more recognizable Stimuli of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. V. I. Lenin’s mission is traced from the beginnings of the revolutionary movement to the quickening of the party that is signified by his seminal article, “Where To Begin” and the development of Lenin’s newspaper Iskra – “the spark” (Lenin 1986). The significance of Lenin’s skeleton plan for a Vanguard Party and its impact on Russian culture and society are portrayed to modern times. Thus the Russian case study concludes by attempting to draw inferences concerning the Soviet conceptualization of communism and the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991. Subsequently, my study of the many political aspects of communism is not constrained to this period, because I also include additional evidence from the Cuban and Chinese experiences. By relying on political theory and comparative analysis of these historical cases, this dissertation explores the apparent erosion of Communist control in the global political milieu. This fundamental perspective concerning the ideological and historical roots of Communism and its intrinsic relation to the developments of revolutionary political action provides us with additional insights into the nature of the relationship between modern revolutions and Communism. Thus the analysis will try to put theory into practice by applying paradigmatic details to a one-man disruptive element-as-Stimuius philosophy of uncompromising innovative political behavior. Once this philosophy of revolutionary political action is classified and characterized within the context of the three case studies of Russia, China and Cuba, the implications of the Stimulus theory will help demonstrate how a Exogenous Stimulus as small as one person can spark non-incidental revolutionary consequences. Indeed, political heroism can radically change the political spirit in remaining tyrannies.

  1. The Exogenous Stimulus of a Single Revolutionary

The one-man disruptive element-as-Stimulus approach is not intended to mirror Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory of History. The perspective of a freedom fighter that becomes transformed into a revolutionary is a transformation that leaves the freedom fighter either stained by the violence and terror of most revolutions or transformed by the greatness of the cause of freedom. In Carlyle’s famous lecture, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1840), he hypothesized that the great men of history represented something that was beyond their mortal existence. He also proclaimed that common men could not even look upon a great man, without gaining something by him. To Carlyle, great men were the living light-fountain, which was good and pleasant to be near. He believed that their greatness was the spiritual illumination that enlightens. Moreover Carlyle went so far as to indicate that great men enlightened the darkness of the world. He went so far as to say that the enlightenment bestowed by heroes was not simply an incidental flicker, but rather a natural luminary shining by the gift of Heaven (Carlyle 1840).

Within the context of this dissertation, the modified Rupturing theory of revolutionary political action attempts to make clear that the intent of Carlyle’s thesis is not the same as the thrust of this philosophical and epistemological argument. I believe that it is the culmination of less ostentatious acts that can combine to trigger a cascading effect with regard to long-lasting innovative political change. Equilibrium usually exists in political organizations that requirethe exact asserted political force be exerted to change or even slightly reorient the political orientation of the governmental organization. The difficulty in determining effective political innovation is determining where and how much political or ideological force is necessary to disturb equilibrium and also sufficient to cause the desired change. Consequently, this research addresses a modified version of Carlyle’s thesis by analogizing his utopian hypothesis. In the process of translation, the modified Rupturing paradigm substitutes the humble man for the great man. To be sure, this version should be called “the humble man theory of history,” and thus the moniker of a one-man disruptive element-as-Stimulus philosophy of uncompromising political innovation.

  1. One-Man Disruptive Element-As-Stimulus Perspective

From this perspective I develop the interrelationships among ideology, history and political heroism, and also strive to explain how genuine Stimuli of political change are manifested. My hope is to shed light on the motivations of radical dissent and overt political innovation. However, separating heroism from cowardice is difficult in many instances. Sometimes the line between heroism and cowardice is indistinguishable. Oddly enough, outsiders often see individual political heroism as senseless and unreasonable when compared to the security of their more stable political systems. Similarly, cowardice is viewed as despicable. On the political battlefield, the differences blur because the corporal stakes are so high. Indeed, the integral mechanisms that tend to provoke and precipitate successful political change through political innovation are seldom based on non-charismatic and emotionless philosophical rhetoric.

Even with the best of intentions and the most intense beliefs, sometimes heroes never muster the obligatory inner strength to act. Perhaps, it is timing plays a key role. Therefore, the research also intends to present an argument that asserts that a very indispensable and required ingredient in the innovative political process is the political timing and the particular conditions that prevail within governmental environments at the time of the dramatic political activity. I believe that the compassionate resolve and dauntless individualism of real people endeavoring to bring personal freedom and individual liberty to their country under just the right circumstances is required to orchestrateand begin uncompromising and irreversible revolutionary action into sometimes violent, but durable political transformations.

  1. CLASSES of Revolutionary Stimuli and a Theory of types

Theoretically, the success or failure of revolutionary political action is a function of the predominant conditions that exist in a particular political setting, as well as symbolic or purposeful individual Stimuli, and the timing or duration of that Rupturing political action. Thus, the Endogenous of this dissertation is to further develop a theory of types to improve these hypotheses concerning the political agents of political innovation. A Theory of Types is based on mathematical proofs that can be proven, or falsified, with logical arguments to develop a classification schema with which to differentiate among the classes of the types being considered (Russell 1922; Wittgenstein 1922). Hence, by using a modified version of the theory of types, the research analysis is able to tentatively stipulate an idealized hierarchy of the trigger mechanisms of revolutionary political action. Therefore, although this type of hierarchical analogy may be flawed, because it is without substantive limitations in some perspectives, it does provide a foundation from which further theories can be developed and then employed. If the modified Rupturing theory of revolutionary political action provides reliable explanations then the model of uncompromising political action will be used to evaluate my own experiences with political innovation in Vietnam. As a result, I use the modified Stimulus model of political

  1. Relations of Mathematics and Logic

In one perspective, pure mathematics is reducible to logic, in the sense that it can be shown to follow from purely logical premises and employs only concepts that are capable of being defined in logical terms (Russell 1927). This assessment refutes Kantian theories of mathematics, because if geometry is derivable from purely logical premises, it is entirely superfluous to postulate a priori intuitions concerning space and time. Many opinions concerning this subject have been postulated over the years, but these philosophical issues are beyond the scope and compass of this current research. Not surprisingly, the range of philosophical interpretation varies concerning the subject matter. Historically, George Boole attempted to algeraicize logic and developed a calculus of classes, arguing that logic was subordinate to mathematics. On the other hand, William Stanley Jevons was convinced that logic is the fundamental science. In resolution, I attempt to employ hypothetical precepts in this research to assert that arithmetic and algebra can be derived from certain logical ideas. These kinds of logical ideas that are developed in this research are similar to those of class and of membership of a class according to beliefs that were developed by Guiseppe Peano and Bertrand Russell (Copleston 1965).


If, for example, we find that the inferred non-empirical or putative entity X can be defined in terms of a series of empirical entities a, b, c, and d, then X is said to be a logical construction out of a, b, c, and d only.

Fundamentally, this is a similar logical construction to the one that I develop concerning the constituents of political innovation. However, the construct is not so simply defined. This reductive analysis as it is applied to X has a linguistic aspect. This means that if a proposition in which X is mentioned can be translated into a set of propositions in which there is no mention of X, but only of a, b, c, and d; there exists a relation between the original proposition and the translation. The relation holds that if the former is true, the latter is true. This statement also holds if the former is false, the latter is false. At the same time, the reductive analysis has an ontological aspect.For instance, if X can be interpreted as a logical construction out of a, b, c, and d, then we are not necessarily committed to denying the existence of X as a non-empirical entity distinct from or over and above a, b, c, and d alone. But it is unnecessary to postulate the existence of such an entity in terms of the context of this research. That is because the principle of parsimony or economy, and also known as Ockham’s razor, forbids us to assert the existence of X as an inferred non-empirical entity (Copleston 1965). Consequently, the indicators of political innovation that I employ in this study are defined so logical constructions are substituted for inferred entities whenever it is possible to stipulate the model accordingly.


  1. ADDITIONAL implications Concerning revolution and COMMUNISM

Historically, the analysis of political innovation, including communist and counter­communist revolution, has concentrated on two major classifications. First, inquiry has attempted to uncover the influences and dynamics of the political seizure of power. Ultimately, these studies have focused on social, economic and political events immediately preceding revolutionary uprisings, as well as the actual processes of political insurrection and the ideology and organization of the rebels. Second, research has sought to uncover the underlying conditions and motivational forces behind revolutions, focusing on the Stimuli that spark communist and counter-communist revolutions, as well as the factors, which promote political stability and prevent successful insurgency.

How political power is maintained over time leads the study of politics toward an explanation of how political processes remain consistent over time. Because unwavering government is generally equated with stabile political conditions, determining what keeps governments stable is often taken as the starting point for explaining why they become unstable. Analogous situations exist in chemistry. The difference between stability and maximum instability may be a very minute difference in temperature or the presence or absence of an extremely minute quantity of a Stimulus (Rapoport 1960). It has been postulated that physical relations can be defined as functions of sense data, a sense datum being a particular object, such as a certain tangible thing of which a subject is directly aware. Conceptually, sense data are not to be confused with sensations, that is, with the acts of awareness of which they are the object. Sense data are not mental entities, in the sense of being purely within the mind. Consequently, the less apparent the things we are interested in studying, the more important the uncertainty relations in our analysis (Hofstadter 1980). Therefore, this political research begins to answer these kinds of questions concerning the nature of ideologically based political innovation by identifying widespread and official conditions with intuitive, theoretical and quasi-empirical indicators of administrative governmental processes.




At this point, we may ask what happens when and if the landed aristocracy tries to shake free from royal controls in the absence of a politically established and substantial number of upper class peasants living in towns or industrial centers. In other words, what happens if the nobility seeks freedom in the absence of a bourgeois revolution like the ones that occurred in England, France and America? It is safe to say that the outcome is very unfavorable to the Western version of democracy (Moore 1966). In eighteenth century Russia, the nobility arranged to have its obligations to the czarist autocracy repealed, while at the same time retaining and sometimes increasing their holdings of land and control of the peasants (Lenin 1986). The development was very unfavorable to democracy, even thoughIskra proclaimed the rights of social democracy, because the peasants’ plight required Lenin to build a secretive vanguard party with which to orchestrate and educate the masses. The mechanisms were primed for the development of later clandestine operations, missions of censorship, and the proverbial medicinal lies of Plato’s Republic.


German history, which is key in the development of Lenin’s Vanguard Party, is in some respects even more revealing with regard to the relation of the towns, nobility and peasant masses. There the nobility earned on its struggle against the peasants separately from the towns. Ironically, many of the claims made by German nobles resembled similar claims made in England. Both clamored for a voice in government and in government’s means of raising money. The eventual outcome was not parliamentary government. The weakness of the towns has been a constant feature of German history after their efflorescence in southern and western Germany in the late middle ages, after which they went into decline (Moore 1966). Without considering the Chinese case, it appears that Marxist theory is confirmed in these contexts. We are compelled to agree from this perspective that the Marxist thesis that a vigorous and independent class of town dwellers has been an indispensable element in the growth of parliamentary democracy. In other words, where there is no bourgeois, there is no revolution.

  1. The Spark OF RevolutionThe Russian Revolution was commenced with violent upheavals in Russia ending in the overthrow of the czarist government in 1917. By 1905, discontent permeated all classes in Russia, including the peasants, workers, army, intelligentsia, national and religious minorities, and segments of the bourgeoisie and aristocracy. However, to compound the preconditions of revolution, the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) also had revealed the corruption and incompetence of the regime of Nicholas II. As the legitimacy of the regime began to slip, anti-czarist sentiments began to boil. The failed revolution of 1905 was a rehearsal for the successful revolution to come according to Lenin (1986). The Revolution of 1905 began in January, when troops fired on a peaceful crowd of workers who, led by a priest, were marching to the WinterPalace in St. Petersburg to petition the czar. This “bloody Sunday” was followed by months of disorders throughout Russia.

In October the czar granted basic civil liberties and a parliament, or duma, but the first and second dumas were soon dissolved and the revolutionary movement was ruthlessly suppressed. Lenin continued to secretly orchestrate revolutionary sentiments throughout all classes of Russians by legitimizing the necessity of covert revolutionary party activities (Allen 1986). Theoretically, Lenin’s use of medicinal lies and covert tactics aped Platonic necessities for deceiving the masses by the guardian classes during times of indoctrination to the hierarchical hegemony necessary for effective government (Plato 2000). World War I, which began in 1914, brought the situation to a head.

  1. Cascading Stimuli and the Avalanche of CircumstancesBy 1917, military defeats, acute civilian suffering, and government ineptness had led to food riots and strikes in Petrograd (the capital’s new, less Germanic name) and Moscow. There have been long standing tensions between the Slavic and Germanic people of Europe (Bailer1987). Lenin was clear to differentiate the innate differences between the German persuasions of Communism and his vision of a Vanguard Party. Lenin’s Iskra was so convincing and widely read that general dissidence was exhibited throughout Russian society. Many soldiers refused to help put down the disorders. In mid-March, the czar tried unsuccessfully to dissolve the fourth duma. The revolutionary insurgents seized Petrograd. ThisStimulus escalated and the duma appointed a provisional government under Prince Lvov. Nicholas was forced to abdicate. Most welcomed the end of autocracy, but the new government had little support, and its power was limited by the Petrograd workers’ and soldiers’ council, or soviet, which controlled troops, communications, and transport.3.  The New Revolutionary Government

The new revolutionary government called for a general amnesty, civil liberties, and a constituent assembly elected by universal suffrage. Unfortunately, it also said nothing about the war or about redistribution of land. The tensions between the serfs and landed gentry had been strained beyond repair during the czarist reign, and nothing short of peace would quell public sentiment (Moore 1966). Indeed, the soviet demanded peace, and demonsttations forced the foreign minister to resign in May.

  1. I. Lenin returned to Russia in triumph to lead the small Bolshevik party under the slogans end the war, all land to the peasants, and all power to the soviets. His exile had ended and he rose to a position of power in the political uncertainty directly following the abdication of the czar. Kerensky replaced Lvov as head of the government in July. Those who wanted to limit the soviet’s power rallied around General Z.G. Kornilov, whose attempt to seize Petrograd was put down with the help of the Bolsheviks and other socialists. Following his decades old plan, Lenin urged the soviet, in which the Bolsheviks now had a majority, to take power. Finally, on the night of November 6th, Bolshevik workers and sailors captured the government buildings and the Winter Palace. Not surprisingly, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets approved the coup, after the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary party delegates had left the meeting. Lenin chronicles these political evolutions in his classic on revolutionary conflagration, What Is To Be Done, Burning Questions of Our Movement (1986).

In the fallout of the Second Congresses walkout, a cabinet called the Council of People’s Commissars was set up with Lenin as chairman. Immediately, the Congress of Soviets called for an end to the war and gave private and church lands to the village soviets. Lenin used the opportunity to consolidate formidable political and military power from his growing coalition of passionate Social Democrats and radical revolutionaries (Pearson 1998; Moore 1966). The Bolsheviks soon took Moscow and other cities.

As time went on, workers’ control was established in factories, banks were nationalized, and an economic council was formed. Although countervailing political ideologies resisted. Lenin’s grasp was unyielding. Thus, when constituent assembly met in January of 1918, it was disbanded by Bolshevik troops. With political rhetoric that was formulated over twenty years, Lenin quickly turned his political propaganda into dogma. Soon, the revolutionary voice was strangled into a new tyranny and many feared that the overthrow of one tyrant was substituted with another, reminiscent of St. Thomas’ warnings hundreds of years earlier.

Indeed, if there be not an excess of tyranny it is more expedient to tolerate the milder tyranny for a while than, by acting against the tyrant, to become involved in many perils more grievous than the tyranny itself. For it may happen that those who act against the tyrant are unable to prevail and the tyrant then will rage the more. But should one be able to prevail against the tyrant, from this fact itself very grave dissensions among the people frequently ensue: the multitude may be broken up into factions either during their revolt against the tyrant, or in the process of the organization of the government, after the tyrant has been overthrown (St. Thomas Aquinas 2000, 233).

From the legitimized secret nature of his organization, Lenin ruthlessly exercised his ever-increasing political power. The political police, or Cheka, was established up to eliminate the opposition. Finally, in March, Russia made peace at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The treaty assured the removal of Russia from the war by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in Nov. 1917. By its terms, considered humiliating to tile Russians, Russia ceded large areas to the Central Powers and recognized the independence of Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia, and Ukraine. Later Russia agreed to pay a large indemnity. In the general armistice of Nov. 1918, the Allies forced the Central Powers to renounce the treaty. Nevertheless, civil war between Bolshevik (Red) and anti-Bolshevik (White) forces raged until 1920.

  1. Trotsky’s Leadership AND THE Russian Civil War

The center of the conflict in the Russian civil war (1918-20) raged violently in Southern Russia, the Ukraine, and in Siberia. Ironically, the conflict of the war was accompanied by the intervention of British, American, French, and other armies, allegedly deployed to protect Allied supplies. In the end, the Bolsheviks’ military victory, due partly to the lack of cooperation among their opponents and partly to the reorganization of the Red Army by Leon Trotsky was won at the cost of vast devastation.

Trotsky returned from exile to Russia in May 1917, and was a leading organizer of the Bolshevik seizure of power in November 1917. Indeed, in the new cabinet he was people’s commissar for foreign affairs. However, differences with Lenin over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk led him to resign. As people’s commissar of war he skillfully organized the victorious Red Army in the civil war. Nevertheless, at the time of Lenin’s death in 1924, Trotsky and Stalin were the chief rivals for succession (Volkogonov 1996). Ironically, the exogenous and stochastic nature of leadership in revolutions is paramount to the development of uncertain conditions associated with the irreversible progress toward success or failure. Ultimately, Lenin’s vision became reality. However, the peasants and workers’ unions that made his victory possible were never compensated for their effort (Moore 1966). The needs of national defense and secrecy made it necessary to purge rather than permit any bipartisan deviation from the vanguard party’s mission.


After Lenin, Stalin became general secretary of the party and excelled as a skilled in­fighter. He aggressively opposed Trotsky’s advocacy of world revolution as well as his plan for socialism in one country (Volkogonov 1996). Trotsky was first ousted as commissar of war, then expelled from the party, and finally deported from the USSR. Turkey granted him asylum. Later he moved to France and in 1935 to Norway, which under Soviet pressure expelled him in 1936. In the Moscow treason trials (1936-38) he was accused of heading an anti-Soviet plot. Settling in Mexico City, he continued to oppose Stalinism in his writings, until his murder by Spanish-born Ramón Mercader.


In many ways the Soviet Empire at its zenith was like the Papal authority in the 13th Century. The dogmas of its most avid zealots often maintained its legitimacy and contributed to its unyielding toughness. Even after Stalin’s death in 1953, his successors inherited his concern for the potential of capitalist encirclement. To be encircled meant to be compromised. Although the early communists believed strongly in their global mission to free the proletariat from the clutches of capitalism, the economics and necessary military aid required to extend communism to every peasant became overwhelming (Bialer 1986). Eventually, the fear of capitalist encirclement became the basis for most Soviet foreign policy. However, the fear of capitalist encirclement faded as Soviet military power grew.

  1. Communist Encirclement

Another set of problems arose which have been called communist encirclement. The successful growth of global communism took on many forms and these hierarchical governmental structures in the global arena were like concentric rings of influence emanating from Moscow to the inner belt of non-Russian nations, and on to the externalempire of Eastern Europe. For years Eastern European nations owed their existence and survival to Soviet force. Therefore, the third level in the hierarchy became the colossus of China. Despite Lenin’s advice to Mao not to proceed with revolution, his overthrown was a success (Moore 1966). This communist power quickly became formidable and was often a source of grave concern for Soviet leaders. Last in the hierarchy of the empire, were the nations of Cuba and Vietnam. These nations had no common borders with the Soviet Union, and like China, had embarked on their on road to revolution and were accomplished through the indigenous resources of its revolutionaries. Beyond this ring of influence sprang seven or eight Marxist-Leninist regimes in and around Africa, like South Yemen and Ethiopia (Bialer 1986).

  1. Belief that Russia would fail as a Communist StateBefore the nature of the paranoia that accompanied the ideas of capitalist and communist encirclement can be considered in terms of the context of the influence it exerted on Soviet foreign policy and its military budget, it is necessary to consider again the context within which communism sparked in Russia. Lenin’s concern was revolution in Russia. Before him, all Marxists in the 19th Century world of Iskra’s first issue thought that Russia was a country emerging from feudalism. It was universally believed that Russia could not carry out a socialist revolution until the stage of capitalism had been achieved first in the cycle of Marxism. The orthodox opinion that underpinned 19thCentury Marxism was that the development of productive forces would trigger change (Lane 1996).3.  Lenin AND THE Bolsheviks

Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized and legitimized political power in Russia based on Lenin’s theory and slight changes to Marx’s vision, which proved incorrect most of their contemporary Marxists. The literal spark of Lenin’sIskra provides great insight into several Rupturing events in the process of revolutionary political action. Indeed, as a result of Lenin and his vanguard party, the world’s first socialist country was spawned. Iskra added two dimensions to Marx, first the addition of the theory of imperialism, and second the concept of the Vanguard communist party (Lenin 1986). These concepts help explain why Lenin’s spin on the spontaneity of the working class revolt would not happen and why a new type of party had to be formed to lead the working class (Lane 1996).

  1. MARX AND ENGELS’ WORLD System of Political economy

Marx and Engels asserted that capitalism could not be contained in a few countries, because it would spread as a world system of political economy (Tucker 1978). The bourgeoisie, through rapid improvement of the means of production, would set in motion an improved medium of communication that would make possible the inevitable spread of the socialists’ notion of political power. Marx and Engels forewarn of the compelling nature of the revolutionary improvement in production that will propel political structures to adjust. The bourgeoisie mode of production was to create a world after its own image (Marx and Engels 1998). By virtue of its need to make surplus product, the social state must move into other geographic locations. It has to extend into new markets and thus all countries are drawn into the bourgeoisie collective. In addition, Wallerstein and Skocpol assert that the magnates of capital in metropolitan settings often exploit peripheral countries in this arrangement (Wallerstein 1970; Skocpol 1977). Eventually, war becomes the outcome of this structure. The foreign policy of nation states becomes the expression of interests of the internal bourgeoisie classes (Lane 1996). Consequently, there is an economic component to the character of national identity in this context that divides the ascendant classes of workers over issues of centrality in the coalescence of resources in metropolitan population centers.

This explains the tendency to conformism on the part of the Western working class, which has more to gain from a compromise with their own bourgeoisie than from joining the international proletariat. It also explains the nationalism which characterizes twentieth-century capitalism: it is an ideology legitimating a form of social identity which unites people on the basis of language and history (Green 1996, 27).

On the other hand, Lenin saw other implications to the development of capitalism. He pointed to the parallel and uneven development of capitalism (Lenin 1986). The economic and political contradictions are greatest for societies undergoing capitalist development. These developing nations do not have the stability that is afforded by the capitalist superstructure. Often foreign capitalist replaced those of the indigenous kind and developing nations were usually at the mercy of more advanced nations. Ultimately, Lenin contended that the strata whose role in bourgeoisie society was to legitimate it ideologically, the liberal intelligentsia, had not matured in Russia by capitalism (Green 1996). 1.          DIFFERENTIATION OF THE CONTINUUM OF COMMUNISM

Hypothetically, three major political categories can be logically developed from a theoretical and political science perspective concerning the historical developments and innovative political activities that lead institutions toward political equilibrium and sustained governmental stability. In general, each of these types of governmental development can be arranged along a theoretical continuum that fluctuates from idealized communalism to a formalized form of socialism. Hypothetically, it is a blend of the instrumental Stimuli of change and the unique inventive input of the political factionaries that determine where political institutions end up along this continuum. In general, all types have been represented in the historical record of ceremonial, governmental and bureaucratic societies. To begin with, there is Marxism-Leninism. Frequently, impartial yet exceeding severe forms of socialism exemplify this type of governmental establishment. Into the arrangement, a general opposition to individualism and disdain toward market competition is usually exhibited under Marxist- Leninist oriented conditional governments.

  1. Varying Degrees of Socialism

The next political grouping in the establishment of a description of political development is reformism, which is known also as social democracy, or ‘soft’ socialism. In most instances, social democracy, or ‘soft’ socialism accepts the conditional features of the capitalist society, parliamentary democracy, private ownership, and seeks to improve or ameliorate the inequities associated with capitalism through reform. The final grouping in the typology of political evolution is populist socialism. Fundamentally, populist socialism stands in opposition to the directives of industrialization, urbanism and individualism. Therefore, advocates of populist socialism seek to reestablish theirpolitical roots in a traditional agrarian collectivist society, and thus stand for the prescripts of violence and assassination (Lenin 1902; 1917; Holmes 1986a; Rusinow 1977; Lydall 1986).

  1. Ideological Development

By defining these levels of political formation into definite and indefinite descriptions of ideological development, I am able to also logically defme a hypothetically graduated measure based on types of governmental organizations. In general, these institutional and organizational developments can be grouped into five major theoretical classifications: totalitarianism, bureaucratic state capitalism, transitional societies, convergence andindustrial societies, as well as class oriented political structures and systemic approaches to politics. Although these are broadly based classifications they represent a beginning to organizing these institutional arrangements into a typology. Developing a political typology will begin to allow me to establish a standard for political inquiry. If successful with the development of this standard, a gauge will be established with which to approximate subsequent governmental circumstances and bureaucratic regimes in the conclusion of this dissertation. Consequently, this paradigm of political organization provides a valid and reliable indicator of political development and perseverance within the constraints of particular governmental settings and ideological conditions. The next section illustrates some of the individual political actors that combined the ideological and philosophical elements of these political ingredients into actual political change.

  1. THE RUPTURING Effect of Lenin

Probably, the most famous communist in the Russian Revolution was Lenin. Indeed, Lenin is known as the father of Soviet communism. He provided the logistic tactics, military strategies and rational theory for seizing political power in a society that basically lacked the antecedent conditions necessary for an inevitable or natural transition to communism. Undoubtedly, the novelty of his political innovation was to invent a party of a new type. His party formula, Bolshevism, adopted a voluntaristic approach. This approach fueled his revolution from a grass-roots individualistic core of followers. Bolshevism professed that a revolutionary elite would have to work on behalf of the masses to accelerate historical processes. In doing so, Lenin slightly modified, and thus, partially distorted classical Marxism. Lenin was able to justify a socialist revolution in a country that was not yet ready for revolution in terms of its economic, technological and social development. Consequently, Lenin added two dimensions to Marxist theory: first, a theory of imperialism, and second, the concept of a vanguard communist party. 1.          Maturation of Communism in Russia

As the Russian revolution developed, several political advocates and ideologically motivated zealots arose as Rupturing influences in the Soviet Union to help perpetuate Lenin’s dream and capitalization of the unique political circumstances that existed in Russia. The most formidable was Joseph Stalin. Stalin came forth to rule with an iron will and an accompanying iron fist of fanatical despotism. The politics of Stalinism developed according to a political and ideological theory of socialism in one country. His counterpart, Leon Trotsky came forward in the ensuing political struggle of post-revolutionary Russia with another Rupturing component of communism. Differing dramatically from Stalin, Trotsky developed a concept of communism according to a paradigm of permanent political innovation.

  1. Consequences of Revolutionary Development

According to the above description it is possible to stipulate the innovative Stimuli, political motivations and ideological conditions that characterized the communist revolution in Russia in the following ways. First, communist revolution is a fundamental change in the structure of political authority and the basic social system. This intrinsic social and political change is designed to develop into a system of socialism and communism. In general, the politics of Bolshevism and Marxist-Leninist communism that ultimately flourished in Russia evolved into two distinct forms. The first to develop was one based on an autonomous internal revolution that evolves as a consequence of a more or less popular revolutionary movement. An explicit Marxist-Leninist party normally led this popular revolutionary movement. The second type concerns the imposition of communist rule following governmental subjugation by an extant major communist power. As a result, the development of communism followed the history of communism that unfolded in Russia as it evolved and then developed into the Soviet Union.


The socialist revolution had to be international according to Marxist doctrine. Otherwise it would confront a united front of capitalist countries that would smother the proletariat. The growth of communism was supposed to follow a risk-aversive path of ascendance in the global economy. However, the Bolshevik wing of the Party under Lenin, as well as the miniscule Trotskyite faction, proclaimed the possibility of a socialist revolution in agrarian countries like Russia with only semi-developed industrial and rural capitalism (Bialer 1986). Neither the czar nor the capitalists were willing to make good promises of agrarian reform. Therefore, the principal Rupturing condition for such a non-Marxist revolution, according to Trotsky and Lenin, was the incapacity and powerlessness of both the czarist authoritarian regime and the newly developed capitalist class to actually solve the crisis of agrarian reform. In the end, the socialists rode to power on a ground swell of worker unrest and peasant hunger for the land. The czarist regime was overthrown with unexpected ease.

The overthrow was not in keeping with Lenin’s vision. He hoped that the victorious Bolshevik Party would lead the masses to the creation of a revolutionary government. But the Bolsheviks played no role in the February Revolution. Lenin was in exile in Switzerland. Nevertheless, he realized the opportunity for seizing power and would soon declare it openly upon his return to Petrograd – formerly St. Petersburg but renamed out of anger for all things German.

The regime that evolved after the February Revolution had three major characteristics that were crucial to later developments. The regime was democratic and gave full freedom to every political group. It promised sweeping social and agrarian reform. But, because of its unshaken alliance with the French and British against the Germans and Austria-Hungary, the fledgling government was determined to continue Russia’s war effort and thus could not carry out its reforms (Bialer 1986). Finally, the revolutionary government was faced from its inception with competing centers of power. It faced the soviets (councils) in the cities and the workers and peasants in the military units.1.    Power Vacuum in the Shifting BalanceDuring the period from February to October 1917, the new revolutionary regime was unable to take harsh measures against the enemies of democracy. It gradually lost popular support because of the protracted nature of the war. The new government was unable to fulfill its promises of reform, which only worsened the fading political support it had. A dual system developed consisting of power bases in the provisional government and in the system of the soviets. Over time the power base shifted to the soviets that were increasingly dominated by the Bolsheviks. The delay of social reform and further defeats on the front line of war created a power vacuum, which was filled in October 1917 by the Bolshevik-controlled soviets in Petrograd (Bialerr 1986). By the end of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks’ power was unquestioned.2.    An Unlikely Confluence of Circumstances and EventsThe Bolshevik victory in Russia was the result of unique and unlikely confluence of circumstances and events. First, there was a power vacuum left by the fall of the czarist regime that the provisional government was unable to fill. Next, the organization of the industrial working class in the capital and a few other key urban centers into soviets, or councils, provided a place for entrenched Bolsheviks to sew the seeds of their vanguard party. Third, the Bolsheviks decision to carry out a coup d’etat and establish its own government was paramount to lighting the spark of change. Fourth, the desertion from the army of peasant soldiers was not an endorsement of the Bolsheviks but a rejection of the war and the provisional government. Fifth, there was a wave of spontaneous peasant rebellions throughout Russia during which the rebellious farmers divided up the landed estates among themselves. Another factor was the diversity of opponents to the Bolsheviks – chaotic forces that could not unite to confront the Bolshevik power. Finally, and probably most important was the continuation of World War I. The war precluded any major anti-Bolshevik actions by European powers, as well as arrested the willingness of these powers to provide any meaningful level of support to Russian opponents to Bolshevism in the immediate postwar period (Bialer 1986). 3.                Russia after October 1917

After seizing power in 1917, the Bolsheviks slowly managed with great bloodshed to extend their monopoly of political control throughout Russia. None in the Communist Party imagined revolutionary Russia would remain a socialist island among capitalist nations. The unspoken assumption of Lenin and Trotsky, as well as the belief of their followers, was that their revolution would provide a spark that would ignite the proletariat consciousness in western Europe, especially in Germany, and thus set off a series of revolutions in neighboring capitalist countries (Bialer 1986). After the war with Poland, it became clear that the Russian revolutionaries were alone. The Russian Red Army was found to be too weak; and the Russian offensive against the Poles faltered and was eventually repelled to the Russian border. The members of the proletariat were subsequently left with the moral dilemma and efficacy of attempting to spread the vanguard party message through the use of Bolshevik might.

  1. JOSEPH Stalin AND THE Spread of CommunismThe Soviet pattern of spreading its message and rule beyond the Russian border was first tested in Lenin’s time, and much more ruthlessly pursued by Stalin. The Old Russian Empire embraced a large number of non-Russian nations. Eventually, these areas that had once belonged to the empire were brought back into the fold by the power of the Bolsheviks. In theUkraine, in Byelorussia, in Central Asia and Transcaucasia, the Red army waged war to preserve the former czarist holdings under communist rule. The man in charge of these non-Russian holdings and nationality policies was Joseph Stalin, the people’s commissar for nationalities (Bialer 1986). While Lenin criticized Stalin’s harsh policies in the non-Russian regions, he accepted the goal of restoring Russian rule to where it had once been. He also accepted the idea that revolution could be carried into other countries by military force. To Lenin and the Bolsheviks in general, the cause of socialist revolution was morally and politically superior to the principle of national self-determination that Lenin had espoused before the revolution. 5.    The Lasting Legacy OF LeninLenin did not see himself as a hypocrite. Each step in the process brought Russia one step further from the grips of feudalism. Lenin believed that the victories of the socialist revolution represented the supreme moral cause (1986). All other reforms, like agricultural reform, trade unionism and movements for national independence were subordinated to the authority of the communist revolution, even if it were undertaken by a minority of the citizens. In order to gain supremacy, the Bolsheviks had to quell dissatisfaction and discredit the provisional government. The revolutionary parties proclaimed support for national self-determination to rally the masses to the cause of their revolutionary mission. The disruption these tactics caused helped the revolutionaries’ Endogenous, by weakening the anti-revolutionary government and by strengthening the revolutionaries. After the victory of the revolution, the notions of self-determination took secondary priority in comparison to revolutionary goals. It was becoming clear that modernity or the advanced development of capitalist relations in Marxist terms was far from being a precondition of socialist revolution; it constituted a formidable obstacle to its success (Bialer 1986).



This chapter provides narratives concerning the theoretical, historical and political developments of the communist and counter-communist revolution in China. It addresses this causal perspective from a vantage that weighs the political success of the Chinese with the economic and administrative purges that stifled its advancements. Despite somewhat related socialist-based political ideologies, the Soviet brand of communism and the Chinese political outlook seldom if ever agreed. The estrangement of China introduced a negative factor in the general global correlation that drastically reversed or hindered any progressive realignment of world forces. Historically, there was as much competition between the Chinese and Soviets as there was with Western democracies. Unfortunately, the counter-communist revolution that flickered in China came too soon to be effective. In the end, the economic influences of Hong Kong’s return to the agrarian-based society were apparently unrealized, or had not been felt; and the Cultural Revolution was evidently much too clear in the minds of any real political dissidents to foment change. Thus, the counter-communist revolutionary political action is examined according to the causes of its failure, focusing on the bad timing China experienced in the geo-political and world economic arena as a major cause.

China survived at the time the collapse took place in Eastern Europe and the USSR. The causes comprise the success of economic renovation, its independent policy from the USSR, the geo-political factor (distance), the jamming of international communication, and Chinese revolutionary leaders still in power, the lack of dissident movements, the inopportune temporal conditions and unanticipated outside influences that spawned the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, and the extant Chinese government’s tendency to resort to coercion. Ultimately, the inopportune temporal conditions that existed in China at the time of the Tiananmen Square combined with the unanticipated outside influences, produced by Western media insistence on internationally publicizing the demise of Chinese political legitimacy and the official political authority in China, combined to produce the unfortunate conclusion to the democratic and capitalist movements in China. In the final analysis, coercion appears to work best as well as have the most impact when the timing is imperfect for counter-communist revolutionary political action. Conversely, coercion works less well when the momentum of revolutionary political action is further propelled and accelerated by serendipitous or logistically planned timing and providential good fortune.



This chapter provides narratives concerning the historical and political developments of the communist revolution and the reason why there was no counter-communist revolution in Cuba. The section provides an insight into the causal ingredients that existed and still exist in Cuba, focusing on the lack of demonstrable Stimuli as the major identifiable reason for the continued communist regime. Without Castro there would have been no social revolution in Cuba, even though many dispute the great man of history thesis. For many years Castro maintained a hands on approach in Cuba that provided a means for much of the citizenry to maintain direct contact with the charismatic leader. Casừo also balanced the generous economic assistance Cuba received from the Soviet’s with a strict non-Soviet party line in his own political movement. During the 1960s, all government officials were appointed from above. There were no elections and there were no representative assemblies analogous to soviets in the USSR.

This was consistent with the general absence of mechanisms for assuring elite accountability to the general populace. It was also consistent with the precepts of direct democracy that Castro maintained by his regular visits to meet personally with the people of Cuba. Unfortunately, this also meant that the government institution provided no opportunities for mass political participation (Leogrande 1978). Castro effectively provided a paternal-like support mechanism for his people but never allowed his public progeny the opportunity to mature politically and grow into a viable global nation. Eventually, even the economic assistance provided by the Soviets evaporated, but no political opposition rabble-rousers existed in the country of Cuba at that point. Earlier, Castro opened all his jails to allow criminals as well as political dissidents to flee to other countries. Consequently, there were no indigenous or volatile Stimuli available to incite a counter-revolutionary mechanism from within. Moreover, with his heavy-handed security measures, and no external Stimuli like the Gorbachev factor, the chance for change was limited. Limited media exposure and legally restricted access into the country also meant that any demonstration effect that could get through would probably be ineffective. Any Exogenous Stimuli, such as civil movements or individual dissidents could appear, but probably would be ineffective in this political atmosphere. The political timing was ripe, preconditions were sufficient, but sufficient Stimuli, necessary to initiate the enthusiasm and intuitive passion required for successful counter-communist revolution, were missing.



CHAPTER VI: REVOLUTION IN VIETNAM“This is not a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity.” (Lyndon B. Johnson, television broadcast, 4 Aug. 1964).In Part Three, I will attempt to apply my interpretation of the Stimulus Model of innovative political action to my foiled attempts to facilitate or give rise to the inevitable downfall of the draconian version of Vietnam’s present communist regime. In this section of my dissertation, I will attempt to apply the quasi-formalized Rupturing model of innovative political action that will be developed throughout this research to determine whether a one-man disruptive element-as-Stimulus philosophy and epistemology can be transformed into a potential trigger mechanism for initiating radical innovative political action in the communist nation-state of Vietnam. The case study I will present, concerning Vietnam, is intended to ascertain how and whether it is possible to initiate measures to save Marx’s utopianism, through reorganization and restructuring processes, in order to implement an idealized version the Neo-Platonic Republican solution I intend to develop in this dissertation within Vietnam. Therefore, these philosophical overviews and historical synopses are primarily intended to identify, characterize and differentiate the various kinds of Stimuli and trigger mechanisms that tend to bring about demonstrable innovative political change.CHAPTER VII : CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONSThe resulting logical positivism, that I hope to present concerning the one-man disruptive element-as-Stimulusprocedure, will be developed from the historical, ideological and philosophical perspectives I present. The perspectives range from the political, economic, diplomatic, military and geographic, as well as to the legal and illegal measuresrequired to initiate innovative political action. Consequently, the analytical philosophy I hope to develop and then present will establish a thorough treatment of the major possible appearances of innovative political action in the human experience, while also trying to limit considerations of purely speculative innovative political responses. This treatise will address several different organizational systems, including monarchical, dictatorial, and finally plural or democratic systems.From the historical perspective that I hope to establish, I will also try to develop a contemporary perspective concerning modern-day Vietnam. Despite the unfortunate reality that Vietnam is still caught in the strangle hold of an oppressive autocracy, other nation-states are throwing off the yoke of oppression and attempting to assert their freedom. Nevertheless, after Kosovo, and especially following the innovative activities in East Timor where the citizenry has recently received their independence and autonomy, circumstances may be also changing in Vietnam. The timing is much more conducive to spark revolution in Vietnam due to the willingness of the United Nations and the United States to intervene in other countries affairs to bring back peace and justice. The preconditions, or the dissatisfactions of the status quo are sufficient, and there have been some internally Endogenous Stimuli as well. Recently, the Vietnamese government has begun an extensive reform policy. These reforms may be a result of a political elites’ power struggle, or it may be a function of more Exogenous Stimuli, such as dissident movements, mass unrest, and widespread protests.Among my three planned tactics, I will always first choose the peaceful one. Intrinsically, I believe peaceful innovative political action, no matter how radical or militant, is the most effective revolutionary Stimulus. Even in the midst of the horror of Tiananmen Square, the world will always remember the non-violent protestor that stopped an oncoming tank by standing in front of it in the middle of the street. Therefore, because of its symbolic impact, non­violent protest is the most legitimizing form of innovative political action. Undeniably, by dropping leaflets rather than bombs or incendiaries over the Hanoi, I was able to begin helping convince the mass public of the dauntless persistence of my non-violent freedom fighting spirit. My choice was based on the realization that bombing might destroy or hurt the innocent. Certainly, there will always be time for violence. Nevertheless, had I rented or stolen an aircraft to urge the uprising that I attempted, instead of hijacking an airliner like the last time, my actions may have been perceived by the international community as less malevolent. On the other hand, bringing an unregistered aircraft into Vietnamese airspace may have caused an unfortunate military incident that could have resulted in my fiery death in the center of a highly populated residential area. It is sometimes difficult to be retrospective without also being judgmental. Westerners often say that hindsight is always twenty-twenty.Because of my experiences in the military as a decorated airman in the SouthVietnamese Air Force, I am not always so certain of the potentiality of a peaceful solution. If able, I would not think twice, before employing deadly force if I could be assured that only the guilty would suffer. I have suffered greatly during the last twenty years. So have my family, my friends, loved ones and my comrades in arms. Overt military action would cause a great and lasting psychological and political impact on the population of Vietnam. A decisive assault would also directly affect the government and its ideological instruments of clandestine coercion, such as the armed and police forces. Therefore, I am not beyond considerations that would include two military oriented tactics to get rid of the oppressive communist politburo in my homeland. The first strategic tactical assault would employ the three-tomahawk policy. The tomahawk missile platform is a surgically precise, highly sophisticated, fly-by-remote weapon system that was used very successfully in the Gulf War. Regrettably, without direct military intervention by the United States, access to these smart bombs is unfeasible at the present time.The next strategy is an underground version of a direct military confrontation that could be accomplished with off-the-shelf electronics and bomb making materials that are readily available over the Internet. This contingency plan is dubbed the Tunnel Policy. As a military officer my sworn duty is to search out the enemy and confront that enemy. Therefore, by using GPS (global positioning system) instrumentation integrated with a remote robotic delivery platform that would be swum into the sewerage system to bring explosives under the Politburo’s hall of conference, an assassination of all Politburo members could be accomplished. This simple but deadly act could cause the collapse of the regime but might also impact the revolutionaries’ prestige. As much as my anger and disappointment drives me to these solutions I know in my heart that they are untenable. Consequently, I continue to consider other peaceful solutions; and even though they may be as far fetched as the military solutions I have outlined above, I am desperate to find the correct solution to help free my people, including my brother who is still living, but cannot leave, in Vietnam.When I am alone I wish for many great things for my country. I wish to build a new and advanced country. Undeniably, I would like to propose that Vietnam become the 51th state of the United States. If that were possible, the harsh economic and social conditions would be assuaged for my people due to the geo-political resources and labor saving advantages possessed by the Americans. Therefore, if my dream came true, all other American states might help by investing in Vietnam to break through the oligopolistic market control wielded ASEAN and the Chinese, as well as by South Korea and Japan, in Asia. My dream is that Vietnam will become a formidable economic and technologically advanced nation-state; and will never again become prey to any aggressors as it has been in the past.Economics is a very important part of the political climate in a countries official configuration. In general, I believe that capitalism possesses many more workable solutions to the distribution of valuable resources problem than Communism does. I also believe it does better or as well as other past economic arrangements and financial doctrines. That is not to say that capitalism is the final economic solution. It is flawed in many ways. Few people truly understand that Pareto optimality does not mean that one individual must attain wealth and status at the expense on another individual (DeSerpa 1985). Actually, it means that the market exists because people have things that are different that they are willing to exchange according to the constraints set by supply and demand in the market. Regrettably, pure capitalism is as utopian, and thus unrealistic in some respects, as Marxism. However, in my opinion, it has historically been less subject to unfair distortion. But it is not the perfect. In the first place, it is not perfect because competition and private ownership are motives of progress but often conflict happiness and universal well-being as well. Therefore, by comparing Marxism with my own utopian vision of a Neo-Platonic Republican solution, my conclusions will attempt to recognize the compare and contrast the best points from both organizational conceptualizations.





A Capitalist economy booms and busts in the cycle. Whether it is short or long, quick or slow is dependant on the situation of each period.  The Great Depressionexploded in the United States due to the stock market crash on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday.  The depression lasted 10 years and ended at the onset ofWWII’s war economy, which began around 1939.  Since then, Americans have witnessed 12 recessions beginning in 2/1945, 11/1948, 7/1953, 8/1957, 4/1960, 12/1969, 11/1973, 1/1980, 6/1981, 7/1990, 3/2001, 12/2007 with respective durations of approximately 8, 11, 10, 8, 10, 11, 16, 6, 16, 8, 8 months.  The current recession may apparently drag on for years!  Recession is defined as (according to Wikipedia and the National Bureau of Economic Research) a significant decline in economic activity lasting more than a few months.  It is the result of a combination of factors that stunt short term growth in the economy.  These include such things as spiking oil prices; war; increase production costs; high national debt; market volatility; credit crunch; the control of the money supply; the loss of an ideal balance between money supply, interest rates, inflation; individuals and businesses curtailing expenditures to trim operating costs; the bankruptcies of top companies, terrorist attacks (eg. 9/11) and many other complex factors.  The present economic slump resulted from the collapse of financial companies such as Lehman Brothers and other time bombs: AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddi Mac, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia Citi Group.  These companies were directly linked to the sub-prime mortgage problem.  One in 10 U.S. homeowners is delinquent on mortgage payments.  Lenders were on track to initiate 2.25 million foreclosures this year.  Financial meltdown creates an unstoppable ripple effect on consumption and production.  Consumers and companies are folding under the negative forces of a collapsed housing market and a global credit crunch.  This has brought 2008’s total job losses to 2.4 million, the highest since 1945, and a stunning new deficit estimated to be an unprecedented $1.2 trillion.  In general, an economic crisis is a period in which the economy’s supply, demand and the prices are forced to correct themselves.  In the boom time, production increases to satisfy the high demand of consumption.  Because competition is the nature of capitalism, the resulting outputs eventually surpass saturation point.  This leads to surpluses, inventories in excess, production cutbacks, manufacturing activities at standstill, large layoffs and high unemployment rates.  According to Professor Ann Lee, we live in a ghost-and-devil regime of Wall Street’s House of Cards.  Mortgage vouchers – structured credit derivatives – financial weapons of mass destruction, are guaranteed by houses, cars, business stores, factories, credit cards … which are unpaid debts, a kind of vaporous money that can easily be abused by the mad and the greedy.  Many of these individuals have colluded with fear in the financial market to make an illicit fortune such as arch-trickster Bernard L. Madoff, utilizing his “giant Ponzi scheme” to fool investors in the excess of $50 billion.  This crisis is largely our own making due to the collaboration between“financial and governmental power”.  Because of the profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, the USA could not solve this life-and-death problem even with the absolute freedom of press!  America’s economy, once was on manufacturing base, now depends on consumption and the service industry.  The service domain comprising of the financial market occupies 79% GNP.  U.S. economic power weakens if these two decline.

(1) A Financial Rescue Plan: To spur the economy recovery, the Bush administration has applied two (1 & 2) out of three stimulus measures currently.

(a) Tax Cuts And Relief: Each tax-payer has received $600.00 in tax cuts and $300.00 in relief for each child to spend, but due to survival nature, people “tightened their belts” to save; therefore, this stimulus measure failed totally.  If people are crazy enough to spend this money on unnecessary things, then they would have played into Bush’s paranoia of people going out to spend mindlessly to stimulate the economy.  Unfortunately, not many people did this because many are overly concerned about their job security, with the exception of perhaps garbage dumpers!

(b) Rescue Plan For US Auto Industry:

The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but President Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers with $17.4 billion to prevent the collapse of the Big Three: GM, Chrysler và Ford, which if it were to happen, would have effects that would ripple throughout the entire network of interconnected businesses that rely on the carmakers.  These include distributors, suppliers and the whole slew of other companies that serve most of the carmakers – foreign and domestic – operating in the US. Compared to GM loss of $38 billion and Ford’s $2.7 billion in 2007 and Chrysler’s use up $3 billion in cash in its last quarter, this sum of money is “a drop in the ocean” in the current auto meltdown. The new cars manufactured from this loan for workers to keep jobs will only aggravate the anemic business of car lots across America, and the economic forecast for using tax dollars to bail out private businesses is “money lost, corpse rotten!”

Obama’s dramatic proposal, called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is an unprecedented package costing as much as $775 billion, with add-ons that could bring the total up to $850 billion.  The package will hopefully result in the generation of about 3.2 million jobs by the first quarter of 2011.  The first part comprises of tax cuts of up to $300 billion — which include $500 for most individuals and $1,000 for couples if one spouse is employed — as well as more than $100 billion for businesses.  Some $77 billion would be used to extend unemployment benefits and to subsidize health care for job losers.  The second part would go toward job-creation projects, funding only for what works.  These include such projects as rebuilding roads and bridges, doubling the production of alternative energy, updating most federal buildings to improve energy efficiency, making medical records electronic, tackling Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs, expanding broadband networks, updating schools and universities and improving transparency.  Anyway, the second part is not a drastic change, and the first part has followed Bush’s beaten path with $300 billion as “burnt offering” according to this slogan: “No sell, no hire – No well (off), no buy!”

(c) Rescue Plan For Financial System:

CHANGE at this magnitude could not be afforded to salvage the nation because of the already massive fraud in trillions of dollars in the U.S. financial system.  Even with new harsh measures, there will be a lengthening of the moribund stage of capitalism.  The failure of Communism originates from the brazen exploitation of the dictatorial regime with one-party rule, “red is better than eks”(eks=expertise) and lack of motive to excel due to “Egalitarianism”.  The majority of people are destitute.  Only Communist robber chieftains, an absolute minority, become super-rich and enjoy luxury in security.  The failure of Capitalism comes from the pitiless annihilation by life-and-death competition and the greed, machiavellian scheme of capitalist sharks. In a period having no serious natural calamity or catastrophe that can cause big damage to people and properties, why then does the Dow Jones Index go up and down hundreds of points daily if not the result of “inside trading,” “market speculation and rigging,” “profit exaggerating,” “Paying previous investors with money of later ones,” “subprime-mortgage effects,” etc.  The only explanation and purpose of this is to make a profit for oneself and one’s clique!  Not only the middle and low-class are to toil and moil to pay the bills without peaceful minds to reap the fruits of their labors, but also the financial oligarchic tricksters are hunting for a stratagem to wipe out others; squandering millions of dollars a year, they are throbbing with anxiety about their bankcruptcy out of the blue. “Invisible hand in a free market” has become “Inhuman hand in a free-to-manipulate market!”  Capitalism now rivals Communism in the Three-Less Doctrine.”  Communists could not reach their goal: Familyless, nationless and religionless, but Capitalists already surpassed their goal: millions of Americans left jobless, homeless, and penniless when many schools, libraries, stores, banks, companies, factories, services … were and will be closed! Worst of all, the leader of Capitalist superpowers owed the most condemned Communist evil $800 billion in debt!

People in Communist countries are “hungry of food” while those in capitalist ones are “hungry of time!” This is the most favorable time to apply the CHANGE, a comprehensively all-sided change, a kind of “Economic Revolution or Coup,” not a kind charged as: “The Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation’s banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism.”  The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama’s proposed public works program.  “We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, a co-sponsor of a resolution.  To solve the cyclical economic recession and to help people enjoy the true happiness of life, the Capitalist economy needs not just new policy but a whole new approach.  Instead of “bail out” of these dying institutions, we should “kick out” all of them to establishswiftly and boldly a new social and economic structure called “Humanized Socialism” or “Liberalized Socialism” which is better than Western Europe’s “Democratic Socialism” by the following strong measures:

(2) Eight (8) Solutions To Correct Capitalism: Establishment Change.

All the establishments, companies, businesses … which did and will collapse must be gotten rid of at once and be replaced by new ones to solve all the problems once and for all. “Nationalization” in a free regime ruled by law, in which all the economic CEO are elected annually by their workers and employees according to their administrative and managerial capabilities, and the “Research And Development” is the spearhead of all branches, will create a “Paradise on Earth.” Nationalization + Humanized Socialism will help humankind excel, surpassing Capitalism’s life-and-death competition.  For example, the Soviet Union as a nation launched Spunik 1, the world’s first earth-orbiting-artificial satellite on October 4, 1957; then Spunik 2, the first spacecraft to carry a living animal, dog Laika, on November 3, 1957; and then the Mir Space Station, the world’s first consistently inhabited long-term research station in space on February 19, 1986.  The International Space Station launched in 1988 involved 18 countries and still continues to be assembled in orbit!  Collective intelligence, used in a right way, is superior over individuals’ or self-interest groups’. The eye-popping $10 trillion gross national debt is owed by the “General Fund,” which is funded by income taxes.  Half of that goes for the military and to pay interest on the debt which is hitting a 53-year high for debt as a percent of the economy (GDP) and debt held by the public is 5.9 trillion!  The United States is currently borrowing $665 billion annually from foreign lenders, an amount equivalent to $5,500 per American household. The only sure thing is that America will be over head and ears in more debt! The current U.S. international debt path puts the financial burden on the shoulder of its offsprings and next generations and is damaging to the future U.S. living standards. At this particular moment, the private sector cannot do what is needed. Only the government can provide the short & long-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession.  The Obama Administration needs to consider the following measures to solve the unemployment problem and to restructure the producing and servicing mechanism:

(a) Law And Order: Homicide can be charged with death sentence to pay retributive compensation.  So why are those who are responsible for the economic recession affecting millions of people not punished duly, let alone are supported to have another chance to continue their fraud and exploitation?  There must be stricter financial regulations and laws that make the “Wall Street Wrongdoers” accountable, especially those who engage in risky investing.  For example, fraud and embezzlement or intentional damage over $5 million must be charged with life or death sentence.

(b) US Auto Industry: The rescue loan of $17.4 billion, instead of being used to manufacture luxurious privately-owned cars, should be shifted to public projects and products such as new and big buses, trains … to replace the old ones and increase public means of transport to serve the masses. $4 billion ‘clunker’ bill would only dump more new cars in a stagnant car market and in a near future give rise to a new kind of “car foreclosure” of these new owners.

(c) Finance, Insurance Companies And Banks: Those that have been bankrupted need to be closed as soon as possible.  Instead of partially nationalizing the industry and government becoming a stockholder, all the debts including mortgages, cars … will be paid to the National Bank, a new creditor, and at a half prices compared to the old ones.

(d) School: The employment of teachers, professors in the elementary schools, high schools and universities with small classes of a few to a couples of students is wasteful and less efficient because most teachers, with the exception of a small number having outstanding aptitude, have limited knowledge and pedagogic expertise compared to textbook learning.  There is a need to construct gigantic octagonal classrooms with 4,000-seat capacity in which 8 different classes are organized, each comprising of 500 students heads toward one of 8 directions, and the 8 walls are decorated with big screen televisions, that are not harmful to the eyes and with images that are clear and true as a reflection from a mirror. Students’ tables all have headsets to use while following the teaching demonstration on the screens. A staff of geniuses of each subject, class is selected and assigned to prepare and explain lessons.  Explanations for a lesson are to be corrected perfectly and approved by the whole staff before being posted in the “Education Website.”  Each class needs only one expert to run and solve all technical problems.  Students’ questions and unclear points are emailed to a staff person who is accountable and the explanations are posted in the Education Website.  Website textbooks are updated in time when there are new inventions and discoveries are made.  Every school is equipped with modern facilities for sports, gyms, music, painting, dancing, and entertainment. All libraries should be closed and all books and documents are to be typewritten, read and kept as archives on a “Library Website” so that everyone can get access to them to read, to hear, to study, to research easily from home computers.

(e) Commerce Establishments: It is necessary to limit the service system and focus on expanding the construction, production, especially of the cereals and foodstuffs.  All the stores, supermarkets having been going bankrupt need to be gotten rid of and step by step replace with shopping on the internet and delivery at home.  Transfer all the shopping stores into chains of big self-service restaurants, where a meal price is cheaper than home-made foods so that everyone can release the cooking burden, can eat at restaurants near home or office, enjoy hundreds of different dishes prepared and cooked by best chefs.  The prices are low thanks to ordering in big quantity directly from gigantic storehouses or the principal producers.  Besides sales by TV ads, supermodel ads, the internet, showrooms, the eating locations are decorated with window-dressing of all the merchandises so that window-shoppers can order and receive next day on the spot or by delivery at home, which can save cost price from shop renting, employees, energy expenditures, other operating costs in order to save labor force for the production domain and to have extra time to enjoy intellectual and material welfare.  The objective to reach is to end forever the out-of-control competition which produces the surplus problem with inventories in excess causing cyclical recession and to replace it with “Planned Supply” based on demand orders.

(f) Entertainment: Instead of closing, open more entertainment facilities such as theatres, picture-palaces, dancing-floors, martial arts halls, stadiums, gyms, swimming pools, parks … with low charges so everyone can afford to enjoy and train.

(g) Infrastructure: Invest in reconstructing and building nation-wide modern and sophisticated infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water supply, sewage, airports, seaports, public transports, solar energy, health care programs, the information technology system, new research and development projects.  Level all the slums and build new type of condos, high-rise buildings with complete facilities for lands and energy saving to create suitable environments for residents to live closely in harmony and enjoy fully the meaningful lives together.  Reduce private cars, increase bikes and motorbikes to solve the traffic jam, pollution and obesity.

(h) Job: All the above projects have eliminated millions of service jobs and created millions of production jobs simultaneously.  In order to have more time to enjoy – much more than 400 more hours of vacation by average Europeans than Americans – and to solve the unemployment problem; work time is 8 hours a day, 3 days a week with home employment for work that can be done by computer.  Birth control to keep the birth rate at less than 2.1 alleviates the burden of overpopulation and energy scarcity.  Due to expenditures for houses, cars, foods, merchandises … reduced in half, pay checks at the half price of present wages are more than enough to cover all needs while maximum enjoyments can be obtained thanks to free time and abundant facilities.

(3) The Future World: The above-mentioned solutions are only preliminary measures to solve the economic downturn, recession, crisis and a great depression of our epoch. To create a “Paradise on Earth” for future mankind, there is a need to eliminate all the causes and origins of human grieves, misfortunes, mishaps, miseries … such as diseases, infirmity, ugliness, natural catastrophe, poverty, resource scarcity, overpopulation, pollution (esp. garbage), strikes, crime, hatred, war … The true happiness, eternal peace and human dream come true only in the “New World Order” to replace the current “New World Disorder,” named “The Fourth Path,” the transition period to the “Neo-Platonic World,” named “The Fifth Path” of  Ly Tong’s Doctrine or “Lytongism,” in which the states and the world are run by the“Technocrats” succeeding evolutionary process of modern time from “The First Path”: Capitalism, “The Second Path”: Communism to “The Third Path”: Democratic Socialism of Western Europe. In the Neo-Platonic World, the earth is gotten rid of natural catastrophe thanks to being “air-conditioned,” “Lava-Sucking Technique,” “Rice Cake Binding.” All germs, diseases are terminated by high-low “Sound Frequencies.” All production means and activities are automated, computerized, and robotized with solar energy. There are only three social classes: super class comprising of inventors of the Research & Development sections and the CEOs, elected once a year according to their managing and administrating capabilities; the high class comprising of eminent workers and employees; and the middle class, the lowest one, having the living standard higher than present millionaires’. People sleep in hotels, eat in restaurants according to their allotment rates without using money, only by fingerprint sensors or optical readers. No antagonism between the rulers and the ruled exists in this society. Each person’s beauty is a unique masterpiece of art, thanks to – besides birth control and no child bearing – advanced science and technology such as “Ageless Caring Technique, Gene and DNA Transplant and Treatment, Stem Cell Duplication, Muscle-ization, In-Vitro Fertilization, Cloning, Artificial Uterus…” Everyone has a Ph.D. knowledge due to “Recording and Duplicating Technique” in education. Workday is 4 hours a day, 3 days a week.  Children are reared at Dream Land by top-rank experts.  There are no prisons butParadise Island. These solutions are presented in the “New World Order” and the “Neo-Platonic World” attached.





(a)  Why Was the World in Crisis?

Those who were against globalism argued that it was globalism that engendered poverty, tragic plight: The rich become richer, the poor poorer.  Poverty was the origin of all misfortunes: Illiteracy, unemployment, injustice, unhappiness, crisis, terrorism…  To reason this way is no different than the case of the blind man who touched an elephant’s tail and claimed that an elephant seemed like a broom.  We should dig deeper to the roots of all problems, because all the problems originate from mad tyrants and tyrant junta.  Why?

(a1) Repression: To survive, tyrants must use force, violence, iron hands, bloody hands to kill, imprison, torture, and maltreat their people.  Discontent sprouted and developed from repression.

(a2) Exploitation: All tyrants lust for luxury, extravagancy, and pleasure; therefore, they must exploit and pitilessly plunder people’s properties.  The rich become poor and the poor miserable. Poverty was engendered by exploitation.

(a3) Foolish ambition: Tyrants are foolishly ambitious brutes, ready to stretch out their fangs and claws against their neighbors to fulfill the expansionist dreams.  Warexploded, destroyed, and annihilated.  So poverty originated from tyrants’ exploitation, discontent arised from tyrants’ repression, and war from tyrants’ foolish ambition.

(b)  Why Did Tyrants Survive?

Tyrants survive thanks to profit-seeking, religious and racial bias, and survival conserving.  Fearing the loss of lucrative contracts already signed with tyrants, fearing the Muslim civilization and Arab race to be downgraded to second class, fearing one’s self and family line losing their royalty… many world leaders continued to back tyrants.

(c)  Why Did Tyrants Enable Terrorists?

Under the brutal and inhuman rule of tyrants, the people had only three choices:

(c1) Submission: Those who were avid for living and fearful of death bowed their heads in submission, resigned themselves to the fate of slaves and animals.  Like animals they fought each other for petty favors; life became bitter and more painful.  Some were struck by luck, trusted by the tyrants, given favor, willing to be tyrants’ repressive instruments.  Some relied on tyrants’ authority, considering themselves petty tyrants, causing the slaves’ lives more misery and suffering.

(c2) Confrontation: The brave, unyielding, fearless, audacious… would stand up to confront tyrants through demonstrations, revolts, coups d’etat…  These rare and precious heroes would be imprisoned, deported, exiled, or executed.

(c3) Suicide: Some still had a conscience, were not willing to accept the slaves’ and animals’ lives, but lacked the courage, ability, or determination to stand up and confront tyrants; therefore, they chose suicidal solutions to escape their karma due to their hopelessness. In their eyes, life was worse than death. Some died meaninglessly, aimlessly, uselessly, anonymously by killing themselves; others died as suicide bombers with honor, glory, reward and the promise of paradise:  “The traditions of Muhammed state that a shahid’s (martyr’s) sin will be forgiven when he sheds his first drop of blood; he can invite 70 relatives to paradise and will himself be married there to 72 beautiful virgins!”



(a) Conventional Solutions: In order to achieve law and order, security, peace, stability, freedom, democracy, human rights, and prosperity, America and its coalition forces assumed a noble responsibility to dispose of malefactors, tyrants to create favorable conditions for world peace and secutity. There were three solutions according to three different trends.

(a1) The first trend: One Objective. America should focus its strength on a unique objective: Destroy terrorists, especially al Queda and the Taliban.  Waging war with tyrants would disperse its forces.  America did not have enough resources to bear the burden of many objectives at the same time.

(a2) The second trend: Negotiation. America should use political, economical, and diplomatic measures, indirectly creating opportunities for the oppressed and exploited to uprise by themselves to overthrow tyrants.

(a3) The third trend: Regime Change. America should exploit its powers as the only superpower in the unipolar world to directly overthrow all regimes sponsoring terrorists to help their people to have an opportunity to master their own fate with free democratic govenments.

(b) Unconventional Solutions: To reduce casualties and save money, unconventional solutions should be used whenever possible to get rid of tyrants and let their opponents take care of the rest of regime’s removal.

(b1) Priority in Overthrowing Tyrants:

Tyrants must be overthrown in order of priority along with campaigns against terrorist ringleaders.

– Tyrants who are an imminent threat to world security and stability with their Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as one of top priorities.

– Tyrants who are a danger to regional stability and security with their WMD must be the second priority.

– Tyrants who oppress and exploit their own people must be the third priority.

(b2) Measures to Overthrow Tyrants

– Annul the laws prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders with other outdated clauses and articles in International Law, such as “targeted assassination…”

– Give out prizes for their heads (10 to 20 million dollars) to encourage their opponents, their people, henchmen, and neighbors to assassinate them for the reward.

– Use Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles operated by remote control to assassinate them. Use Tomahawks to attack their presidential palaces without warning.

– Organize Special Forces to secretly skydive into tyrants’ residences to kill them.

– Assault them suddenly to kidnap them.

– Use pre-emptive attacks to annihilate tyrants and their close courtiers.

– Use conventional war if all these measures fail to kill them.

Policy should not only aim at the national security and traditional values but also at world security, peace, and mankind’s welfare and happiness. An act on behalf of national interests and security only could conflict with other countries’ interests. America has espoused the values of democracy and human rights. It is time for it to put all its ideals to use. America has the duty and responsibility to act and to save the world from chaos and disorder because America is the only superpower in the unipolar world. Getting rid of tyrants and all evil forces would also help America avoid and prevent another 9-11 tragedy, because America’s peace and security depend on the world’s peace and security. A criminal killing one victim must be punished by justice. Tyrants killing millions of people escape justice! Exterminating one tyrant to save a million people and exterminating all outlaw juntas to save mankind are agreeable with moral principles: God’s, Allah’s, and Buddha’s.  Delaying or postponing only helps tyrants by giving them more time to poison and indoctrinate people. It also allows the terrorists to expand their forces and activity sphere, and the anti-American movement to grow. It allows oil prices to skyrocket, causing economic crises not only for America, but also the whole world, and the aftermath is a negative impact toward global welfare. One tyrant collapsed could push the collapse of others in a domino effect. Eliminating one tyrant after another would bring more prestige, influence and power to America, and reduce impact from troublemakers. Finally, they would submit to US authority, keep in line under US leadership in order to prepare for the building of a New World Order.



(a) To Redefine Sovereignty, Self-Determination, Rights…

International laws were based on notions of “National Sovereignty, National Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity, each country possessing its own laws, the existence right, no intervention in the internal affairs of other countries…” Tyrants usually cite national sovereignty and converted all of the above-mentioned national and individual rights into their own rights. They deducted these notions according to their own viewpoints. Sovereignty turned into the tyrant’s mastery, public properties as tyrants’ private properties. The self-determination and remaining rights were tyrants’ rights to decide, putting the whole nation’s destiny under tyrants’ life-and-death authorities. Each tyrant possessed his own jungle law to assure his right of existence and his total rule, and no person, power, or country had the right to intervene in his internal affairs, even the affairs of exploiting and oppressing his people! Tyrants were those who betrayed their countries and harmed their people, but they used to convict the patriots for the crime of treason! Communist tyrants usually employed the police and army to repress people, but they named these terror instruments “people’s police” and “people’s army!” Communist tyrants cruelly repressed religions, squeezed to death all human rights and their opponents, but always kept talking the same abused, ear-shocking slogans, “Our countries did not have political and religious prisoners… only criminals who violated the state’s criminal code.”

(b) Considerations About “Free Election.”

The New World Order would need a United Nations with real authority and power that would align all states which had really free and fair elections under its surveillance. The kind of “free elections” in some “free” countries now do not assure freedom, democracy and human rights for their citizens. There are still free countries with one-man candidate elections, opposition candidate assassination, and freedom to buy votes … In the remaining Communist countries, the one-party rule election is more like a farce. With this authority and power, leaders of the most populous countries in the world could achieve their hegemonic ambitions and cause a permanent threat to the world. No countries, even the superpowers, could have a say, but only try to appease China and exploit its cheap labor force. What should it be called if not really a New World Disorder? So, free election must eliminate all of the above-mentioned cases and must be organized according to below-mentioned conditions and regulations. To prevent history from tragically repeating itself – Tyrant Hitler was elected in a free election – any state intending to elect leaders who violate all stipulated regulations must be punished with embargo and isolation. If, after the punishment term is finished, it stubbornly continues its hateful, hegemonic, adversarial policy, the UN Security-Defense Ministry must order an attack to occupy it and establish a protectorate to re-educate it.

In order to establish a “New World Order,” the basic and pre-requisite conditions were to redefine the above-mentioned rights to be the rights of the country and people, not tyrants’ rights.  Only leaders who were elected in free and fair elections supervised by the UN could have the right to claim these rights. These rights would only be accepted by the UN and other countries when these leaders satisfied all stipulated standards: no support to racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, or ideological conflicts; no expansionism; no xenophobia; and their countries must be law-ruled, pluralist, multi-partied; and their laws must conform to international laws. The other measure to prevent conspiracy with tyrants was that all the debts owed and contracts signed by tyrants would not be considered as national debts and national contracts.  Iraqi people would not be responsible for Saddam’s deals in business, finance… with France, Germany, Russia… as well as Vietnamese people for Vietcong’s treaty about territorial concessions with China… for example.

(c) What Is A True New World Order?

In order to achieve this New World Order, we need to reconstruct the world, transforming the United Nations into an effective establishment, a locomotive to lead the world. New World Order is a world with peace, security, stability, prosperity, and tolerance. Everyone on this earth, regardless of his nation, country, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, social class, party… should be allowed to enjoy all the inalienable human rights stipulated by the UN Human Rights Charter. All national leaders must be elected according to above-mentioned regulations. There are no tyrants or dictators; no revolts, coups d’etat, wars, conflicts, terrorism, ethnic cleansings, or hegemony. Each country has friendly relations with the others; all are equal counterparts, mutual partners in the globalized economic mechanism. Each country, according to its comparable advantage, assumes the function of producing and supplying merchandises to the region or the world, and on the contrary, is satisfied with fair, logical consumption demands. There are no situations in which the North is too rich while the South is too poor; countries burned grains to keep the price high while others had no rice and ate tree bark and weeds to survive. In the New World Order, there are no rich countries which exploit poor ones; no strong countries which bully the weak ones. There are no kinds of competition to destroy and eliminate others, causing the world to incessantly fall into the cycle of economic crises.  Competition is through emulation to excel and improve the welfare of mankind.



The UN future needs to be reconstructed into a Federal Institution. America is the superpower of a uni-polar world. It must exhaust its invincible power in this rare time with a unique opportunity to reconstruct a New World Order.

(a) The UN Federation

In the period of the Cold War and before, America couldn’t make any difference because it must confront heavyweight opponents such as Hitler of Germany, Stalin of the Soviet Union, and Mao Zedong of China. Nowadays, the balance of power is different and America is the only superpower that can change the world. It needs to grasp this unique opportunity to reconstruct a New World Order. Due to the new trend of globalism, alliance, coalition of different countries in different regions in the economic domains, such as APEC, NAFTA, ECOWACS, CARRIBEAN… and free trade zones going to take form: FEAA in America, China – ASEAN, Japan – ASEAN and the prospect of India – ASEAN.

The UN’s future needs to be reconstructed into a Federal Institution. From 190 UN members, the UN should be streamlined into 13 states. It comprises 5 states with 5 superpowers having strong economic and military potentials, such as the USA, China, Russia, Australia & New Zealand, and Canada, called Nation States; and 8 states of 8 blocks based on geo-politics such as the EU, the Arab League, the North-Eastern Asia, the ASEAN, South & Central America, Central Asia, and the African Union, called Block States. The vote reserved for each Nation State and Block State is based on the proportion of its GDP (Gross National Product) compared to the GWP (Gross World Product), the proportion of its military forces and the sophistication of its weapons and equipments compared to that of world forces, including important factors such as its population, geography, level of education – science – technology, income per capita, etc.

The UN States, for example, can be classified  — according to this 100-point scale

  1. USA                                                  20
  2. EU                                               15
  3. China                                           10
  4. Arab League                     10
  5. North-Eastern Asia                        7
  6. Russia                                     7
  7. Australia & New Zealand    5
  8. ASEAN                                   5
  9. Canada                                    5
  10. South & Central America       4
  11. South Asia                               4
  12. Central Asia                                   4
  13. African Union                    4




When voting on a policy or resolution, each president of the 5 Nation States or 8 Block States of 13 has the number of votes according to this scale.

For Example: South & Central America, South Asia, the African Union, each Block State has 4 votes. The United States has 20 votes because it has the strongest economy and most powerful military forces, compared to the world economy and military forces in 20% proportion. The authority must go along with the duty. The USA must contribute 20% to the UN budget, while the African Union would only be responsible for 4% of the UN budget. The total votes of 51 or 51+ are a majority. With this majority, the UN could pass or veto a UN policy or resolution. The present veto privilege of five permanent members of the UN Security Council must be canceled because of all the troubles originating from this illogical privilege in the balance of power at this contemporary time.  Moreover, as stated above, China, Russia, and France do not deserve to have this powerful right in order to abuse it for their own interests, causing a lot of problems in the past and present. The outlined classification and scale would be updated every five years, shorter or longer span, according to the world balance of power, at the time.

(b)  The UN Institution

The UN will be comprised of two major institutions: The Presidential General Assembly and the Ministerial General Assembly.

  1. Presidential General Assembly:  Would be comprised of incumbent Presidents of 13 states.  Thirteen Presidents would elect the UN President with a 2-year term. The Block States’ Presidents would be elected by incumbent Presidents of all nations in the same Block States with 2-year terms. The UN Vice-President should be the most talented and qualified in leadership, selected through job interviews and an exam.  He would assume responsibility for administrating the

Presidential General Assembly during the time when all Presidents have returned to their state offices. The Presidential General Assembly should have monthly sessions at the UN Headquarters and irregular sessions via video conference calls or a similar method. The Presidential General Assembly would be responsible for approving, rejecting, and amending policies and resolutions submitted by the five ministries of the Ministerial General Assembly.

  1. Ministerial General Assembly:  Would be comprised of five Ministries: The Foreign Ministry, The Defense-Security Ministry, the Ministry of Economy, the Justice Ministry, and the Ministry of Education-Culture-Public Health.  Each Ministry would contain 13 incumbent Ministers of 13 states. The UN Minister of each Ministry would be elected by 13 State Ministers in the same Ministry. The Ministers of Block States would be elected by incumbent Ministers of all nations in the same Block States. The UN Minister General of the Ministerial General Assembly would be elected by five UN Ministers. The Vice Minister General of the Ministerial General Assembly and Vice Ministers of five UN Ministries would be the most qualified experts in Economy, Foreign Affairs, Defense-Security, Justice, Education-Public Health. Each position has a two-year term. They assume the responsibility of administrating the UN Ministerial General Assembly and UN Ministries when all State Ministers have returned to their state offices. The Ministerial General Assembly and UN Ministries would have monthly sessions at the UN Headquarters and irregular sessions via video conference calls or a similar method. The Ministerial General Assembly would assume functions for planning, supervising, controlling, and the implementation of UN policies and resolutions. The UN President, the Block State Presidents, the Minister General of the UN Ministerial General Assembly, the UN Ministers, and the Ministers of all Block States must be elected rather than being chosen by in-turn selection, to have prestige and the true power for leadership.

(c) Function of the UN Ministries

(c1) The UN Foreign Ministry: Would assume the responsibility of solving all problems relating to foreign affairs among the 13 states.

(c2) The UN Defense-Security Ministry: Would be comprised of four major forces: Interpol, NATO, the  UN Peace-Keeping  Force,  and  the  Regional  Multi-National  Forces. The UN Security-Defense Ministry would deploy NATO, the UN Peace-Keeping Force, the military forces, and weapons from 13 states to hot spots according to the serious degree of the events. This Ministry would replace the UN Security Council, having functions such as maintaining world security, peace and stability; solving all the military conflicts and disputes; suppressing all terrorist groups, sea piracy, air hijacks, organized crime, drug smuggling, human trafficking, ethnic cleansing, revolt, coups d’etat against legal governments, repression of state members with hegemonic ambitions (regional as well as international), tyrannical potentials; carrying out weapons control, and reducing weapons stock especially WMD according to each situation. The CIA, Intelligence Agencies of Russia, England, France, and Israel… would all belong to Interpol to coordinate their jobs in investigating interstate and global crimes.

(c3) The UN Ministry of Education, Culture, and Public Health: Would supervise and follow-up the activities of related state ministries, obligatory education for secondary school with one major foreign language: English was required in 13 states. Would standardize the education program. Each state’s diploma would have federal validation in the 13 states. Would teach altruism, tolerance to replace individualism, intolerance; would embrace multi-formed and synthesized culture, and eliminate step-by-step all outdated languages and customs. Would teach health care practices and preventative knowledge about contemporary diseases. Would have a policy that would oblige all the big drug corporations to be jointly responsible for disease treatment through price cuts and reduce the monopolistic terms on drug products. Would improve education through using the television and internet. Would increase the practical training, workshop, experiments, and fieldwork, field trip…

(c4) The UN Ministry of Economy:  The modern economy in different periods was the product of three leading economists: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Maynard Keynes. The failure of the “invisible hand” was the Great Depression in 1929. The failure of “centralized economy” was the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Europe. The failure of the “visible hand” (government increased budgets to build up public works and facilities to stimulate the economy) was the cycle of economic crises, shorter for the next cycle. The Ministry of Economy would function to draw up world economic policies. It would be comprised of a Department of Industry & Technology, Agriculture & Forestry, and Minerals & Fisheries, a Commerce Department, a Finance Department, and a Labor Department. Based on the comparative advantage of each nation state and block state, it would decide the production quota for each merchandise, from necessary products to luxury products, and would oversee the distribution of products to each state. The method of deciding quota could be based on this principle: Distributing a production quota must suit the market demand and the proportion of the product output of each state, especially attaching importance to the comparative advantage of each product, in order to choose the state which has the lowest production cost. This planning policy is completely different from the self-willed, inflexible five-year plan of Communist countries. The planning would be based on the survey and other research of consumers’ opinions in the 13 states. For example, in the next year, how many cars (detailed to the make and model) would the 13 states order or need to plan production and distribution logically and appropriately. It would be necessary to get rid of retail services (department stores, shopping centers, etc.) and replace them with sales by TV ads, supermodel ads, the Internet, and showrooms to save labor force for the production domain. All kinds of merchandise for social needs would be sold by orders and delivered to a person’s home. Popularize the restaurant services or food delivered at home to eliminate the burden of cooking so that everybody would have extra time to enjoy intellectual and material welfare. Increase public transportation to develop good relationship and intimacy among people, reduce dioxide and other gases, save energy and decrease accidents, as well as traffic jams. Develop and consume solar energy.
International transparency would help solve the problems of under- and over-production (real or unreal), avoid the cycle of economic crises due to capitalist competition with its mutual eliminating and destroying characters, instead of emulation to excel. This new economic form would be able to eliminate protectionism, price subsidies, monopolies such as OPEC, the custom taxes barricade, trade barricades, counterfeit merchandises, violations of intellectual copyrights, dumping, at-will price increases, and bankruptcy of the stock market…

(c5) The UN Department of Industry & Technology, Agriculture & Forestry, and Minerals & Fisheries:  Would study the market and distribute quotas. Would supervise the products and supply side.

(c6) The UN Labor Department:  Would be responsible for supervising labor and work hours, salaries, safety, working environments. Would stop forced labor and child labor.

(c7) The UN Commerce Department: Would be comprised of the WTO. Would be responsible for appropriately distributing products and merchandise to consumers. Would prevent the problems of over- and under-production and distribution causing bad impact for the demand side. Would solve all commercial disputes and problems, as well as the violations of commercial rules.

(c8) The UN Finance Department:  Would  be  comprised of a World  Bank, IMF, ADB. Would be responsible for financing the supply and demand fields according to their needs and situation.  Would control currency and eliminate banks used by criminals for money laundering, by tyrants for stolen and embezzled money with insolvent debts. Would eliminate foreign currency speculation, false claims of income; and audit cheating; and would unify world currency, using US dollar for all 13 states. The toughest problem would be the debts of the poor, underdeveloped countries. Debt engendered debts and caused the owners to lose more capitals due to increased lending; the debtors also bear more debts day-by-day and become even poorer. To create a New World Order, the priority, most urgent and necessary, would be to relieve and annul all debts and start again, letting poor countries have a chance to remake their lives by escaping a deadlock. It is the only solution to help the world economic prospect of having stability and prosperity.

(c9) The UN Justice Ministry:  Would be comprised of an International Criminal Court (ICC), a Human Rights Watch, International Amnesty, UN Human Right High Commission, Committee To Protect Journalists…  The UN Justice Ministry would compile international laws with common norms and standards applied in the 13 UN states. It would supplement, amend, and update all international laws that did not conform to contemporary times. Injustice all over the world originated from the variation and diversity of local laws because each country stipulated different allegations and charges with different verdict for the same crimes. Many countries apply backward laws from the colonial time, or jungle laws dictated by tyrants. From criminal laws to civil laws, from technical laws to common laws, all states must apply the unified international laws to prosecute and judge. All related branches of the UN Justice Ministry would be bestowed with the right to inspect the courts and prisons of all states, investigate and supervise any violations of human rights (religious, political, civil, and press rights) in all nation states and countries belonging to block states, in order to have effective measures of preventing the violations, abuses, and to prosecute leaders of related branches or ministries before the state courts or the International Criminal Court. The ICC would assume special responsibility for prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocidal crimes, and serious violations of human rights.



“Politics is the next election.” The political activities of most of the world’s leaders are aimed at winning the next election. Therefore, their political stance turns around like a propeller under the influence of hundreds of interests groups. Although world politics revolves around power and wealth, but some great man stated, “I’m foolishso I lead a hermit life in the hinterland. You’re wise so you look toward the tumultuous and animated capital.” This contemporary time needs “half-foolish, half-wide leaders.” Half-half ones are those who are ready to enter and leave the power and wealth circle on behalf of long-term public welfare. Because completely wise men try to get power and wealth at all costs, even doing harm to their people and betraying their country, and the completely foolish man would remain indifferent and insensible to the misfortunes of the oppressed and exploited. Leaders must lead, not mislead, be led or follow. They must convince people to support their great ideas, not give in to people’s foolish demands! Leaders must have far-sighted vision and be determined to realize their vision even if it conflicts with the short sight and low vision of the population. World leaders must be fair and unbiased, having a clear stance and keeping to their principles. Leaders having these characteristics go down in history as the clear-sighted leaders of all times. Neither cover for, nor compromise with mistaken allies. Not to abandon the just and righteous. “Deadlock will cause revolt. Revolt will originate breakthrough” was a truth and principle. As argued above, all problems have originated from tyranny. Annihilating all tyrants could put terrorism to an end and bring freedom, democracy, and human rights to all mankind. It is the first step in creating a New World Order. But destroying is easier than building. The second step is to set up a new United Nations as a Federal government to administrate the 13 state members, in order to replace the old, out-dated society with a new and progressive and advanced society in which every state would enjoy peace, security, stability and prosperity on an equal basis. Besides the liberation of the oppressed, the exploited, getting rid of tyrants and rogue neo-lords would help to solve most parts of world problems: terrorism, conflict, injustice, oppression, exploitation, instability, refugees, poverty, illiteracy… They must disappear for the New World Order to appear. They must be submerged for mankind to emerge and excel. To compromise and appease them is to perpetrate causes of New World Disorder. Everything America has done so far and will do in the future is to implement the noble ideas of two great thinkers: “I can’t enjoy things that are denied to others” (Gandhi) and “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (Martin Luther King, Jr.).  America could only have peace and security when the whole world has peace and     





Humankind in year  2000 dreams of  the world in year 4000

Where everyday is a Valentine Day

With millions of different lovers to enjoy pleasure.

Each beauty is a unique masterpiece of art.

All are single, healthy and perfect

With buttocks, breasts and waistlines of ideal shape.

Varieties of colors for hair, eyes and of attractive scents for skin, breath.

Miss World and Hitler’s Aryans are only Miss “Thị Nở” (the ugliest girl). (10)

Males can all be rivals of Samson in strength and power.

Our current world’s sports records are their kids’ stuff.

Their dresses are very “poor” in cloth size, mostly exposing sexy body parts.

Beautiful clothes elevate people’s beauty

But their beauty is at the peak while they wear no clothes!

Handsome males and beautiful females all are lovers of one another in nudist world

Time surrenders to their “Amortality,” forever-young-and-beautiful-keeping art

There are thankfully no pregnancy, no childbearing, no childbirth in the old-fashioned way

But advanced technology with “In-Vitro Fertilization, Artificial Uterus,

Gene and DNA Transplant and Treatment, Stem Cells Duplication and Cloning”

To “Muscle-ize” all spongy forms of sexual organs

So the more sexual intercourses, the bigger the breasts and penises and the tighter the pussies

The more experienced, the wetter the mates.

No need to insert marbles, to make slashes on the penises’ heads in Thai or Filipino styles to enlarge the cocks’ sizes

Or to use dry sheep eyelash rings, horses’ tail hairs as sex tools or to tighten vaginas. (11)

Lovemaking is the best method to keep shape

No need for diet, fat sucking or body massage.

No more ugliness, ignorance, diseases, handicaps, love sickness, inferiority complex, suicide…

Procreation plan balances the population in gender

And preserves the natural resources in abundance to satisfy human needs.


Males from the beginning age of semen ejaculation and females of menses

Have an absolute right to master their own sexual desire.

Children are nourished, raised and educated in the Dream Land

By top-rank experts in order to achieve perfect wisdom, talent and expertise

In music, games, art, literature, boxing, dancing, athletics, sports…

All are versed both in civil and military affairs.


Multiple sorcerers result in rotten corpses; multiple prophets in rotten souls.

LOVE GOD, replacing the cruel and impotent BIG GOD, is a unique monotheism

with L for nose, O for male breast, V female one, and E sexual organ;

And 7-Crown for thorough knowledge, long hair for strength, * at the navel for universe;

Book on the right foot for intellectual, hammer on left foot for laborer.

The followers say prayers outdoors under the azure glass dome

Lying naked on their backs and keeping their hands in three positions:

At the head: Pray God, at shoulders: Pray for others, and at the waist: For oneself by self-criticism (12)

Five times a day and the ceremony is ended with lovemaking.

Inhumanity, jealousy, greed, stupidity

Self-interest, cronyism, individualism are to be completely annihilated.

There remain no robbery, murder and rape.

Paradise Island is the center where all criminals born due to technical mistakes are finally to burst into flames. (13)

People are naturalists, living close to multicolorful and splendid nature.


With the whole globe being “air-conditioned” at the ideal temperature.

Solar energy is to be transmitted by sound molecules.

Most of operations are computerized, automated and robotized.

All natural catastrophies, calamities as hurricanes, floods, droughts… are eliminated

Volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis are controlled

By means of  “Lava-Sucking Technique” and “Rice-Cake Binding”

The former reduces exploding pressure while the latter stops the earth surface’s drifting and crushing (14)

The environment is pure, clear without pollution, contagion, epidemic…

Thanks to high, low “Frequencies of Sound Waves” which exterminate

All germs, viruses, harmful and useless insects, animals, plants… (15)

Only beautiful trees, flowers, birds, animals remain.

People are not worried and occupied with cooking, laundering.

They rest, sleep in hotels and eat, drink at restaurants, bars.

There are only three classes the billionaires of our time cannot compare and compete with.

They are classified by their strikingly excellent initiatives and inventions.

People never eat the same dishes and make love with the same mates.

All achieve erudite knowledge without learning by heart as book worms

But through “Technique of Recording and Duplicating” while sleeping. (16)

From time to time they attend TV seminars in which new breakthroughs are to be presented by their authors.

Remaining free times are used for exercise, practice, performance

Entertainment, recreation, enjoyment, body building, sports and lovemaking.

Divided into 13 principal regions, the globe is run by local and world governments.

Each City’s architecture is designed in the octagonal shape

Its outskirts compose of factories

Next are offices, hotels, restaurants, gyms and stadiums.

In the center are theaters, cinemas, dancing halls, bars…

Much of people work with computers at their residences.

There are no shopping centers and merchandise is advertised on TV and delivered by orders to the hotel rooms.

Electrically powered big buses follow their programmed super highway on the automated guide ways

No “Mr. Lonely” in the latest models of Porch,

At the mammoth cow-formed factories, the grass inputs become the beef outputs. (17)

Water-and sea-products are reared and caught by plan in separate specialized regions.


Relic Parade, the annual grandiose festival, extends 7 days.

Leading the procession is God’s Statue, lying on the back with 6 arms

Carried by all religious leaders and fake prophets of our time.

Next is Plato, founder of the Neo-Platonic Republic

Sitting on the throne set on the heads of tricking Communist ring leaders

Then promenade greatest ancient, modern, East, Western philosophers and ideologues

Followed by inventors, scientists with breakthrough achievements

At the end are selected beautiful women from Beauty Queens, Miss Universe

To the most beautiful movie stars, singers, artists: males and females with outstanding talent and beauty.

All personages are living embodiment of the quintessence of the past thanks to “Cloning Technology”

From hairs, teeth, bones of their excavated corpses’ remains.

They are nourished till the climax age of their celebrity, then being frozen.

And hibernated after the ceremony with the “Ageless Caring Technique”

Once a year they are awakened for a week by thawing their bodies

In order that people in the year 4000 can witness with their own eyes

The ugliness, stupidity and fanaticism of our epoch

And feel totally satisfied to be born in the fifth millennium.


The symbol to remind and recollect the past is the toilets

In which the water-tank buttons are cast statues of proletarian dictators

Including Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim…

With foxy Ho Chi Minh as its security guard who keeps on talking:

“Comrades! Welcome in to relieve yourselves.

Compatriots! Do you hear my words clearly?” (18)


(10) Thanks to the Gene, Selection and Hybrid Technologies … mankind can be created each one with different color of hair and eyes and different fragrant odor of skin and breath.

(11) Many Thai men grind the glass into small marbles and sew them under their foreskins or inject their penises with silicon to enlarge their sexual organs’ sizes 2-3 times bigger. While Filipino men cut, slash theirs and then eat crabs to have thick scars in order to better their sex tools to serve female mates.

(12) God Religion: To pray God to favorably bestow on oneself a destiny and a noble mission to achieve. To self-criticize about how to behave and deal with others and to accomplish one’s duty that time in order to improve and perfect oneself.

(13) Paradise Island is criminals’ residence. They can enjoy the first-class living standard and satisfy all their wicked bestialities in their illusion thanks to a special drug. After 30 days, they will burst into flame and disappear from the Neo-Platonic World.

(14) Nowadays, due to temperatures and air pressures dissimilar at different zones, especially at the Atlantic with undercurrents of hot water, water evaporation and wind movement cause rains, storms and floods. The abundance of water in one‘s area causes its scarcity in the others, resulting in drought and crop failure. But the earth in the 4000s is “air-conditioned” by especial radio waves with their sound molecules spreading heat quantity equally all over the world; therefore, the whole globe is under the same idealist temperature. Due to having the same temperature and air pressure, natural calamities are eliminated and glaciers and icecaps in Antarctica, North Pole and others containing approximately 70% of the world’s freshwater melt, some kept in huge artificial lakes, reservoirs on the spot, and the rest moving to 5 continents through mammoth canals. Dykes are built along the belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline of  coastal states to contain fresh water. Lakes, reservoirs, dykes and canals are constructed by “sea-water analyzing technique” (as a pilot artificial island was formed from a simple frame). The abundance of fresh water help change deserts into fertile soils. Volcanoes’ lava are to be sucked to reduce pressure and transported through pipes to house frames to cast buildings. Earthquake is a trembling movement and crushing of the earth’s surface. “Rice-Cake Binding” is a technique using super-strong carbon bands to bind or wind around the earth along its meridians and parallels to prevent it from drifting. Bands crossing oceans become super highways for intercontinental cars and trains and runways for aircraft. Along them are built hotels, restaurants, factories, stadiums … to expand mainland surface.

(15) Chemicals used to kill germs only have impact in a small areas. To exterminate  all the germs, bacteria, insects, harmful or useless animals, trees or to cure diseases, the high-low “sound frequencies” are the only efficient means to obtain this ultimate purpose because sounds can penetrate every nook and cranny, whose frequencies are broadcast from satellite system covering the globe. For example: High frequency 16.5 kilohertz used by an inventor to get rid of groups of youths regularly gathering near some business areas to disturb but unable to intrude to hearings of older people.

(16) “Tape Duplication” is an advanced technology composing of instruments to convert the sounds and images from education tapes, DVDs into special signals transmitted and received by the brains while people are sleeping.  Human brains are also dyed with recording material owing to a special positioning drug. This technology helps people have a Ph.D. level knowledge within a year and a lasting memory which can be updated with new data the same way magnetic tape is to be erased, recorded and corrected.

(17) The cow-formed factory composes of sections imitating a real cow’s organs. The difference is that the factory does not produce useless stuffs such as hairs, bones, skins, but only beef steaks and its life span is much longer than that of a real cow. The factories can produce pork, lamb… by following the same model and method with the same inputs – grass – but having different outputs depending on different animals’ digestive organs.

(18) The “infamous” question by Ho Chi Minh when he read the Independence Declaration on 2 September 1945 at Ba Dinh Square.




[1] Quoted in Melvin Richter’s “Tocqueville’s Contribution to the Theory of Revolution,” in Carl J. Fredrich, ed.Revolution. New York: Atherton Press, 1966, p. 119.

[2] This alternative perspective is grounded in the fact that Britain’s 13 North American colonies experienced an extraordinary rate of population growth during the period preceding the war for independence. The population of the colonies grew by approximately tenfold from 1700 until the 1770’s. It is arguable that this phenomenal growth was a prerequisite for the successful independence movement. For more information concerning this effect, see Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution, for an in-depth description of the impact of the pre-revolutionary political and economic condition on the outcome of the American War for Independence.

[3] In the United States Congress, July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence, by the Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United States of America.

[4] Taken from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), in. Politics, Book 5, Chapter. 2, translated by Benjamin Jowett.

[5] Taken from the British author, G. K. Chesterton’s 1909 work, Tremendous Trifles, in “The Wind and the Trees” (1909).

[6] Proximity strategies exemplify effective federation building limits within political decision-making contests (Rabinowitz and McDonald 1989). Hence, all political decision-making behavior, may it be demonstrable or symbolic, accrues into quasi-crystalline enclaves of politically oriented independence building. Ultimately, these decision-making junctures are discrete political events, and they occur at very specific and historically isolated points in time. However, their political incidence is entirely indiscriminate by description.

[7] For more information concerning the physical consequences and psychological limits related to understanding the costs of war see, Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, 1961, “Why War? Correspondence from the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, League of Nations, 1933,” In William Ebenstein, ed. Great Political Thinkers, Plato to the Present. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, as well as Albert Einstein, 1954, Ideas and Opinions.New York: Crown.

Author: Lý Tống

Lý Tống sinh ngày 01/09/1945 tại Huế, gia nhập Binh chủng Không Quân năm 1965, thuộc Khoá 65A, và du học Hoa Kỳ năm 1966. Vì trừng trị một niên trưởng hắc ám, Lý Tống bị kỷ luật, bị sa thải và trở về nước. Lý Tống được tuyển vào hãng Pacific Architech & Engineer và chỉ trong vòng 3 tháng thực tập ngành Thảo Chương Viên, Lý Tống tự động sửa một program chính của hãng, giảm thiểu nhân số phòng Phân Tích từ 5 nhân viên xuống còn một mình Lý Tống. Do công trạng thần kỳ đó, Lý Tống được Chủ Tịch Hội IBM Chapter Việt Nam đề nghị bầu vào chức Phó Chủ Tịch và cấp học bổng du học ngành Programmer. Nha Động Viên đã gọi Lý Tống nhập ngũ Khoá 4/68 Sĩ Quan Trừ Bị Thủ Đức trước khi Lý Tống hoàn thành thủ tục nên anh bỏ mất cơ hội du học Hoa Kỳ lần thứ nhì. Lý Tống là người duy nhất bị sa thải vì kỷ luật được trở lại Không Quân Khoá 33/69 và tốt nghiệp Hoa Tiêu ngành Quan Sát. Năm 1973, Lý Tống được huấn luyện lái phi cơ A.37, trở thành Phi Công Phản Lực Cường Kích. Vốn là người của xứ cố đô ngàn năm văn vật, Lý Tống là một tổng hợp của nhiều con người : Vừa giang hồ lãng tử, vừa nghệ sĩ, businessman, vừa là hoa tiêu gan lì gai góc. Đề cập đến các chiến tích lẫy lừng với danh hiệu Top Gun của Lý Tống, có câu nhận xét của Phi công cùng Phi Đoàn Ó Đen thường được nhắc nhở đến : “Nếu 4 Vùng Chiến thuật có 4 Lý Tống, VC sẽ không ngóc đầu lên nỗi !“. Về Danh Hiệu PAPILLON, Lý Tống đã sáu (6) lần vượt ngục, chỉ thua Papillon Pháp, người vượt ngục chín (9) lần. Sự khác biệt giữa Henri Charrièrre và Lý Tống gồm các điểm : * Henri chuyên vượt ngục bằng đường biển, Lý Tống “chuyên trị“ đường bộ.* Henri luôn luôn dùng tiền nhờ người khác giúp đỡ và hợp tác, Lý Tống chỉ trốn một mình và mọi kế hoạch từ A đến Z đều chính tự mình vạch ra và thực hiện. * Ngoài ra, Henri chỉ chú tâm vượt rào “ra“ vì sự sống còn của bản thân, Lý Tống còn 3 lần vượt rào “vào“ các Phi trường (2 lần Phi trường Tân Sơn Nhất và 1 lần Phi trường Ubon Rachathani tại Thái Lan, tức Tổng cộng 9 lần bằng Henri Charrière) để đánh cắp máy bay, thi hành các Điệp vụ vì sự sống còn của Dân tộc VN. Thành tích vượt ngục được Ông Julian, Trưởng Phòng Phản gián Singapore, đánh giá : “Lý Tống là bậc thầy của Papillon“. Tháng 09/1981 Lý Tống rời quê hương tìm tự do bằng đường bộ, xuyên qua 5 quốc gia, dài hơn 3 ngàn cây số, trong thời gian gần 2 năm, trốn thoát 3 nhà tù, cuối cùng bơi qua eo biển Johore Baru từ Mã Lai đến Singapore, và được chính phủ Hoa Kỳ chấp thuận cho đi định cư tại Mỹ vào ngày 01/09/1983. Cuộc hành trình vượt biên tìm tự do của Lý Tống ly kỳ vô tiền khoáng hậu, độc nhất vô nhị của thế kỷ 20 được Tổng Thống Ronald Reagan vinh danh qua nhận định : “Your courage is an example and inspiration to all who would know the price of freedom“ (Sự can trường bất khuất của Lý Tống là một biểu tượng và nguồn cảm hứng cho những ai muốn biết cái giá của tự do) ; và được ca tụng bởi những Tờ báo, Tạp chí nổi tiếng nhất thế giới như : Barry Wain của The Wall Street Journal : “Ly Tong is in a class by himself“ và Anthony Paul của Reader’s Digest : “His flight has become one of the great escape saga of our time“....... (Xin đọc thêm các bài tiểu sử của Lý Tống)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s