Revolutions vs. Revolts

In last week’s editorial, I questioned the wisdom of what has become known as the Oregon Standoff. I am in total agreement with the grievances that motivated the protest organized by the Three Percenters and I share the frustration and anger that led to the occupation of the federal facility at the wildlife center led by the Bundys from Nevada. In fact, I have nothing but respect and praise for the dedication and bravery exhibited by everyone involved in that action. My concern is over the strategy of picking a battleground that appears to be much too favorable to the opponent.

Life experience teaches that, if we are forced to defend ourselves, we usually have no choice but to react on the spot but, when we take the initiative and pick the place and time for a fight, it behooves us to carefully pick our battleground and our weapons. Why fight moving uphill when we can do it downhill? Why fight Goliath in hand-to-hand combat when we can use a slingshot?

It has been argued that we have given up too much freedom already and now it is time to draw a line in the sand. My response is that I agree.

The question, however, is not if
we draw a line, but where?

REVOLUTIONS VS. REVOLTS
To answer that question, we need to know the difference between revolutions and revolts.

Revolutions are waged by very large groups of people who are well organized and funded, with reliable communications and discipline, with military training and a source of weapons and munitions, with leadership and a chain of command, and especially with broad support from the population. In fact, revolutions must have most of the attributes of the governments they seek to replace.

In the case of the American Revolution, the patriots were organized and led by thirteen colonies which were full-grown governments in their own right. In addition to the resources previously mentioned, they had parliaments, courts, taxes, and laws. Every able bodied man was part of a local militia and already had martial experience. They also had the help of the French government which also had huge resources. Without these things, the patriots could not have defeated the British military in a thousand years.

SPARTACUS REVOLT
Revolts are unplanned, unled, and unsustainable rebellions, much like riots in the street or, more to the point, like the Roman slave revolt led by Spartacus. Revolts have few of the resources needed to topple the military power of an established government. They are the emotional upsurge of the oppressed who, like the news anchor in the movie, Network, shouts in anger: “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

The grim fact is that being mad as hell and armed with clubs, pitchforks, and even AK-47s without the other resources needed for a revolution is a prescription for ultimate failure, and a bloody one at that.

The bottom line is that revolutions may succeed, but revolts always fail. My deep concern is that the Oregon Standoff looks a lot like a classic revolt.

Next week I will address the question of whether or not a true revolution is even possible and, if so, what it would look like.

G. Edward Griffin
2016 January 15