Why are revolutionaries always rich?: the place of peasantry
Looking at all the revolutionary leaders. All of them come from upper households. Thus it is not at all alarming that Sartre a noble himself took the role of the revolutionary while his ex-best friend Camus took the road of the rebel. It was this case, when Camus wrote the rebel that fractured their friendship. Yet, was Sartre’s elitist upbringing to pay for this or was Camus’ hard life indicatively biased against?
The first revolution that comes to mind is the American revolution. While in this regard the cases are reversed, yet this may be the difference between democratic revolutions and communist revolutions. The leader of the American revolution was wealthy Washington and jolly Jefferson. Jefferson was more passive about the rebellion but still supported it nonetheless. Though afterwards it was impoverished Hamilton who constructed the state control country while the slave owning Jefferson who looked out for the little guy. The patriots at large honed onto the commoners for support even if their highest ranks were wealthy land owners. Having Hamilton around did demonstrate a sense of collectivism and community amongst a group of defenders. It is still the case that it was led by the wealthy and the commoners just tagged along as the war waged on. Wealthy loyalists abandoned after the war. The country took a state-first approach that switched over in Jefferson’s reign and has toppled the line ever since.
The Haitian, French, Russian etc. all were led by wealthy individuals. Why is this the case? Was Marx correct of the peasantry? Did either they lack the backbone or concern to make those changes? Marx infamously scolded the peasantry though insisting on their advocacy for the revolution. Apologetics may attempt to demonstrate his veracity for them but it is clear in a number of his writings that he felt there were barbaric idiots. Lenin attempted to salvage the discriminatory remarks but his message has been ignored. Apparently in the classist division, the peasantry remain the peasantry; the oppressed remain oppressed. Only a selective group of the oppressed make it out. The newly found middle class must overwhelm the wealthy and take back their profits. White women must appeal to their oppression to regain control over those who have been systematically discriminated against. Marx seemingly had a few choice words for the bottom-feeders. Only the capable oppressed can lead the next generation. Only the newly wealthy can overpower the noble institutions of old.
Recent revolutionaries remind me of first world liberals and democratisation. It is a privileged access that they can project their freedom onto others. While there are characters from the abused folk much of the remembered leadership is of the wealthier decent. To take an example from the abolitionist example. There were a few ex-slaves and slaves from Tubman to Turner. Yet Tubman’s capacity was aided by other white abolitionists. Ironically despite Brown’s impoverished upbringing, his northern whiteness offered him a certain privilege. The same applies for Garrison. While neither was significantly wealthy monetarily, their influence ran deep in northern reformer circles. The well off recognise their inherent superiority and wish to disseminate that to others. The suffering of others is bothersome and change is imminent. The same came be said of the suffrage movement. Men from Thomas Paine gradually voiced outcry at the female imposition. The male access to authority enabled a crossroads to enable female participation and acceptance.
On a microlevel, the Jackie Robinson episode was only possible due to Rickey’s rebellious action. The rest of the league was up in arms but Rickey saw potential and added Robinson to the roster. Robinson was not able to partake in the game without Rickey’s contract. It was the sympathy as well as scouting brilliance to take Robinson in. Whether Rickey’s reasons were all noble is irrelevant to the fact that it was this risk that permitted a black man to play alongside a white dominated league. The downtrodden need an assist from the privileged to secure a spot on the highest level. It is a way past the bigotry. Those who have the assets can afford to bring in the destitute for glory. While there will be evident backlash it is reasonable for its ultimate goal even if that goal is to win a championship. The misguided goal does not undermine the impact. The ill informed norm is derailed by a common enemy. There is some truth to the abolitionist growth aligning with the Industrial Revolution. Now the ethical could easily be won over with a lopsided determining farce.
Disadvantaged folk require the aid of the advantageous to personify their capabilities. In a tribalistic culture there are those who are given prestige over others. Whether oppressed or politically subdued there is a hierarchical variation. The previous American examples were of racial discrimination but this even applies to all areas of oppressor even if that individual be a wealthy white landowning American. The revolution was fought by patriotic elites who wished to do away with British rule. The lack of representation was overwhelming despite their loyalist ties. The impoverished colonists were solely concerned with their lot not the political jargon of independence. A growing disbelief in British overhaul struck the commoner but the political intelligence was a reasoned fight for those with superiority complexes atop the pecking order. The poor were unconcerned with revolution before the Stamp Act bothered their industrial progress. Revolutionary ideas may have bothered them as it angered the British straining colonial relations and finances. Yet once the British replied heavily the propaganda cemented itself.
While in this case it was the upper class who positioned the revolutionary impulse against the British. The founding fathers built on the enlightenment ideas and British overwhelming sovereignty sought political change. That was only possible in war. Peaceful protests crowded to kick out the British but the latter returned fire and still pulled strings from abroad. It was in the founders best interest to sever ties with a foreign basin of control. Wealthy or not the motive of these wealthy was not so much greed insofar as it was democratic freedom. Sam Adams whose father was bankrupted by Britain but whose uncle was successful lived in both worlds. Economic freedom did not just entail more for the colonists but representation for them. While their poverty may have dissuaded their elected capability, the rights that ensued provided an opportunity never before implemented. They may have been ignorant to the political jargon but they were invested and promised aid afterward as well as Jeffersonian poverty programs.
The father of revolutions was proceeded by wealthier folk in reactionary detail against a foreign overpowering force. For the average individual maintaining the status quo was the easiest way to live but that did not necessarily mean the best way. America was an proto-imperialist country. There were many loyalists but the patriotic element sprang free as Britain began to feed off of colonial security. The wealthy who had resources and knowledge were able to strategise to overcome the looming threat. To a degree, the poor cared but many a time it was better to keep the current regime in order to survive another day. The colonial response endangered their livelihood. Those with resources could salvage, the poor could not. Yet Britain hurt the poor with their roles. Patriots brought in the poor to aid the fight promising aid when they emerged victorious. Tactical and elemental. Franklin and Jefferson both highly educated recognised the poverty stricken woes. The poor did not seek revolution but the founders sought a better life for themselves and others. The poor were part of the people and thus not only deserved the same rights but also responsibility on the part of the peoplehood.
Generalised assertions of impoverished decadence and disinterest mark more with contextual proceedings. The poor weren’t such big fans. Yet they were needed. Once they were needed and did their part, it was provoked and provided. Just as in later wars suffrage and civil rights succeeded wartime returnee realisations. The poor are usually ignored for incapability. Yet called upon in emergencies. The poor are sent to war without recourse. Unable to avoid the draft or relent on battlefield ethics. To an extent, there is an imbalance of classist draftees. Many wealthy swindled out of the war while the poor were forced to send their sons abroad. While war did acknowledge the equaliser under fire to desire equality upon return. Feeling these ill warranted sensations with the record inflated prices led to worker strikes and riots. The progressive era was solidified in wartime equality. The unfortunate emergence of communism and worker revolutions dialled back some of the reforms but there was still movement forward to be seen later on. The glorious roaring twenties was for Coolidge and Gatsby buddies. Not for the poor. Afraid of possible revolution they sought to incite it with their radically insubordinate prosperity myth. Leading to the Great Depression a rich person cause but a poor person problem.
The poor are at the whim of the rich. Lacking access forfeits opportunity and power. Under the thumb of the wealthy giants who control the commercial enterprise leaves those belittled without any foothold to argue back. The nullified reforms of the progressive era could not be appealed by the average citizen. The wealthy in charge ensured their materialistic rise while inequity spread like wildfire. When the crash hit they wiped the dirt off their hands as if they had no claim in the game. Yet such a routine is obvious from the 2008 crash when the wealthy screwed everyone and the poor were blamed. Scolding the meagre to feel superior. Those who at face value have no power so they must have secretly concocted this in order to try to frame the rich. So sinister those impoverished destitute folk. Such lunacy is passed to the middle class as a genuine through the media outlets. Those giants want the poor to be isolated. No helper to assist. Why travel to Nebraska there are so few people there. Their desires are washed up in polarised battle ground. They are not trying hard enough. It is the American dream figure it out. If you can’t that is your problem. All the basic opportunities have been supplied so work harder.
A rebellious effort seeks work in between the lines. A sislib hoping to make a change via protest. If I were in the chair of power I would usher in the utopia. It is possible. Yet power may corrupt. Power never before wielded may be overwhelming or paranoia seeking in. To work with the system is to have faith the system could make things right. Camus was an optimist believing in humanity’s positive potential. He recognised the historical dangers of revolutions naming the Reign of Terror and Gulags as examples. The fear of new governmental agencies replacing the old did not entail better life. If anything it became the same monster it wished to replace. For all Jefferson and Franklin’s visions, they replaced a classist society with a new one. While they programmed it different, the poor were still poor and the new leadership continued to act in its own trajectory. Proportionally the system may be better than the monarchy of old but it does not suggest that it has transformed the classist enterprise nor salvaged the destitute. Revolution is noble but it takes a man from the harboured state to reject it. Never the man who resides but an outsider who wishes to incite a revolution on their behalf. The rich promise to make a better life for their poor colleagues but they just install themselves without lending any hand to those poor devils they promised to help.
Sartre’s vision to aid as a superiorly educated individual. Recognising the inequalities, with his knowledge and connections he could aid the struggling Algiers. Did Algiers seek revolution? Is feeling enough? Where does the epilogue lie? The wealthy impose their ideology on the public. Providing resources to reconfigure society to their liking. They have seen the suffering so they well-intentioned impale themselves betraying their class colleagues. They join the enemy. Noble but imposing. They do not cheer from afar but lead the charge. Hoping for a different society a utopia that needs guidance, their guidance. How successful does this become? Were has this led us? The rebel plays it safe. Gradually evolutionarily piercing the elitist bind. Yet this sislib cooperates with the enemy of the people. Protesters may seek to push enforcers to make changes but they do not always follow through. Officials are more or less from rich households putting the poor at a disadvantage. Thus it is incumbent on the rich official to show some sympathy and seek change but such is not easy. Even if this corrected, does it lead to the promised utopia or a chronicle of a fairy tale gone wrong. Changes made help the average person sometimes but rarely meet the quota for the struggling ousted as stragglers for not doing their part. Alienated as the demons of the country weighing everyone down, a natural bum of sorts to punch for their laziness.
Famous rebels include the poor MLK Gandhi and Mandela. Voiding violence for credible solutions. Ethics trumps violence. A violent rage would react with identical tenacity. Bloody outcome with killer instincts following suit no matter who came out on top. Non-violence was a matter of ensuring the hopes of the disenfranchised. Fortunately, Mandela survived his assassination attempt unlike Gandhi and MLK. Their words powerful but change not so much. Yet the native Camus power was strong within. Those from the disenfranchised sought non violence to reap a better tomorrow. It is those outside the cause that demonstrated a desire for a shift in political order. The founders sought not to rebel and instead fought a revolution that cut ties with the motherland for a long time. Yet while they were native colonists they were wealthy and played an elitist role in colonial society. An effort the poor did not. The three non violent individuals enraged in the slums. Though Malcolm X was a revolutionary from the slums. He purported a Jeffersonian narrative to urge political violence for a goal. If the crony elites and yes the FBI attempting to undermine the civil rights movement there needed to be a method out of this maze. Removing them violently would be a start.
Such optimism is even greater from Sartre that his theoretical version would work best. An Orwellian phantom pressing on the socialist unconscious. It could potentially occur. He could be the second coming of Jesus. The second coming of Jesus may falsely end with a repeated crucifixion. The ideal does not always match the real. The revolutionary seeks an ideological shift but with the same mannerisms. You oppress me I will oppress you thus liberating everyone. While there is a difference between an internal and external revolution, the clear conclusion impacted the lay leadership while regressing the lower level. The lobby and upper floors were renovated but the basement was ignored, too gross to change. No one is going down there. Not worth the money. The rebel as one man either yelps into a void or is kidnapped from his capacity. Either it’s a dud that is retroactively played for immediate inspiration and dumbfounded forehead smacking. The people as a collective must move forward. Yet even as a worrisome collective to elitist hold in Washington, there is little legal viability to administer changes. So stuck in the mechanics there is an obvious ethical shortage obstructing progress. A revolution seeks to shift the order but that seemingly does not shift the power balance nor the ethical focus.
Revolutionary eyes seek to dismount the master oppressor with guided knowledge. To erase the cancer with their expertise. They have the resources they will bring about change with their capabilities. To dismantle the former regime with a new equal one. Liberate but with which alternatives. A new model with the revolutionary at the helm. So unhappy with their current esteem they need to be praised even more. Too coupled with aristocratic elite they wish to be the sole elite. Oh how risky yet profitable. It is this sole individual’s vision that seeks to upend the present disaster. An equal society under his watch. One that manifests by his perceptive clause. Equality from on high. Another top-down mechanical format with nuances. It will be different, there will be more hope for the ailing. No more external pressure only potentially internal scrutiny. The messiah from above lectures the sufferers down below. Grabbing his notes to preach to the discombobulated public perplexed at the growing madness. Hope met with cunning deception. Unintentional but unfortunately inevitable. The last regime meets the new regime. With his impeccable orders the construction is complete and he takes his role at the head. Don’t worry poor folk he will care for your concerns. It is not as if he simply replaced the old regime with himself. He wasn’t simply fighting for his own gain. His reforms will demonstrate that. Do not fret this is the only way to be free.
Wealthy perception recognises the disproportionate measures. Recall the university lefty drive of intersectional ‘socialist’ unipolar power. Things must be made right with overpowering differences and ensuring equity is pronounced. Justice must be served. At any cost whether that violence is bloodless. With zero care to the mental faculty of the other side. Screaming crying censoring and damaging those who disagree. There is one way to bring about change and it is to force it. Yet this only brings upon reactionary resentment. Most people desire the basics of their ideals. Ethically charged is beautiful but manifested as a wild beast hellbent on pulverising all those in its path disengages the public to their cause and only empowers the elites. Well intentioned with this unique superior view of the world. A youthful naivety coupled with ethical charm to rewrite the history books. Change is inevitable let’s just adapt faster. Take extremes and blame games to deter any dialogue fostering hostility and burdensome community. A first world problem that seeks to exploit all possibilities and create new narratives solely to generate openness and creativity. The absolute of autonomous expression. A revolutionary ideal sought with perception not weaponry.
The game no more is blasted with arms but with ideology. Whose thought is the most powerful who can censor and diminish others for their opinions. Control is in the hands of those who care more and fight back harder. Yet their charitable motives meet their regrettable actions. Elites laugh as the people fighting amongst themselves. The people’s greatest enemy is the government not their own brethren. Elected officials are able to get away with things because the people turn a blind eye or play apologetics for scum. Politics and dubious differences divide the most central of autonomy. A goddamn free country cannot hold a unanimous rebellion. Always finding nuance to disagree and fight. Playing into the matrix game. No puppeteer is needed, it’s a failed improv where the protagonists beats himself up allowing the enemy to escape. Revolutionaries are not met with delight. Change is hard. Radical change is harder. Most people want to see gradual growth. Basic rights with things getting better for everyone. Yet the focus on social issues bemoans the poverty crisis. Environmental inquires and social programs take the place of ensuring people can house themselves. The revolutionaries live lavishly on daddy’s credit card and full ride to university when the struggling farmer is drowning away in his work or on tour in the endless wars. Where is the rebellion for the basic needs of survival? Maybe if they lived like peasants they would think like them.
