Revolutionaries and power

One of my regular commentators BBC did this pithy statement below:

"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."

Let us examine this, then, in the context of historical revolutions. I will not count the so-called "American Revolution" as a historical revolution here, due to its unique nature as the revolt of the power structure of colonial America against a far-removed government which wished to reduce or eliminate their power. In short, the "American Revolution" was not so much a revolution, as it was a battle between two groups of men of power over whether one group (the Colonial aristocracy) would be allowed to retain its power. In that regard, the "American Revolution" can be seen as a throwback to medieval power struggles between rival lords, rather than as an uprising against the existing power structure. The men who won the American "revolution" *were* the power structure of the Colonies -- they acted to preserve their power, not to overthrow an existing power structure.

If we look at that as a defining quality of a "true" revolution -- that it overthrows an existing power structure (rather than being an action to preserve one) -- it becomes clearer that revolution rarely has a good outcome. The French Revolution led to bloodshed, war, and eventually widespread destruction and the loss of a generation of French manhood in the Napoleonic Wars. The Russian Revolution led to Stalin and the death of tens of millions of Soviet citizens in his gulags. The Chinese Revolution led to the deaths of yet more tens of millions of Chinese citizens and a brutal dictatorship. The closest revolution I can think of that had anything approaching a non-bloodbath outcome was the Mexican Revolution in the early part of the 20th century, and even that ended up with the PRI basically ruling the country as a dictatorship for the rest of the century.

A true conservative, by contrast, spends his time attempting to preserve the current power structure. In essence, the American Revolution was a revolution by conservatives, who were intent upon preserving their power from a ruler (George III) who wished to reclaim possession of colonies that were nominally his.

Given that, let's examine BBC's statement above. How does his statement correspond with the realities of those revolutions in particular?

In Russia, we ended up with Stalin. Who spent most of his tenure attempting to preserve his power structure. Very conservative. In China, we ended up with Mao. Who spent most of his tenure attempting to preserve his power structure. Very conservative. Napoleon believed that warfare was the best means of preserving his power. Very conservative. The PRI ruled Mexico as their personal feifdom for 80 years, providing few services to the people and doing everything in their power to maintain the power structures that they had put together. Very conservative. Everything that these dictators did was calculated to preserve and maintain the power structures that underlied the State.

I'm not sure whether I'm willing to call Mao a conservative. He made too many changes to Chinese society during his rule for me to feel comfortable saying that. But he was decidedly conservative in his approach to power -- he spent the majority of his rule establishing and preserving the power of the Communist Party in China. His successors who currently rule China are most certainly are conservatives of the old-line sort, the General Franco or PRI type of conservative rulers who keep a close clamp on society in order to preserve their power.

So how shall we view BBC's observation? In the short term, it may be wrong. In the long term, it is always correct. The revolution sets up a power structure. His successors spend their days preserving and conserving said power structure. When you spend your days preserving a power structure rather than attacking it, you are no longer a revolutionary. You are a conservative -- despite any rhetorical flourishes (like "Institutional Revolutionary Party" as the name of the party that ruled Mexico for 80 years) to the contrary.

- Badtux the Analytical Penguin