This week’s readings take on a unique perspective on the roles that revolutions can play in regards to the advancement of both the social and political sphere. In regards to Jefferson who states the need for revolutions to occur from time to time, even if those revolutions gravitate towards acts of violence. Although he specifies that revolutions are not an excuse to ensue violence, but can be seen as tools to promote change. He continues to talk about that it is an inevitable existence for societies to go without revolutions, as they are part of the system which ensures that change continues through time. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto looks at revolution as a means to initiate the change that is bound to happen. Yet the communist revolutions are meant to be violent and destroy the foundation of what the pre-existing society was based on. In the end ushering in an age of communism throughout the region. These two unique views of the roles of what a revolution can bring to a movement only add to our understanding from last weeks readings of how one defines the success or failure of revolutions.

When one thinks of a revolution normally one thinks of the American revolution or the French revolution, or any sort of revolution which has had a great impact not only locally but on a global scale. Although most of these revolutions contained violence and they saw their end through violence, it does not mean that revolutions must contain violence for them to become successful. Jefferson advocates that although revolutions may become violent that revolutions must not be the source of the violence. One should not create a revolution just to ensue violence throughout the land. If violence is called upon then it may become an option but it should never be the solution. The American revolution can be seen as such, the founding fathers created a social and political movement peacefully trying to establish their own independence from the Crown. But when the Crown did not honor their wishes they resorted to an armed revolution in order to win their freedom.

In the Communist Manifesto, it calls upon all communists to rise up in arms against society in order to destroy everything that stands against their  beliefs. This strong urge to use violence to achieve their goals in achieving a communist revolution can be seen as desperate but needed when facing the environment that communist ideologies are facing. Without the use of violence, the ability for communism to spread would be to some degree limited but not altered. Although the use of violence was not solely used by the communist, violence was used by governments trying to hinder the spread of communism. It is this sort of violent revolution is exactly what Jefferson is against, sure communist  ideologies were heavily repressed throughout Europe but that does not call for the destruction of every fabric of society. Much like Jefferson, Russel Brand from last week’s readings shares the same idea that revolutions are needed in order for societies to advance but also that non-violent revolutions can be as effective as violent ones. Social movements throughout history which have avoided the use of violence have seen some success, although as we learned last week, the success of a revolution can never truly be measured.