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.

Russel Brand’s rallying cry to start a revolution combined with the perspective of David Graeber on what a revolution truly is, allows us to see how a new wave of revolutions are occurring in this modern day and age. By firstly looking at the ways that revolutions have changed not only our own perspective of history but also the lasting affect that each revolution has on a global scale. The concept of a revolution and whether or not it is successful can be seen through different perspectives, according to Graeber some see the social revolution that occurred in the 60’s as a failure while others see it as having a lasting affect on U.S. military strategy and involvement for the past 50 years. The notion of failure or success in regards to revolutions is but a matter of perspective, especially when it comes to social and political revolutions, revolutions of intellectual purpose are much harder to see their goals achieved in the present but instead hold for change in the future. For instance we have Russel Brand who urges for a new wave of social revolutions throughout the world, he does not preach for a violence but for change on a grand scale much like the French or Russian revolutions. Brand’s message to the world is that the current way that society is operated is no longer working and needs to be changed in order for human-kind to survive. His disdain for the current system is evident in both his article and his interview and the way that he presents his revolution, yet much like the social and intellectual revolution of the 60’s we might not be able to see the lasting affects of Brand’s rallying call. The idea of revolution although at times seems like a violent incident as is evident in the past, for example American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, although these are but a few examples of the ways that revolutions can become violence incarnate, it does not mean that all revolutions must involve violence. As it is seen the new wave of social movements where violence is not used as tool to propagate the agenda of the movement, on the contrary these movements try to avoid violence in all regards. As revolutions and our understanding of revolution change, we may one day see Brand much like the charismatic revolutionary leader Che, even if that does not come true one thing is revolutions will continue to occur and evolve alongside as society. It is up to us all on whether to join them or stand at the way side as society and the world changes around us.