Throughout history, revolutions happen time and time again. Where there is society, there is corruption. People tend to need to be protective of their rights in order to maintain a decent standard of living. Naturally, if a leader isn’t protecting their rights, then they are able to change their leader. Perhaps it is the violent nature of oppression that leads to violent rebellions. A lot of things in life tend to go in circles and to repeat themselves, especially in history. Just like the idea of karma, the more violent the oppression, the more violent the revolution.  Crane Brinton theorized that all revolutions follow the same pattern. By his logic, all revolutions start and end the same way. They each go through a straightforward path that leads them right back to where they started; with an oppressive government. Brinton’s theory doesn’t actually talk about a successful revolution, so are revolutions that are non violent more successful?

The Haitian revolution was an extremely violent and bloody revolution, yet it is still held as an undeniable case  of success. The Haitian people managed to overthrow an oppressive system, and keep it gone. However, they did this by slaughtering nearly everyone who opposed their freedom. This would argue for the fact that violence is indeed necessary for success. Another example of a successful revolution that included violence is the American Revolution. We had a number of very violent battles, and eventually we were able to gain our freedom. Almost all the most famous revolutions we hear about include a war. It makes you wonder why revolution and violence go hand and hand so often. Perhaps it has to do with the oppression that leads to revolution. Crane Brinton’s first step in his anatomy of a revolution is an increase in class antagonism. This leads to building hostility which results in violence.

Peaceful revolutions are by no means unheard of, they are just rare and more likely than not, unsuccessful. However there are special cases. It makes you wonder, what were the different variables that lead to a nonviolent revolution? Brintons anatomy undeniably states that violence is a key component of a revolution. There have been a slim number of non violent, successful revolutions. One of these was the Estonian singing revolution. Thousands of Estonians gathered to sing songs. The songs displayed power and national pride, the protest effectively weakened the soviets and allowed Estonia to become a free nation.

I personally believe that violence is not necessary, but revolution and war are two sides of the same coin. It is extremely rare to find cases of revolutions where there wasn’t some violence involved. Even protests that started peacefully often end up in violence. It is human nature to feel things deeply, and in the case of revolutions, this fear manifests itself in violence. In short, successful revolution without violence is improbable and unlikely, but not impossible.