Revolution Download
Gifford Brickley
Every one of our doughs, glazes and fillings are all natural, made from scratch, free of trans-fat, and made by people, not by machines. We use organic flour and high quality ingredients like Callebaut chocolate, fresh seasonal fruit, and pure vanilla. We offer a variety of options for vegans and folks with sensitivities to gluten, eggs, or dairy. You will never find industrial pre-fab mixes or buckets of artificial goop in our kitchen.
We opened our doors on National Doughnut Day, June 1, 2012!. We started a doughnut revolution in the south - returning to a time when doughnuts were simple and tasty - made from scratch with real food ingredients - without all the pre-fab mixes, funky oils, preservatives, fillers, or stabilizers that the big doughnut chains use.
In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's state, class, ethnic or religious structures.[1][2][3] A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means (such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence).[1]
Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, success or failure, duration, and motivating ideology.[1][4] Revolutions may start with urban insurrections and the collapse of a regime or they may start in the periphery through guerilla war or peasant revolts.[1] Regimes may be vulnerable to revolutions due to military defeats, affronts to national pride and identity, repression and corruption.[1] Revolutions may prompt counter-revolutions that seek to prevent a revolution or reverse the course on an ongoing or successful revolution.[5]
The international system may diffuse ideologies and models of governance, such as nationalism, self-determination, republicanism, liberalism, democracy, fascism and socialism, that inspire revolutions.[6]
The word "revolucion" is known in French from the 13th century, and "revolution" in English by the late fourteenth century, with regard to the revolving motion of celestial bodies. "Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450.[7][8] Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. This incident was termed the "Glorious Revolution".[9]
Perhaps most often, the word "revolution" is employed to denote a change in social and political institutions.[10][11][12] Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. First, a broad one, including
revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.[13]
an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities.[1]
Early scholars debated distinctions between revolutions and civil wars.[4][14] They also debated whether revolutions were purely political (concerning the transformation of government) or whether they were more expansive in nature to encompass broader social change.[15]
These categories are not mutually exclusive; the Russian Revolution of 1917 began with the urban revolution to depose the Czar, followed by rural revolution, followed by the Bolshevik coup in November. Katz also cross-classified revolutions as follows;
A further dimension to Katz's typology[23] is that revolutions are either against (anti-monarchy, anti-dictatorial, anti-communist, anti-democratic) or for (pro-fascism, communism, nationalism etc.). In the latter cases, a transition period is often necessary to decide on the direction taken.
Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions (inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with Communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization); or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.
The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions.[24] Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution or the Commercial Revolution. Such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville.[25]A similar example is the Digital Revolution.
Scholars of revolutions, like Jack Goldstone, differentiate four current 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions.[1] The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood, or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory.[10]
Second generation theorists sought to develop detailed theories of why and when revolutions arise, grounded in more complex social behavior theories. They can be divided into three major approaches: psychological, sociological and political.[10]
The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz, and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g., modernization, recession, or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.[10]
The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, and Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.[10]
Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals.[10]
The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some change results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (e.g., a war, a riot, a bad harvest), now is sufficient; however, if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution through reform or repression.[1]
In time, scholars began to analyze hundreds of other events as revolutions (see List of revolutions and rebellions), and differences in definitions and approaches gave rise to new definitions and explanations. The theories of the second generation have been criticized for their limited geographical scope, difficulty in empirical verification, as well as that while they may explain some particular revolutions, they did not explain why revolutions did not occur in other societies in very similar situations.[1]
The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites, and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures [...] accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.[1]
From the late 1980s, a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions.
7fc3f7cf58