A long read. just thought i'd throw it up, I know rippedup might wanna check it out cause we were brainstorming.
“The forms and specific programs of radical movements can be very different at different times in history, but the larger hopes of radicals and radical movements and the groups in society they appeal to remains very much the same.”
Radical movements are initiated in a variety of ways, and differ in their fundamentals including the “who, what, when, where, and why”. Perhaps the most important difference in radical movements is the ‘how’. Each respective radical movement is conducted in its own manner, paralleling the beginning of the quotation set forth on the title page. The “forms and specific programs” of radical movements, or the ‘how’, change depending on the people involved, the cause that’s trying to be achieved, and the cultural norms of that time period. Similarly, the second half of the quotation rings true as well: “the larger hopes of radical and radical movements remain very much the same.” All radical movements are instigated under the notion that a current problem must be redressed at all costs, a common theme found in the three movements to be outlined. The ‘catch’ is that oftentimes these movements are initiated with earnest intentions to correct an oppressive norm by the radical themselves, but complications arise from the elite and upper class that holds the power. Ultimately, if the radicals are successful there is a reform of the oppressive system, but a compromise between the powerful elite who allow and support the reform only with the assurance their best interests are served. The final end result is a compromise where the powerful remain so, and the radicals grievances are redressed just enough to keep them content
Radical movements in the early colonial setting oftentimes were violent and rooted in the belief that a select few wealthy elite were exploiting the poor, usually farming class, of the colonies. Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 is a prime example of a discontented and exploited lower class rebelling in radical, violent form against the wealthy elite who were favored by an administration employing “unjust taxes” and “putting favorites in high positions”. The wealthy elite were now forced to find a way to preoccupy the poor colonial farmers and indentured servants, or else they may realize their own wretched situations and continue to rebel which would put the wealthy’s assets at risk. The elite found that under the veil of the newly constructed “United States”, they could “hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership 59.”
The American Revolution is a unique radical movement that was initiated to not only change the existing status quo (especially for the oppressed poor), but also was used by the wealthy elite to distract the poor from their own economic disparities. Initiated by the wealthy, the movement aimed at distracting the poor people from their own economic hardships while the elite continued to oppress and prosper, using England as the scapegoat. The radical language and ideologies the rich spewed out to redirect the impoverished peoples wrath toward England and away from themselves was the first step in mobilizing the masses. The most important technique, however, was drafting the most radical document ever produced, the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration mobilized the masses with “language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England”72. Ultimately, the Revolution, initiated by the rich and fought by the poor, allowed modest improvement in the lives of the lower class, but dramatic upside to the already powerful elite with the removal of the British Crown’s imposements. This is what has been called the “myth of Revolution- that it was on behalf of a united people.”70. The wealthy figureheads that incited the Revolution conflict continued to “control the factional struggles that come from inequalities from wealthy”. 97. This was made so with the drafting of the Constitution which was “not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support. The Revolutionary movement to overthrow Britain and redress the current societal ills had been successful with the fighting of the radical colonials, but with the balance of power still intact and tipped toward the wealthy.
The next major radical movement in United States history, the anti-slavery movement, would be initiated to secure the rights for African Americans that should have already been instituted if the Founding Fathers were sincerely interested in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all, and not just concerned about their own economic goodwill. Although the anti-slavery campaign was a radical movement like the American Revolution, it was fundamentally different in how it was initiated and conducted, as well its overarching ramifications. Slavery was very much entrenched in the Southern economy of 1790, “when a thousand tons of cotton were being produced every year in the South. In 1860, it was a million tons....and 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million.172. The prevalence of slavery and the cruelty slaveowners to keep order on the plantations caused an Abolitionist movement to begin to form. Climaxing in a vigilante style rebellion much like Bacon’s Rebellion did for the American Revolution, the anti-slavery campaign ignited under the radical John Brown. The first white abolitionist, Brown was truly a radical until he was hanged after trying to start a liberation campaign for African Americas enslaved in Virginia. His failed raid on Harpers Ferry was the initial step in the escalation of tensions that culminated in the Civil War.”.
Fundamentally different than the American Revolution, the anti-slavery movement was an attempt (in the minds of the abolitionists) to correct a wretched social ill aimed at once specific group, instead of throwing off a tyrannical empire imposing on the country as a whole. The harsh reality was that a small internal rebellion would not be successful in freeing the slaves and abolishing the inhumanities of slavery because there was too much invested in the system by the elite. Therefore the actual liberation of the slaves would only be made possible by the federal government and with certain stipulations. Mimicking the American Revolution, the radical anti-slavery campaign was aimed at correcting the oppressive status quo, but would only be successful after the powerful and wealthy elite took up the initiative with their own best interests put first. Howard Zinn, in his book A People’s History of the United States, clearly outlines this notion that radical movements, like the anti-slavery campaign, are intaited by radicals with intentions of changing an oppressive norm, but only are successful after the powerful reap their share of the rewards:
“It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system. If a rebellion, it might get out of hand, and turn its ferocity beyond slavery to the most successful system of capitalist enrichment in the world. If a war, those who made the war would organize its consequences. Hence, it was Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, not John Brown.”172
In this case President Lincoln represents the powerful elite as the figurehead of the American government. The radicals initiated the abolitionist movement to free the slaves, but liek many other radical movements the final outcome is only made possible when the powerful make some compromises in the movement to ensure their own interests. In this radical movement of anti-slavery there were two distinct interests, one on the basic level of abolishing the humane nature of slaveholding (held by the radical abolitionists), the other interest more complex and once again tied to the elite power structure to keep its economic holdings. The wealthy elite had the most interest in preserving the capitalist system, and necessitated that “slavery [be] abolished by order of the government....[so] its ends could be orchestrated so as to set limits to emancipation.” The difference between this radical movement and the previous Revolutionary movement was that abolitionists were citizens fighting for the rights of others, while the Revolutionary movement was radical in that it was colonists fighting for their rights. Ultimately the anti-slavery movements successful outcome of freeing the slaves was rooted once again in the best interests of the elite power structure of the country, ironically being represented by the government drafted out of the first major radical movement, the American Revolution. The abolitionists were victorious and successful, but their most glaring contribution besides the end of slavery was the radical notion that it was time for everyone, lower class and discriminated alike, to receive their ordained rights. Although it would take decades for entire equality, this idea of basic human rights would overlap into the political and economic sphere, finally leaving the social sphere it once dominated. The labor force would embrace this radical notion of everyone being “comrades” with equal shares in all aspects of life, a belief called Socialism.
Ironically democracy and capitalism seem to be complete opposites; democracy preaching equality while capitalism in a sense being a metaphorical personification of Darwin’s Natural Selection which puts the strong above the weak. Challenging this notion was perhaps the most radical thinking up- to-date, a basic attack on the backbone of the American way. It was a direct challenge on the very economic system, capitalism, that dominates the “American Dream” and lured the influx of immigrant laborers. The fictional character ‘Jurgis’ in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was attracted to America with the hope that capitalism would allow his own personal economic growth, but in reality it monumental in his destruction. This trend of initial hope turning to real-life despair and poverty prompted the radical notions that gave influence to Socialism. It was different from the first two major radical movements of the United States in the sense that this was a new radical notion of “new possibilities for living.” Now there were “bursts of labor insurrection more organized....[with] new revolutionary movements influencing labor struggles, the ideas of socialism affecting labor leaders.”282 The movement found leadership in Eugene V. Debs, an opponent of capitalism and thorough believer that socialism was the basis for “humanity”. 282. The filmstrip video titled “Eugene Debs and the American Movement” documents Debs’ leading the movement that attempted to change the current institutional status quo, in this case capitalism and the disparities it creates.
The radical movement lead by Debs proposed the change that everyone, regardless, would accept an equal share and the workers would be entitled to what they produce- in essence the same basic codes of standards applying to poor and rich alike. Consequently, the movement never really gained much ground because there was little for the powerful elite to gain from it’s adoption. The corporations were content and pleased with their tyrannical hold on the laborers, refusing to support the radical labor-socialists movement.. Radical movements were usually only successful in some regards after the powerful elite had gotten their metaphorical ‘piece of the pie’. With nothing to offer the already domineering wealthy class, the Socialist movement struggled to gain recognition. As time went on there would be small victories for the working class against the monopolistic corporations but Socialism would not a major contributor except for isolated platform ideals adopted by future politicians.
The changes brought about from the radical movements are compromise in which the elite still get something, usually more economic prosperity, and the oppressed lower classes that really make up the backbone the radical movement are given just enough to keep them content and little better off than previously. Consequently, radical movements are structured from the social and ethnocultural/gender groups that seek to secure a better way of life. Feeding into this notion, the most fundamental theme and similarity in all radical movements really lies in not only redressing disparities, but that the movements are pitted in economic holdings. On page ninety-eight of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, he quotes Charles Beard writing “governments-including governments of the United States- are not neutral....they represent the dominant economic interests ...” In this sense governments are either the powerful and rich elite themselves, or at least represent those constituencies. All three movements described above differed in their own unique aspects, but all similarly gained influence with the cultural groups that were being oppressed. Ultimately, the success of their radical initiatives to overthrow the existing structure was made possible not only be their efforts, but by supporting a change that somehow could be manipulated to still support in someway the economic superiority of the elite.
