Ukraine looking for former President for War Crimes

[mrswdk]

Dual-power thesis states that revolutions aren't really driven by "mass uprisings," but rather between elite groups.

Obviously some revolutions are started by traitorous people who were within the power circles of the previous social order, but plenty of revolutions start as popular movements, and just because they then nominate a leader who becomes disproportionately powerful after his victory doesn't mean that revolutions are all just power struggles between two elite factions.

I would nominate Mao and the Communist Party's overthrowing of the KMT as a popular uprising. Mao and the other founders of the CCP weren't 'elites' - Mao was just some guy who used to re-shelve books in PKU library. His ascendancy to power didn't really benefit many of the peasants who supported him during the civil war, but that does not mean he was not the leader of a popular uprising.

The Boxer Rebellion was also just a bunch of peasants going ape shit.

The Velvet Revolution also springs to mind.

[Phatscotty]

[Dukasaur]

Neither the quality of dissidence nor its context seem to matter. And nobody stops to ponder seriously how to deal with provocateurs who deliberately break the law in order to be arrested. Should the law be suspended especially for them? Or what? Arresting them falls into a trap, but not arresting them would arouse complaints from indignant citizens who dislike such exhibitionism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/28/ ... l-protest/

An excellent article. It's sad but true. Still, these agent provocateur tactics really aren't new by any means, nor are they in any way an American invention. In the 1960s it was the KGB using these tactics against the west in Algeria and Egypt. That is where the Americans learned the technique. In the 15th century, agents of the Valois kings of France used these tactics in the Netherlands to stir up rebellion against the absentee Habsburg emperors. In the First century A.D., Christian martyrs used the same basic technique to embarrass the Romans and foment what they thought would be a Christian revolution.

Agents of various meddlesome powers have always tried to stir up shit in the lands of their enemies, and the creation of martyrs has been known as a useful tactic at least as long ago as the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews. Ultimately, their success rate is a very mixed bag, and will remain a very mixed bag. If it were that easy, anyone could have a revolution. As DoomYoshi pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if there was a formula that guaranteed success, anyone could have a platinum album. The fact is that attempts to control the outcome of popular movements fail a lot more than they succeed.

The success of a revolution depends on a) there being legitimate and real grievances to rebel against and b) the standard of living being low enough that people feel they have nothing to lose. The same tactics used to start revolution in Cambodia have been used in Canada (for instance during the G8 conference a couple years ago) and resulted in absolutely nothing. Basically, Canadians just don't have enough to be pissed off about, and their lives are very comfortable just as they are.

I have no doubt that the CIA is neck-deep in the Ukrainian protest movement. But they could exert the same energy and get no result at all if a) the Ukrainians didn't have genuine reasons to be pissed off, and b) if the standard of living was sufficient that protesters found going to a job interview significantly more likely to result in raising their quality of life than throwing beer cans at the police.

[BigBallinStalin]

Dual-power thesis states that revolutions aren't really driven by "mass uprisings," but rather between elite groups.

Obviously some revolutions are started by traitorous people who were within the power circles of the previous social order, but plenty of revolutions start as popular movements, and just because they then nominate a leader who becomes disproportionately powerful after his victory doesn't mean that revolutions are all just power struggles between two elite factions.

I would nominate Mao and the Communist Party's overthrowing of the KMT as a popular uprising. Mao and the other founders of the CCP weren't 'elites' - Mao was just some guy who used to re-shelve books in PKU library. His ascendancy to power didn't really benefit many of the peasants who supported him during the civil war, but that does not mean he was not the leader of a popular uprising.

The Boxer Rebellion was also just a bunch of peasants going ape shit.

The Velvet Revolution also springs to mind.

Mao? and his boys? The CCP's story began with Sun Yat-sen via Chiang Kai-shek and Zhou Enlai in a military academy at Canton. Zhou Enlai and Kai-Shek knew each other, and they eventually turned against one another.

And the people were with the Communist Party? C'mon. That was a ragtag group which possessed disparate control over a minority of workers in some cities. That persisted until the shortly before Long March when the Guomingdang pretty much crushed the Communists. There were no people favoring the CCP. After the CCP started crashing through people's towns, 'somehow' the locals really liked the CCP...

While the Japanese beat the crap out of the warlords' provinces, the Communists sat back and exploited the local villages for resources. Any state that's been ravaged by the Japanese will hardly prove favorable to anyone; it was just a matter of sweeping in and pressing people into military service. What else were "the people" going to do?

Charles Tilly isn't saying that there's no people involved. It's about elite groups controlling events.

Think about it. If the Communists strolled through your village, would you do anything? No. In fact, nearly all of us here would say that we were Communists; otherwise, they'd murder you. There's no popular movement here. It's just coercive control at the hands of another group of bandits. After the CCP won, they regurgitated decades of nonsense about how the people were with them and about how great it all was and will be. It's nonsense.

[BigBallinStalin]

Neither the quality of dissidence nor its context seem to matter. And nobody stops to ponder seriously how to deal with provocateurs who deliberately break the law in order to be arrested. Should the law be suspended especially for them? Or what? Arresting them falls into a trap, but not arresting them would arouse complaints from indignant citizens who dislike such exhibitionism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/28/ ... l-protest/

An excellent article. It's sad but true. Still, these agent provocateur tactics really aren't new by any means, nor are they in any way an American invention. In the 1960s it was the KGB using these tactics against the west in Algeria and Egypt. That is where the Americans learned the technique. In the 15th century, agents of the Valois kings of France used these tactics in the Netherlands to stir up rebellion against the absentee Habsburg emperors. In the First century A.D., Christian martyrs used the same basic technique to embarrass the Romans and foment what they thought would be a Christian revolution.

Agents of various meddlesome powers have always tried to stir up shit in the lands of their enemies, and the creation of martyrs has been known as a useful tactic at least as long ago as the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews. Ultimately, their success rate is a very mixed bag, and will remain a very mixed bag. If it were that easy, anyone could have a revolution. As DoomYoshi pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if there was a formula that guaranteed success, anyone could have a platinum album. The fact is that attempts to control the outcome of popular movements fail a lot more than they succeed.

The success of a revolution depends on a) there being legitimate and real grievances to rebel against and b) the standard of living being low enough that people feel they have nothing to lose. The same tactics used to start revolution in Cambodia have been used in Canada (for instance during the G8 conference a couple years ago) and resulted in absolutely nothing. Basically, Canadians just don't have enough to be pissed off about, and their lives are very comfortable just as they are.

I have no doubt that the CIA is neck-deep in the Ukrainian protest movement. But they could exert the same energy and get no result at all if a) the Ukrainians didn't have genuine reasons to be pissed off, and b) if the standard of living was sufficient that protesters found going to a job interview significantly more likely to result in raising their quality of life than throwing beer cans at the police.

This is a main reason why governments are so fond of make-work programs and welfare subsidies.

[Phatscotty]

all on the same day

[GoranZ]

ukraine was a part of the austro hungarian empire

Only Galicia was ever part of austro hungarian empire... but Galicia represents less then 10% of the current Ukrainian territory.

the blacksea fleet of russia is in ukraine harbours and they have access through the dardanelles to the mediterranean
or quick access to the suez canal
it is a very strategic country for russia, thats why ukraininans have great energydeals with russia

Actually Ukrainian harbors were Russian until 50 years ago when Russia gifted them to Ukraine, but yes Ukraine is very strategic country for Russia, but not only for Russia.

if ukraine becomes a EU Country, russia is in trouble

I don't think that Ukraine will join EU any time soon, at least not as a whole country... Half of the country would rather split then join EU.

this is going to turn really ugly for the ukrainian people

Hopefully not very bad, regardless how will this end it will not be good for large part of the Ukrainian inhabitants.

[mrswdk]

My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.

[DoomYoshi]

mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.

[DoomYoshi]

as if this entire protest was planned by a marketing firm

Correct.

Ok, so let me get this straight. The entire thing was planned by an American marketing firm. Yet 5 months after demonstrations started, the Americans are caught on a phone planning how it will end. Why didn't the marketing firm come up with that to begin with? Why are high-levellers getting busted talking about it?

[BigBallinStalin]

My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.

Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies... None of what you said shows how the revolution was a mass uprising. The CCP and the GMD fought as a united front early on. This is inside v. inside. As the GMD gained more ground, the CCP were pushed into minor control of some workers in some cities. Then, the GMD fights the CCP more heavily. This is still inside v. inside. It's two elite groups battling it out.

After the Japanese sweep through and the GMD has been fairly pummeled, the CCP forcibly conscripts more people, butchers innocents arbitrarily deemed as 'bourgeois', and rolls through the GMD and warlord-controlled regions. There was no mass uprising. It's obviously two elites, each using a minority of the population to attain their organization's goals. After the CCP won, of course they claimed to have represented "the People" and that "the People" led the revolution, but that's nonsense.

[BigBallinStalin]

mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.

Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden and fallacious arguments to further your resistance to saxi's and I's arguments. I can't effectively counter that, so good job.

[mrswdk]

The CCP's roots did not lie within China's ruling class. Like I said earlier, Mao was a nobody who worked in a university library prior to setting up the CCP. The CCP grew outside of China's power structures, not within them.

Yes, after the CCP got into power they became jus as much of a private clique as the KMT ever were, but that doesn't make the Communist Revolution an 'inside' job.

[DoomYoshi]

mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.

Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden

What is emotional about the arguments?

On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.

[DoomYoshi]

My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.

Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...

But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?

[BigBallinStalin]

The CCP's roots did not lie within China's ruling class. Like I said earlier, Mao was a nobody who worked in a university library prior to setting up the CCP. The CCP grew outside of China's power structures, not within them.

Yes, after the CCP got into power they became jus as much of a private clique as the KMT ever were, but that doesn't make the Communist Revolution an 'inside' job.

Oh, I see. We're using different definitions of inside. By 'inside', I mean the institution of "meta-politics"--which refers to those guys who set the higher political rules (governments/bandits whose power varies over regions). Those 'inside' would be the CCP, GMD, and the various warlords of china during the 1910s-1930s. "The People" are largely tools, victims, and/or recipients who don't set the meta-politics, i.e. the internal mechanism of change.

The CCP developed within China's changing "power structures" during the 1920s to 1930s. They were part of the "ruling class" because not only did they effectively resist the GMD (until the Long March), but they definitely ruled over their subjects--just as other warlords did. Within the seemingly static concepts of "ruling class" and "power structures," there was plenty of individual mobility. To view the CCP as "non-rulers" is contradictory to history... (unless you arbitrarily bend these terms to conclude that the CCP and The People were magically united to fight the big evil bad guys/"ruling class").


RE: the underlined, that's somewhat correct, but you'd be surprised. I'm looking forward to this very interesting book called The Sun Also Rises which follows family names that re-emerge after countless revolutions, purges, and so on. E.g. those within the Qing Dynasty can re-emerge within the CCP. The average time of recovery was two generations, but there's a long tendency for the political incumbents to remain in politics--regardless of its changing face.

[BigBallinStalin]

mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.

Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden

What is emotional about the arguments?

Usually when people crap out short, fallacious arguments, I imagine that emotion is mostly determining their decisions.

On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

I don't see how the underlined is my position. "The people" is a misleading term; I mentioned three basic groups to simplify. I employed methodological individualism to explain the game theoretic considerations of joining a revolution. The implications of which are more complex than a Risk game. I don't know how you arrived at that summary of my position, and I'm not even sure what your "cycle theory" is. That's new.

[Metsfanmax]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

[BigBallinStalin]

My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.

Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...

But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?

How will your using "the people" concept yield useful insights?

I don't see what's so hard to understand the difference between "the people" and "<1% of Ukrainians protesting." In order for the "mass uprising" theory to make sense, you'd need much greater participation then 1%. That requirement is ignored when we start lumping details into the homogenizing "the people" concept. This has been one basic problem I've had with your view on Ukraine's recent protests.

If Bear Grylls history in political change was comparable to Zhou Enlai's, then I don't see what's so silly about discussing the different opportunities a Zhou Enlai would have compared to a "Farmer Joe."

[DoomYoshi]

mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.

Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden

What is emotional about the arguments?

Usually when people crap out short, fallacious arguments, I imagine that emotion is mostly determining their decisions.

It's because you have a simplistic view of arguments.

On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

I don't see how the underlined is my position. "The people" is a misleading term; I mentioned three basic groups to simplify. I employed methodological individualism to explain the game theoretic considerations of joining a revolution. The implications of which are more complex than a Risk game. I don't know how you arrived at that summary of my position, and I'm not even sure what your "cycle theory" is. That's new.

The people can be a misleading term. That is not mutually exclusive with my cycle position which is:

You present a simplified narrative as if this entire protest was planned by a marketing firm. I don't disagree that there are vested interests involved in this. However, it is a feedback cycle in which activists activate something, interested parties find a way to capitalize and re-present the narrative to the activists who then activate something else. The Standing Man protests were not a deliberately marketed thing originally. It was one guy. It was then marketed and turned into an icon, but Political parties, like internet clowns, can't just create memes when they are trying to.

In other words, ruling parties (or soon to be ruling parties) can hatch a devious revolution plan, but they can also see a revolution happening and then capitalize on it. Likewise, the revolters can take the memes of the devious plan and build it into a stronger revolution. Both parties (people[meaning revolters and those that support them]; versus ruling class and exploiters) can feed into each other. If they feed into each other in a positive reinforcement cycle (where, for example the US interests align with those of the protestors) than the revolution can be a success.

My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.

Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...

But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?

How will your using "the people" concept yield useful insights?

I don't see what's so hard to understand the difference between "the people" and "<1% of Ukrainians protesting." In order for the "mass uprising" theory to make sense, you'd need much greater participation then 1%. That requirement is ignored when we start lumping details into the homogenizing "the people" concept. This has been one basic problem I've had with your view on Ukraine's recent protests.

If Bear Grylls history in political change was comparable to Zhou Enlai's, then I don't see what's so silly about discussing the different opportunities a Zhou Enlai would have compared to a "Farmer Joe."

Saying that only 1% of Ukrainanians support EuroMaidan is a fallacy. Those armored suits, weapons and foods are coming from direct supporters, while polls show there is moral support which in some regions of Ukraine is a majority, never mind the non-Ukrainians around the world who support EuroMaidan.

What useful insights do you want from a "people" concept? How do you know what my concept is?

[BigBallinStalin]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.

2. "Useful idiot," not idiot, but I don't deny that some number of voters are idiots. Politicians tend to be effective at exploiting voters' rational irrationality. In this sense, such voters are deemed "useful idiots."

If you want to continue this conversation, it'd be best to create a US-related thread for it.

[DoomYoshi]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

I believe that, and the same goes for voting for Canadian politicians. The reprocrat system is too real, in both countries.

[BigBallinStalin]

mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.

Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden

What is emotional about the arguments?

Usually when people crap out short, fallacious arguments, I imagine that emotion is mostly determining their decisions.

It's because you have a simplistic view of arguments.

On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

I don't see how the underlined is my position. "The people" is a misleading term; I mentioned three basic groups to simplify. I employed methodological individualism to explain the game theoretic considerations of joining a revolution. The implications of which are more complex than a Risk game. I don't know how you arrived at that summary of my position, and I'm not even sure what your "cycle theory" is. That's new.

The people can be a misleading term. That is not mutually exclusive with my cycle position which is:

You present a simplified narrative as if this entire protest was planned by a marketing firm. I don't disagree that there are vested interests involved in this. However, it is a feedback cycle in which activists activate something, interested parties find a way to capitalize and re-present the narrative to the activists who then activate something else. The Standing Man protests were not a deliberately marketed thing originally. It was one guy. It was then marketed and turned into an icon, but Political parties, like internet clowns, can't just create memes when they are trying to.

In other words, ruling parties (or soon to be ruling parties) can hatch a devious revolution plan, but they can also see a revolution happening and then capitalize on it. Likewise, the revolters can take the memes of the devious plan and build it into a stronger revolution. Both parties (people[meaning revolters and those that support them]; versus ruling class and exploiters) can feed into each other. If they feed into each other in a positive reinforcement cycle (where, for example the US interests align with those of the protestors) than the revolution can be a success.

My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.

Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...

But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?

How will your using "the people" concept yield useful insights?

I don't see what's so hard to understand the difference between "the people" and "<1% of Ukrainians protesting." In order for the "mass uprising" theory to make sense, you'd need much greater participation then 1%. That requirement is ignored when we start lumping details into the homogenizing "the people" concept. This has been one basic problem I've had with your view on Ukraine's recent protests.

If Bear Grylls history in political change was comparable to Zhou Enlai's, then I don't see what's so silly about discussing the different opportunities a Zhou Enlai would have compared to a "Farmer Joe."

Saying that only 1% of Ukrainanians support EuroMaidan is a fallacy. Those armored suits, weapons and foods are coming from direct supporters, while polls show there is moral support which in some regions of Ukraine is a majority, never mind the non-Ukrainians around the world who support EuroMaidan.

What useful insights do you want from a "people" concept? How do you know what my concept is?

Great question. Would you care to unpack it a bit more?

[DoomYoshi]

The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.

[Metsfanmax]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.

But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."