The history of mankind has revolved around conflict, especially after the first societies sprung up. The innumerous conflicts that have occurred throughout history are analyzed and transmitted through generations, which has led to the constant advancement of society. This advancement is due to humans being able to recall and recognize our ancestors' failures, which leads us to learn from them and inevitably change as a society. Despite this learning process, human beings have continued to commit faults, as it is inevitable, for new sources of conflict to arise. Even though armed conflict is inevitable, as stated before, and it has paved the way to the advancement of society, does that make it positive, or even necessary? Do war and revolution benefit society in any way?
A broad variety of ideas revolve around war: from supporting violent revolutions to no violence at all. Armed conflict is an event that with little to no doubt, has brought change and almost always, some kind of development. That change; however, is not always positive and definitely not enjoyed by all members of society. Revolution has been considered a milestone in the making of Modern society, not to mention that it has brought huge changes in people's view on different aspects of life. Oppressed people are highly benefited in the case of revolution, as a fight to their voices to be heard and their living conditions to be taken into account by their countries is being carried out. However, armed conflict, being not the only incident to trigger change and development, is completely unnecessary and absolutely devastating. Especially in the case of war, unlike in revolution, people are practically forced to go to battle.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
People give up their lives for a conflict that they did not cause, and are mostly not familiar with. Thousands and sometimes millions of people are killed and kill other civils that had the same choice as them to join the war. Getting in context, Russia had always been an underdeveloped country compared to those from the west and central sides of Europe. The major problem was that Russia was one of the least industrially developed countries on the continent. For this reason, Russian society was going through a hard time economically, since the land was not suitable for cultivation. While the working class and the peasants were on the verge of dying of hunger, the Russian aristocracy and especially the royal family lived surrounded by richness and luxury. This situation caused a revolution in 1905 to break out. This caused the biggest changes in the state. This revolution caused the tsar to create a duma or a parliament. Nonetheless, that duma had very limited power and it pleased not the tsar nor the revolutionaries. Not only did the situation not change at all, but Russia got involved in World War 1 against Russia. The tsar, Nicholas II, decided to lead the army himself, which left his family alone in charge. His wife Alexandra was highly influenced by Rasputin. The Russian army had not been trained properly, and it was not as technically developed as the western ones. This led to Russia suffering an excessive number of casualties. The situation in the country was highly affected under these conditions.
On February 23rd of the Julian calendar, women went out to the streets in order to celebrate the International Women's Day. The next day, soldiers and workers joined the women in the protests. Troops were sent to put down the disorders; however, they joined the protesters. The government lost control of the situation. On the 3rd of March, Nicholas II abdicated from the throne. This got Russian revolutionaries' hopes high for a new Russia. The members of the duma formed a provisional government, which was supposed to hold power until a Constitution was made. However, they had relations with the Petrograd Soviet, council elected by workers and soldiers, which was dominated by Socialist-Revolutionary & the Marxist Party. It was way more radical than the provisional government but supported the idea of war. The Bolshevik party was led by Lenin, and their slogan was simple: Bread, Peace & Land! The situation in Russia was worsening, which made the Bolshevik party increasingly appealing to the people. In July 1917, troops went against the protesters in the street and arrested some Bolshevik leaders. Kornilov, the army commander-in-chief, sent his men to 'restore the peace' in Petrograd.
The Bolsheviks succeeded in protecting the city and the troops were forced to either switch sides or retire. The Bolshevik party gained the majority in the Petrograd Soviet, and in October 1917, they stormed the government in the Winter Palace. From November on, a civil war occurred in Russia, which was fought between two big groups; the Bolsheviks and the Whites, who wanted the tsar back and had international support. One of the most iconic events in the revolution happened in this war: the Bolsheviks were in Yekaterinburg, where the tsar was staying with his family. It was July of 1918, and the Whites were approaching them. The Bolsheviks executed the tsar and his family. In 1921, the war was declared finished, being the Bolsheviks the victorious side. In 1922, the Soviet Union was created under Lenin's leadership. There is a tendency to classify war and revolution as two subjects to study together, as two, in one way or another, highly similar or, in some cases, equal concepts. There is, nonetheless, a crucial difference between the two. 90% of war has as an objective or reason either the conquest of foreign territories or the demonstration of a higher military power than a rival state. The states go to war when the head of the state finds it appropriate; this is, a person or a very limited group of people that usually represent a single ideology are the ones that decide for the civilians.
In a case of revolution, change is necessary, and those civilians within a state make the choice of driving that change. Even when it is the head or the government of a state the one or ones that decide for the country to go to war, they are not the ones that actively participate in it, they are not risking their own lives for their nation to be victorious. In a revolution; however, the revolutionaries do not only know what they are fighting for, but they identify with it. There is a perfect example of it in the case of the Russian Revolution. Russia joined the First World War against Germany, but the Russian people were not okay with that decision, and they showed it by standing up for themselves. Armed conflict is a very ambiguous type of event to classify as good or bad. There are many arguments in favor of armed conflict, as well as counterarguments. In both cases, there is no questioning that armed conflict creates a change, regardless of it being positive or negative. On the one hand, armed conflict can be seen as a positive matter. As already mentioned, conflict brings change, and among this change, development is often reached; whether it be moral, social or economic. Besides, the relations between the ally states most usually improves due to the fact that they have fought one or several mutual enemy states in the case of war. Enemy states' relationships are more ambiguous, but there are times in which, in the case of war, the problems between them are solved. In the case of revolution, the core problem of that state in which it happens is solved in the case of it being successful, which leads to the improvement of the social situation.
Nevertheless, there are as many or more bad consequences of armed conflict as they are positive. Firstly, armed conflict does not always bring improvement, and definitely not to everybody. Adding to this, the possible improvement armed conflict brings can be argued with a frequently asked question: does the end justify the means? In this case, I believe it does not. Improvement can be triggered by a large number of incidents, and by no means does this event have to be violent. Development is not always worth the lives lost in armed conflicts, and sometimes, the conflict is not what causes the development. Nowadays' Russia was not directly influenced by the revolutionaries' ideas, as the system created by them was not stable and durable enough as for it to last a century. As repeatedly stated, there is no doubt that armed conflict brings change and although, as has been mentioned before, it is not the only event capable of bringing positive change, armed conflict can be considered to cause development in economic, moral and social contexts. In economic terms, revolution can lead to a broad variety of situations, such as a radical change of the economic system, as happened in the Russian Revolution, in which communism was imposed. Nevertheless, it has not been proved to bring a huge change in the economic system; as the only economic system change ever was triggered by the Russian Revolution, which after a while, it went back to capitalism. Revolutions such as the Russian could be an important factor for economic development in a country since the citizens’ needs are being taken into further consideration and thus their well-being improves.
In the economy, especially in capitalist systems, the well-being of the worker is crucial for the production to be high, as the happier someone is, the more productive it becomes. This makes them a very valuable element in the economy. Leaving the positive results of revolution aside, armed conflict is a very expensive casualty. Not only from the economic perspective, but armed conflict also causes high levels of damage to a state or even a continent, when this conflict englobes larger territories. The situation changes when talking about war, as the costs are usually higher. In revolutions, the revolutionaries usually cause destruction in all ways possible, which causes costs to the government, as well as the lives of those who pass away in the streets. States, in most cases, send police force to deal with the revolutionaries, which, in one way or another, are another cost to be considered. Russia had it more difficult as the troops sent to stop the Bolsheviks joined the revolutionaries in several cases; making the police cost even bigger and the economic situation even more unbearable.
In Russia, the economy was not just a long-term positive change that occurred because of the revolution that took place; but the cause of such revolution. In this case, the high cost of war is more than obvious. In the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a highly underdeveloped state that had not have the previous century’s industrial revolution and was way behind the West European states, most of the population still being extremely rural. This had as a consequence the low-class workers’ misery, while the higher classes enjoyed the luxury and richness produced by those agonizing farm and newly-created-factory workers. This economic situation worsened when Russia entered World War I, which meant that lots of resources and money were going to be destined to the war. Military cost, armament, vehicles used to move from one place to another… were extremely expensive, causing the lower classes’ situation to go worse.
Therefore, even if, in the short term, it can be seen as a negative incident; armed conflict has not only been positive but sometimes necessary for a states’ economic system in the long term. As the war materials are getting increasingly more sophisticated and thus not only more expensive but more destructive, direct conflict between developed states, especially those with nuclear weapons is not likely to happen at any moment soon. The conflicts nowadays and in the future are likely to be fought by slighter conflicts between the developed states in underdeveloped countries, trade wars such as the one happening between China and the USA and threats, just like in the Cold War. As for the moral aspect, Karl Marx was a heavy inspiration for Russian revolutionaries. As explained in his works, he believed society was controlled by economy and divided in two groups: the oppressed and the oppressors. The two groups have exited throughout history, in all economic systems (I.E. the oppressors in the feudal systems were the landowners and the oppressed were the servants). He believed that the one group that had the means of production were the ones constituting the oppressing group. For him, that was history; the class struggle. Before explaining history according to Marx, there is a need to explain how he saw society: he divided it in two structures: the structure, made up by the economic relations (between the owners of the mans and their workers, between the workers and the production means etc.); and the superstructure, which consisted in the law of a society, its moral values and the culture. The oppressors, as they controlled both the structure and the superstructure, they could control the mind of the society, as they controlled the moral values of it, its laws, its educational system…
This way, the oppressors stayed on power, as they raised their children with a mindset destined to defend nothing but their own interests. Marx lived in an industrialized society, in 1800s England; which made his thesis revolve mostly on the new capitalist society where the capitalist or the businessman was the oppressor and the proletary were the oppressed group. History’s process, Marx explained, was always the same. Some members of the oppressed group would come to the realization that they are being controlled by the oppressing class, and would make a revolution that would make them the oppressing group. Some could think it would go on forever, with the roles of the groups changing back and forth. However, Marx believed, this long process had an ending. As mentioned before, Marx lived in a capitalist society, that is why he based most his theory in his situation. He believed the world’s proletary would get to an agreement and stand up for themselves all at once, creating the biggest revolution ever happened. This would not switch the groups’ roles, but would completely erase both groups and create a society in which everyone was equal, regardless of their social status. That would be the point in which communism was achieved. As is understandable, Marxist ideas had a huge impact on the Russian revolutionaries. However, the communist system built up after the revolution was not effective enough as for it to collapse. Marx would argue that the revolution was not the way it should have been.
The revolution that would put an end both to the capitalist society and to history as Marx described it needed to be done by all the workers worldwide, for it to happen in a single state would cause nothing but the roles to switch. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, in which Lenin established an authoritarian state and later Stalin became the very praised and at the same time despised leader of the communist dictatorship. Nevertheless, even if the revolution resulted way too bloody for it to be justified, such incidents and especially the debates they create can be a huge help for the people to get an idea of what is morally acceptable to do and what is not in situations such as the Russian one. Moreover, the consequences such a corrupt and unjust political system are likely to bring are also very visible, which is useful for political philosophers to see the flaws of such system and try to eliminate the negative aspects of it. Revolution have been considered a milestone in modern world history, as they are a call of the people to the states for them to listen to their voice. They are the events in history that are not exclusively about the states’ actions but about the citizens’. A nation to come together to fight a common enemy is something very unique in modern history as a common goal is agreed on and even if this goal is not achieved, it is very impressed to see such a big group of people fighting for it. The Russian proletary started gathering and organizing events with the idea of achieving a better-quality life.
More and more people started relating to those workers’ wishes and joining the movement, until a revolution as big as the Russian Revolution happened, which ended up with the creation of a completely different political and social system. Armed conflict, and especially revolution can be seen in multiple cases as a trigger for positive change in society, regardless of the devastating economic, demographic and social it may bring. In the case of war, the development it might bring to society are by no means comparable to the destruction and misery it brings in all cases. Revolution, on the other hand, apart from the lower level of devastation it hardly always causes if compared to war, it consists of the people fighting for their wellbeing and their nation’s situation to improve. War only happens whenever two states have an issue that most of the times concerns no one else than the heads or the governments of those states.
However, it is the people who has to fight for the interest of their governor. In no case are not war nor revolution a good thing because the consequences are in a bigger scale negative than positive. However, revolution, being a fight of the people, is justifiable enough because as the state does not interfere with all the armament, the damage is way smaller. War always causes a lot more damage because the war materials are way more sophisticated, making it more expensive and more capable to bring destruction. To sum up, armed conflict is indeed a factor leading to improvement, but it is overly devastating, especially taking into account that conflicts do not necessarily have to be violent for them to have an impact in society.
Stuck on your essay?
