ATRIUMsearch → argument graph
Audio · 2022-09-05 · 37m · 6 moments

Appendix 1- Coming Full Circle

The word revolution means coming full circle, so it seems like the best way to begin the end. Tour dates and links: Sept. 6 Madison -- Mystery to Me Sept. 7 Chicago -- Seminary Co-Op Sept. 8 Portland -- Powell's Books Sept. 9 Seattle -- Elliott Bay Book Company Sept. 12 Boulder -- Boulder Book Store Sept. 13 Denver -- Tattered Cover (Aspen Grove) Sept. 14 Dallas -- Interrobang Books Sept. 15 Austin -- Bookpeople Sept. 16 Houston -- Brazos Books Sept. 19 New Orleans ✦ AI generated

Apple Podcasts ↗
GUEST Mike Duncan

timeline · colored by role

01
Context

The word 'revolution' is fundamentally paradoxical: it literally means 'coming full circle' but is used to describe sudden, radical change into something new.

The host notes that the word 'revolution,' popularized by Copernicus to mean completing an orbit or coming full circle, is used to describe the opposite — overthrowing the old regime and setting out on a new path. He also corrects his earlier claim that Copernicus coined the word, noting pre-Copernican usage in Latin and Old French from 1390.

transcript

Mike Duncan: Because first of all, the word revolution, coined by Copernicus in 1543, is supposed to mean completing an orbit, coming full circle. Okay, so right off the bat, I would rewrite this opening to say something like, popularized by Copernicus, not coined by Copernicus. I'm looking at the Oxford English Dictionary right now, and they've got the first references to revolution coming out of Latin and Old French as early as 1390, with smatterings of additional references in the 1400s and early 1500s, all predating Copernicus.

02
Definition◆

A revolution uses irregular procedures to overthrow the existing regular procedures of power allocation and then imposes new regular procedures in their place, changing not just who holds power but why and how power is held.

Drawing on the Encyclopedia of Political Revolutions, the host defines a revolution by two characteristics: irregular procedures aimed at forcing political change, and lasting effects on the political system. He elaborates that a revolution doesn't just swap personnel — it changes the system itself, replacing the old rules of power allocation with new ones.

transcript

Mike Duncan: A revolution necessarily manifests from outside regular procedures and instead deploys irregular procedures to allocate power in a novel and heretofore illegitimate way. Now this could of course also apply to a mere coup d'etat, which is why the Encyclopedia of Political Revolutions requires that second condition, lasting effects on the political system of the society in which they occurred. Which is to say, it can't just be about swapping out political personnel, changing only the answer to the question, who holds power. A revolution also changes the system itself.

provides context · 1

03
Definition◆

A 'great revolution' combines a political revolution — the forcible displacement of the existing political structure — with a social revolution — the rapid transformation of economic relations and cultural hierarchies.

The host distinguishes between political revolution (changing how power is exercised, justified, and transferred) and social revolution (transforming economic relations, cultural hierarchies, and modes of production). When both occur together, he calls it a 'great revolution' — citing the French, Haitian, Mexican, and Russian Revolutions as examples.

transcript

Mike Duncan: A political revolution is when the existing structure of political power, that is to say how power is exercised, justified, legitimized, defended, and transferred, is displaced by a force originating beyond the bounds of that existing structure and replaces it with something different. Meanwhile, a social revolution is when the economic relations and or cultural hierarchies of a society, their personnel, rationalizations, habits, norms, obligations, and modes of production are rapidly transformed such that the society is reorganized in a fundamentally different manner.

extends · 1provides context · 1

04
Claim

The American Revolution was a political revolution but not a social revolution, because the social and economic structure of American society carried over largely intact from the colonial era to the early republic.

Applying his definitions retroactively, the host classifies each revolution covered on the podcast. The American Revolution is the clearest case of political revolution without social revolution: Americans used force to displace the existing political structure, but social and economic hierarchies carried over largely intact. In contrast, the French, Haitian, Mexican, and Russian Revolutions qualify as 'great revolutions' combining both types.

transcript

Mike Duncan: The social and economic structure of American society largely carried over intact between the colonial era and the early Republican era, so it's not a social revolution. But did the Americans use force originating outside the existing political structure to displace that structure and replace it with something different? Yeah, that quite obviously happened. The American Revolution was a political revolution.

gives example · 2

05
Claim

Revolutions cannot be explained by long-term structural forces alone or by individual choices alone — they require both: structural forces set the parameters, but contingency and individual decision-making determine how events actually unfold.

The host rejects the binary between interpretive camps that emphasize either slow-building socioeconomic tensions or individual calculations and miscalculations. He endorses a synthesis: long-term social forces set the parameters for action, but individual choices within those bounds dictate results. He links this to Marx's line that 'men make their own history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.'

transcript

Mike Duncan: Long-term social forces set the parameters for action, but they do not dictate the results. Individual choices dictate the results, but always within the bounds of those long-term social parameters. This is not a bold thesis, but I'm pretty sure it's how life goes. Now I still basically hold to this. And this is basically just a restatement of Karl Marx's line that men make their own history, but they do not make it in circumstances of their own choosing.

06
Claim◆

The revolutions covered on the podcast are not discrete national histories but one single interconnected revolutionary event playing out in different theaters — there are no histories, only history.

The host reflects on the most consequential change in his historical worldview over nine years: he no longer believes the revolutions are 'wildly disconnected' time periods. Instead, he came to see the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions as one single Atlantic Revolution, and that the continuity extended through 1848, the Paris Commune, Mexico, and Russia. Everything is connected, he concludes — there are no histories, only history.

transcript

Mike Duncan: I basically lost all faith in discrete national histories being able to even remotely answer the basic historical question, what happened? It probably started when I realized that there was no way to explain the French Revolution without explaining the Polish partitions, but then as I advanced into Haiti and Spanish America, I became fully consumed by the idea that this whole time I've just been describing one single revolutionary event playing out in different theaters. That there isn't an American Revolution and a French Revolution and a Haitian Revolution, but one single Atlantic Revolution.

Highlight slides
What Is a Revolution?✦ from: A revolution uses irregular procedures to overthrow the existing regular procedures of power allocation and then imposes new regular procedures in their place, changing not just who holds power but why and how power is held.Revolution vs. Coup d'État✦ from: A revolution uses irregular procedures to overthrow the existing regular procedures of power allocation and then imposes new regular procedures in their place, changing not just who holds power but why and how power is held.Two Types of Revolution✦ from: A 'great revolution' combines a political revolution — the forcible displacement of the existing political structure — with a social revolution — the rapid transformation of economic relations and cultural hierarchies.The 'Great Revolution'✦ from: A 'great revolution' combines a political revolution — the forcible displacement of the existing political structure — with a social revolution — the rapid transformation of economic relations and cultural hierarchies.There Are No Histories, Only History✦ from: The revolutions covered on the podcast are not discrete national histories but one single interconnected revolutionary event playing out in different theaters — there are no histories, only history.One Revolutionary Event, Many Theaters✦ from: The revolutions covered on the podcast are not discrete national histories but one single interconnected revolutionary event playing out in different theaters — there are no histories, only history.
Related episodes
Video · Lex Fridman

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire | Lex Fridman Podcast #498

→
Video · The Rest Is History

Conan O'Brien: Was America a Mistake?

→
Video · The TWIML AI Podcast

AI Factories Explained: What’s Actually New?

→