Revolutions and “Maximalist Campaigns”. a Reconsideration

In recent years, we could see a sort of “Berlin Wall” between the studies of revolutions and “maximalist campaigns”. Though the researchers of revolutions and “maximalist campaigns“ tend to study (as we will demonstrate) essentially the same phenomenon, they appear to ignore each other's work (in our paper we present a few salient examples).

Is this a coincidence that the study of revolutions and “maximalist campaigns” yields so similar results (as we show in our paper)? Of course, this is not a coincidence, as both kinds of research study essentially the same processes. As we demonstrate, Erica Chenoweth, the creator of the Nonviolent And Violent Campaigns and Outcomes (NAVCO) relies on a definition of “maximalist campaign” that is virtually indistinguishable from the present-day definitions of revolution.

Note also that the NAVCO contains mostly the same events as the present-day most advanced database of revolutionary episodes, the one developed by Mark Beissinger. Thus, the researchers of revolutions and “maximalist campaigns” study essentially the same phenomenon. However, the “Berlin Wall” separating them negatively affects both camps. On the one hand, this leads to the dismissal of accomplishments of all four preceding generations of revolutionary theory by the students of “maximalist campaigns”/”organized resistance”/”civil resistance”/”dissident campaigns”/”civilian revolts”, without any justifiable rationale, which leads to the fact that those studies tend to produce rather theoretically shallow results. Meanwhile, the revolution students’ ignorance of the findings of the “maximalist campaign” research does not let them to understand how well the 21^st century revolutions have already been studied empirically.

We believe that both streams of the modern revolution research should be merged, which could lead to a real breakthrough in our understanding of revolutions and finalize the formation of the fifth generation of revolution theories.