The Unsettling Nexus: Revolution and the Arduous Pursuit of Justice

The relationship between revolution and justice is one of philosophy's most enduring and volatile inquiries. At its core, the connection lies in the desperate human impulse to rectify profound injustice when the established order, particularly the State, has failed, often catastrophically, to uphold the principles of fairness and equity. Revolution, in this context, emerges not merely as an act of rebellion, but as a radical, often violent, restructuring of society aimed at achieving a more just existence. This article explores the intricate philosophical underpinnings of this powerful dynamic, drawing from the profound insights of the Great Books of the Western World.

The Foundations of Justice and the Catalyst for Revolution

To understand the connection, we must first grasp the concepts individually.

Defining Justice

Justice, in its myriad interpretations, generally refers to the proper ordering of things, the fair distribution of rights and responsibilities, and the impartial application of law.

  • Plato, in The Republic, posits justice as a harmonious balance within the soul and the ideal State, where each part performs its function optimally.
  • Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, distinguishes between distributive justice (fair allocation of goods based on merit) and rectificatory justice (correction of wrongs).

When this proper order is fundamentally disrupted, when rights are systematically denied, or when laws are applied arbitrarily to the detriment of a significant portion of the populace, the very concept of a just society is undermined.

The Essence of Revolution

Revolution is more than mere revolt or civil unrest; it signifies a fundamental, often abrupt, and violent overthrow of an existing political, social, or economic system. It aims to replace the old order with a new one, driven by a vision of a better, more equitable society. The target of revolution is almost invariably the existing State and its governing apparatus, which is perceived as the embodiment or perpetuator of injustice.

The connection between these two becomes evident when the pursuit of justice reaches an impasse within the existing framework. When dialogue fails, when petitions are ignored, and when the machinery of the State actively suppresses legitimate grievances, revolution emerges as a last, desperate resort to reclaim or establish justice.

When the State Fails: The Legitimacy of Uprising

Philosophers have long grappled with the conditions under which a people might be justified in overthrowing their government. The legitimacy of the State often rests on its ability to secure the well-being and rights of its citizens. When it abrogates this responsibility, its authority is called into question.

  • John Locke, a towering figure in political philosophy, articulates in his Two Treatises of Government the concept of natural rights (life, liberty, and property) and the social contract. For Locke, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If a government acts tyrannically, violating these natural rights and breaking the social contract, the people retain the right to dissolve it and institute a new one. Here, revolution is a necessary act of self-preservation and the restoration of justice.
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, emphasizes the concept of the "general will." While he is wary of factions and particular interests, he posits that legitimate government must always aim for the common good. If the governing body deviates from the general will, or becomes oppressive, the people's sovereignty can be reasserted, implicitly justifying a radical change in governance.

The failure of the State to administer justice, to protect rights, or to serve the common good forms the philosophical bedrock upon which the call for revolution is often built.

(Image: A dramatic oil painting depicting Liberty leading the people during the French Revolution, with figures representing different social classes surging forward, banners unfurled, against a backdrop of crumbling state authority, symbolizing the violent pursuit of justice.)

Philosophical Perspectives on Just Revolution

The question of whether revolution can ever truly be "just" has provoked intense debate. Here, we examine key philosophical stances:

Philosopher Core Justification for Revolution Relationship to Justice
John Locke Violation of Natural Rights & Breach of Social Contract by the State. Revolution restores individual liberty and property, fundamental aspects of justice.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Deviation from the General Will; Usurpation of Popular Sovereignty. Revolution re-establishes the collective will as the source of legitimate law and justice.
Karl Marx Inherent Class Oppression within the Capitalist State; Historical Materialism. Proletarian revolution is necessary to abolish class structures and achieve true economic and social justice.

Karl Marx, whose ideas profoundly influenced 20th-century thought, presented a more deterministic view. For Marx, revolution is not merely an option but an inevitable historical process driven by class struggle. In Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto, he argues that the capitalist State inherently perpetuates injustice by exploiting the proletariat. A violent revolution is, therefore, a necessary step to dismantle this oppressive system and achieve a classless society, which he considered the ultimate form of justice.

The Perils and Paradoxes of Revolutionary Justice

While often born from a yearning for justice, revolution is rarely a clean or guaranteed path to it. The very act of overthrowing an established order is fraught with peril:

  • Violence and Chaos: Revolutions are typically violent, leading to loss of life, social disruption, and economic collapse. The means employed often clash with the very ideals of justice they seek to achieve.
  • The Problem of Successor Regimes: A revolutionary movement, once successful, may struggle to establish a truly just society. New forms of tyranny, factionalism, or corruption can emerge, leading to a cycle of injustice. History is replete with examples where revolutionary fervor devolved into new forms of oppression.
  • Defining "Justice" Post-Revolution: What constitutes justice for all parties once the old order is dismantled? The revolutionary victors' vision of justice may not align with that of dissenting groups, leading to new conflicts.

The connection between revolution and justice is thus a paradoxical one: born from the deepest desire for fairness, it often unleashes forces that challenge the very foundations of ethical conduct and stable governance. It is a testament to the profound human capacity for both idealism and destruction.

Conclusion: An Enduring Tension

The connection between revolution and justice remains one of the most compelling and unsettling themes in political philosophy. When the State becomes an instrument of oppression rather than a guarantor of rights, when systemic injustices become intolerable, the cry for revolution often rises from the depths of human suffering. Philosophers from Locke to Marx have, in their unique ways, articulated the conditions under which such a radical transformation might be deemed justifiable, or even inevitable.

Yet, the path of revolution is never simple, nor is its outcome assured. It is a desperate gamble, a testament to the human spirit's refusal to succumb to tyranny, but one that carries immense costs and uncertain rewards. The ongoing philosophical inquiry into this nexus compels us to continually examine the nature of justice, the legitimacy of the State, and the moral calculus of radical change.

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: "John Locke right to revolution"

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: "Karl Marx justice class struggle"

Share this post