In last night’s reading from CCR, it is mentioned that “social revolutions are rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures” and are often carried through by class-based revolts. According to Skocpol, the revolutionary image is dominated by the idea that changes in social systems or societies give rise to grievances, social disorientation or interests that can be mobilized with the aid of ideology and organization and be used to overthrow the existing government. However, Skocpol is careful in defining revolutions as being mass-led and having a deep revolutionary fervor. Instead, she seems to emphasize that revolutions are made possible through through opportunities created through revolutionary leadership and socio-economic and socio-political atmosphere.
With regards to revolutions, it is often oriented around class which can be based on various terms either economic, intellectual, etc. But how can this be completely erased? In Singapore, the government attempts to promote meritocracy which is a political philosophy that economic goods or power should be vested in individuals “on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement, rather than factors such as sexuality, race, gender, or wealth”. To some extent, one can call this a natural aristocracy. Logically, this would make sense but in recent years the class divide has grown larger in spite of the establishment of meritocracy. According to an article from Channel NewsAsia, one of Singapore’s leading news broadcasters, “Some 91 per cent thought the former (upper class) were arrogant, versus 35 per cent who thought that of the latter (lower class). People also thought someone from the upper class was likelier to be luckier than someone from the lower class (90 vs 48 per cent). These are more than just perceptions, however; they also affect interactions between the different ends of the divide”.
This has since spurred a sense of “equalism”. Equalism in this sense can be defined as an attempt to create an atmosphere whereby people of lower talent are now classified as being on the same level as their more advanced counterparts. An example would be the government’s claim that “neighborhood schools” are as good as “elite schools”. Socially, the former was seen as a place destined for poor, degenerate, or “not-smart” students whereas the latter is seen as a place for the rich, academically talented, and children of parents who rank high in the political or business spheres. Personally, I believe that while it is a good attempt to make the majority of kids feel good and confident for their future ahead, I believe that it is an attempt to undermine the natural advancements which some of us hold in the hierarchy. Based on my opinion and what I mentioned previously, who do you think will be the one to launch a revolution? Those who want to gain more power or the ones who are about to lose their power and wish to protect it and ensure the natural order of things?