← Back to Library

Mechanics of revolution

Most observers treat revolution as a singular, explosive moment—a lightning strike that shatters the old order overnight. Kamil Galeev dismantles this myth, arguing instead that true revolution is a slow, iterative process of internal elite self-destruction, where the original architects are inevitably sidelined by the very forces they invited in to win a petty power struggle.

The Illusion of the Single Blow

Galeev begins by challenging the popular imagination, which tends to fuse months or years of chaos into one snapshot event. He insists that power does not simply fall from the old regime to the new; it changes hands repeatedly. "Revolution never happens at once - by a single blow - but over the time, iteratively," Galeev writes. He illustrates this by noting that the Russian revolution of 1917-1918 actually comprised at least five distinct coup events, each radically transforming the landscape before the next one arrived. This framing is crucial because it shifts the focus from a heroic narrative of "the people rising up" to a mechanical analysis of political turnover.

Mechanics of revolution

The author argues that the individuals who execute the first coup rarely survive to govern the fifth. "People who executed the original coup on the iteration 1, rarely ever play any part in governance on the iteration 5," he notes. This observation holds significant weight: it explains why revolutionary regimes often betray their founding principles. The original actors are not just defeated; they are "memoryholed," forgotten because the agenda has shifted entirely to the new players who entered the game later. Critics might argue that this model underestimates the role of mass ideology in driving these shifts, but Galeev's focus on the mechanics of power transfer offers a compelling, if cynical, alternative explanation for why revolutions so often consume their children.

Revolution is not a storm that breaks the dam; it is the dam slowly crumbling from the inside as the engineers fight over who holds the keys.

The Geography of Power

A second pillar of Galeev's theory is the absolute necessity of extreme centralization. He posits that revolutions do not happen across a nation; they happen in the capital. "The French revolution does not happen in France. It happens in Paris," Galeev asserts. He extends this to the Russian experience, noting that the revolution occurred in St. Petersburg, not the vast empire surrounding it. The logic is stark: in a highly centralized state, the capital is the only source of political agency. If you control the capital, you control the country, because the provinces have been stripped of any independent political life.

This centralization creates a paradox. The very structure that allows a small group in the capital to rule the entire nation also makes that group uniquely vulnerable. "Long story short, revolution can only happen in a country where all the political life had been thoroughly extirpated, except for the national capital," Galeev explains. This means that once the center fractures, the entire system collapses with it, as the periphery has no mechanism to resist or offer an alternative. This is a sharp insight into why some highly centralized states collapse with terrifying speed while decentralized ones grind on through civil war.

The Entrepreneurship of Chaos

Perhaps the most provocative element of Galeev's analysis is his application of economic theory to political violence. He rejects the idea that power is seized by force against the wishes of the elite. Instead, he argues that outsiders are invited in. "Contrary to the popular delusion, taking the power 'by force'... is not a very common nor a very realistic scenario," he writes. The real engine of revolution is "political entrepreneurship," a concept he borrows from Joseph Schumpeter. Just as a business innovator introduces new factors of production to gain an edge, political elites introduce new social forces to defeat their rivals within the ruling circle.

Galeev uses a vivid analogy: an American businessman outsourcing production to Asia to beat competitors, only to find the contractors eventually taking over the business entirely. "You got completely sidelined, and thrown out of business, and that would have never ever happened unless you invited your future undertakers yourself," he observes. This dynamic explains the radicalization of revolutions. The elites, desperate to win an internal squabble, invite in outsiders who have no stake in the existing order. As the conflict escalates, these new entrants outbid the original elites, eventually taking over the entire political theater. The result is a government composed of people with "nothing to lose, and everything to gain," leading to the extreme policies associated with revolutionary fervor.

Critics might suggest that this model ignores the genuine grievances of the masses, reducing them to mere pawns in an elite game. While the masses certainly have their own motivations, Galeev's point stands that without the invitation and facilitation of the elite, these forces often lack the organization to seize the capital in a centralized state.

The radicalizing dynamics of a revolution are not driven by the people's anger, but by the elites' desperation to win a fight they started, only to realize they have invited in a force they cannot control.

Bottom Line

Galeev's "Mechanics of Revolution" offers a sophisticated, structural explanation for political collapse that moves beyond the simplistic narrative of "good guys vs. bad guys." Its greatest strength is the identification of "political entrepreneurship" as the catalyst that turns a palace coup into a total societal transformation. However, the theory's biggest vulnerability lies in its potential to downplay the agency of the lower classes, treating them almost entirely as tools of elite maneuvering rather than active historical agents. For the busy reader, the takeaway is clear: when you see a ruling elite frantically reaching outside their circle for support, do not mistake it for a movement of the people; it is likely the first step in their own obsolescence.

Sources

Mechanics of revolution

by Kamil Galeev · Kamil Galeev · Read full article

Today, I am going to introduce some basic ideas for the general theory of revolution

Notice, that I am not discussing any political change in particular, but laying the basic concepts that will serve as a groundwork for the future empirical discussions. For now, a bit of theory.

What do we need to know about the revolution?

First. That revolution never happens at once - by a single blow - but over the time, iteratively. A not bad first approximation for how does the revolution works in practice would be picturing it as a sequence of coups1.

Sequence. That means more than one.

The power doesn’t just fall from the hands of the old regime to the “revolutionaries”, but changes hands several times, before you reach any kind of stability at all. Some of these phases are passing so fast, that they are getting completely memoryholed later.

(For example, the Russian revolution of 1917-1918 included, at the very least, five coup-events, each of them leading to a radical transformation of the entire political landscape. So, although the popular imagination tends to fuse them all into a one singular event, that had not been the case, historically and chronologically speaking)

One implication of that principle being. People who executed the original coup on the iteration 1, rarely ever play any part in governance on the iteration 5 (or six, or seven). More often than not, they had been sidelined, forgotten and memoryholed long, long ago, and, therefore, will not be playing much role in the subsequent official narrative.

Second. Once we have established that revolution proceeds as a sequence of coups (albeit keeping in mind this is but the first approximation, and not an exhaustive description), we need to find out where are these coups happening, geographically speaking. Like, okay. There’s the first coup, second coup, third coup… Nth coup.

Where are they taking place? In which location?

It would be a great mistake to presume that all of these coup-events are spread more or less evenly, over the entire country’s territory. Not at all. By and large, all of these coups are localised in the political capital and its immediate vicinity, with the rest of the country following their lead.

(The French revolution does not happen in France. It happens in Paris, and in the Île-de-France. The Russian revolution does not happen in Russia. It happens in St Petersburg, and ...