[MUSIC]. [MUSIC]. In Week Four, we turn to wealth distribution and regime change, looking at the evidence for one of the most dramatic and successful revolutions of the 20th century. The Chinese communist revolution. This work is done together with Matthew Noellert, a third-year PhD student in history and anthropology at HKUST. Specifically from his research, also on Swanson [INAUDIBLE] in inland China. However, unlike previous weeks, which were based on well established books in the case of week one. Completed book manuscripts in the case of week two, or completed dissertations in the case of week three. Matthew's research presented here in week four is still ongoing both in terms of his own scholarship of discovery and our shared scholarship of integration. So let's begin by asking ourselves the question. If regime change is more frequent in poor countries than rich countries, is political instability more closely related to absolute poverty or relative poverty? In other words, are we going to find regime change more in places where the wealth distribution is so starkly, is so stark, that the majority of the population are extremely poor. Or we're going to find it in areas where the contrast between the poor, the have nots or have a littles. And the have nots and the haves, is so great, that it brings about ideas and motivations for people to demand regime change. For Karl Marx, the answer was simple, it's all relative. In 1847, almost, 150, 200 years ago he wrote, a house may be large or small as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small. It sort of emphasized all sorts of requirements for residents, but that there arise next to a little house, a palace, and a little house shrinks to a hut. And the little house now makes it clear that it's inmate has no social position at all to maintain or but a very insignificant one. And however high inmates shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure. The occupant of the relatively little house will always find themselves more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within these four walls. He concludes, I want some pleasures have their origin in society. We therefore measure them in relation to society. We do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature. In other words, for Marx, it's the relative distribution of wealth, not the absolute distribution of wealth, which leads to regime change. In Week 4, we look at the evidence, to see to what extent Marx's assumptions about the relationship between wealth distribution and regime change. [UNKNOWN] actually true, and we also access other validity in contrast with current Western social theory. Looking especially at a number of important political scientists and sociologists who in the third quarter of the twentieth century wrote a number of very influential works. about dictatorship, democracy, collective action, revolution. The, these there's noticeably four speaker's we'll be looking at in detail. Barrington Moore, Atheta Scotchbowl, Jeffrey Page, and Charles Tilly . And then we'll look at their contributions and contrast them with the contributions of actual revolutionaries of Marx, of Lenin, of Trotsky, and especially of Mao Zedong. Now, according to Moore, it was -- the question was not simply one of the relative distribution of wealth between the have-nots and the haves. Revolution, regime change, required a alliance of these haves with the have-nots. According to Moore, and I quote, "the notion that a large rural proletariat of landless labor is a potential source of insurrection and revolution as a general explanation simply will not do". In other words, simply the existence of a large population of have-nots, regardless of the size of the haves, does not lead to revolution. Rather for [UNKNOWN] requires the presence of urban haves, the bourgeoisie, to create a revolutionary situation. An important book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Moore suggests three possible models, a strong bourgeoisie, such as in England, France, and the United States, which lead to democracy. A weak bourgeoisie and a strong state, as a post [UNKNOWN] Japan and post-Prussian Germany, which lead to fascism. And the coalition of a weak bourgeoisie with a strong peasantry which is the Russia and China case resulted in communism. According to Paige and especially Theda Skoepol in her well known work States and Social Revolutions, in fact, the combination of have-nots and haves. Could lead automatically to what she called a social revolution. So the rapid and basic transformation of a society's state and class structure, which is different from a mere rebellion or revolt. For Skocpol, rebellions, revolutions are not made, they come because of the structural components. In other words, revolutionary outcomes are not just relative. They are structural and built in to the social system. By contrast, Charles Tilly writing almost at the same time in a book of equal importance From Mobilization to Revolution, posited the distinction between what he called revolutionary situations, and revolutionary outcomes. And revolutionary situations, do not necessarily always lead, as they do in Skoepol/g, to revolutionary outcomes. rather, according to Tilly they are a necessary, but not sufficient precondition for a successful revolution. Tilly argues that revolution outcomes that do not occur without extensive revolutionary situations. But revolutionary systems on their own do not necessarily produce revolutionary outcomes. And the classic Marxian tradition that collective action results from, the organization of production, common interests out of the organization of production. Rationality and identification of class actors, is something which, according to Tilly is simply by itself inadequate. That the transition from class in itself to class for itself doesn't arise spontaneously simply from below by request for Tilly as in the required that's thought to be required by revolution of themselves and organizing entity. For Lenin of course this was the Communist party were he filled the parties or the role of a vanguard. Which could simultaneously both politically agitate, organize and build up a military national organization that could effectively, finally achieve regime change. Both for Lenin however, and for Marx, this revolutionary potential did not come from the pen, from the peasantry, from the rural proletariat. It had to come from the urban. Marx described the peasantry as potatoes in a sack and Lenin equally said the peasantry need to be guided by the proletariat. They themselves thus constitute the proletariat.