Revolutions In Crane Brinton's The Anatomy Of Revolution

In his book The Anatomy of Revolution, Crane Brinton describes revolutions as an illness that can be analyzed by discovering the precursors of such events. In this regard, he would argue that revolutions are not necessarily a good thing and something that can be avoided. Brinton specifically investigates the English, American, French, and Russian revolutions to dissect each one and discover the symptoms that lead to it. The Anatomy of Revolution is thus broken into the three phases that he defines as making up most revolutions: the symptoms, the fever, and when the fever breaks.
Reading Brinton’s approach on the causes of revolutions make the book difficult to follow. Brinton focuses on the use of the Scientific Method to analyze his theory.

He explains that the ever-growing concern in government leadership and the mumblings of revolution and regime change, many governments still failed to compromise. He points to Charles I as an example who desperately conceded to the House of Commons demands however now emboldened “refused to grant the King the usual forms of customs revenue” (70). In several instances, governments tried unsuccessfully to reorganize government and make it more centralized. Brinton argues that in all cases this proved futile and governments like those in England under Charles I were forced into civil war. Importantly he points to the notion that “you must have violence before you can label revolution as begun” (74) yet uses the American revolution as an example to contradict this point when he says, “that the American revolution really began in 1765 with the Stamp Act” (72). Unfortunately, the American revolution is the only case he describes in this book as the others faced civil war or revolts like those described in Russia. Interesting enough, Brinton also suggests that the planning that goes into a revolution has little effect on the outcome of it. In Russia, Brinton states that the revolution “got under way with great speed” (75) just from a series of results. He also points out the debate on whether Bastille Day was organized or not. The planning for the revolutions in England and colonial America came from organized committees. In the

Brinton would have you believe that economics made up and large portion of reasons for a revolution. Overall, I would have to agree with Brinton’s argument, he pointed out several cases in which class and economics played a role in the beginnings of a revolution. Again, I stress the difficulties in reading this book though, I think that Brinton’s arguments were diluted with redundancy. It was easy to get lost in the chapter and I found myself having to reread certain passages. His approach to the topic and use of the Scientific Method was interesting at first and a little confusing. The Scientific Method when in use in science can be applied to everything, however Brinton contradicts his own use of this method when he talks about scrutinizing the fascist revolutions or the democratic revolutions. Despite my belief in his research bias, I do believe that the addition of the American Revolution to his book helped strengthen his overall argument also providing some contrast and stark comparisons to the other revolutions. I found it interesting that he pointed out the inaccuracies of the taxation argument in the colonies also indicating that these revolutions had not happen under failing economies. Strangely enough, it draws some concern when looking at today and the strong economy of the United States yet the large deficit at the hands of the