User:Shayanr5/sandbox

Origin
The term “Armchair revolutionary” was conceptualized by a Russian philosopher named Nikolai Berdyaev. He used the word in a writing published in 1959. Berdyaev used the term to describe a former Russian philosopher and Marxist, Georgi Plekhanov. Berdyaev believed that while Plekhanov could lead the Marxist school of thought, he would not be capable of leading a real revolution, thus labeling him an “armchair revolutionary”. Berdyaev’s use of the term armchair revolutionary, became an intriguing area of study and evolved significantly over time. The term is often used in a multitude of ways, referring to a specific revolutionary or activist group of people. Armchair revolutionaries are often described as people who continually criticize the ideologies, thoughts or practice of social movements or groups from a metaphorical armchair. To expand, they are doing it from an inactive or theoretical position. Because their position is a hypothetical or theoretical, they are considered “armchair revolutionaries,” rather than real ones. To refer to someone as an “armchair revolutionary” is often seen as a term of abuse or criticism. It often evokes a defensive position from those who are referred to as armchair revolutionaries, as their political stances or defences are being discredited. Furthermore, the meaning of armchair revolutionary is that people know for real revolutions they must be physically involved, however they choose to be intentionally ignorant or dismissive of real-world problems. This creates a false sense of their worldview that they believe in and subscribe to. This leads to an idea that armchair revolutionaries view the world in an idealist manner, which is subject to their own perception rather than absorbing the practical and physical reality around them. If armchair revolutionaries became conscious to their physical and practical reality, they have the potential to because actual activists in political and social causes. Today the term has evolved into slacktivists, slacktivism or keyboard commandos among a plethora of others. Armchair revolutionaries are still present in modern society. The rise of the Internet and social media has made it simple for people to critique and criticize from the “armchair” position. It is now easier than ever for people to commentate on societal revolutions and on goings, without actively being a part of them. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Internet and social media have been crucial in several modern revolutions and movements worldwide, such as the Arab Spring.

Examples
Over the past several years there have been many examples of armchair revolutionaries in social movements and political on goings. The rise of social media and new technologies have put a spotlight on social injustices and inequalities. One of the first modern examples of armchair revolutionaries was the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Occupy Wall Street was a protest movement that began in September of 2011. The purpose of the movement was a protest against economic inequality worldwide. The protest wanted to shed light on the economic disparities and unequal distribution of wealth across the United States of America and also most countries around the world. The movement did bring about protests that assembled in on or around Wall Street, trying to bring about direct action rather than petitioning. The movement was able to attract global attention for several weeks before ultimately failing and fading away. The movement is not directly linked to armchair revolutions but it is related. The movement had many critics who openly condemned and degraded the movement. These critics can be considered armchair revolutionaries. As the protests went on, the critics grew louder and larger. They offered many different criticisms as to why the movement was not productive and would ultimately fail. However, many of these critics refused to partake or get involved in the actual protests. Instead they decided to take the position of armchair revolutionaries. They refused to physically get involved and took idealist positions on the issues of wealth distribution and economic inequality. This shows the divide between real and armchair revolutionaries. One group is trying to bring about actual change in their physical and practical world; the other claims to have all the solutions but refuse to get involved in the actual processes and therefore fail to bring about concrete change. This is the first of many modern examples of armchair revolutionaries and their practices. The movement was able to attract global attention for several weeks before ultimately failing and fading away. The movement is not directly linked to armchair revolutions but it is related. The movement had many critics who openly condemned and degraded the movement. These critics can be considered armchair revolutionaries. As the protests went on, the critics grew louder and larger. They offered many different criticisms as to why the movement was not productive and would ultimately fail. However, many of these critics refused to partake or get involved in the actual protests. Instead they decided to take the position of armchair revolutionaries. They refused to physically get involved and took idealist positions on the issue of wealth distribution and economic inequality. This shows the divide between real and armchair revolutionaries. One group is trying to bring about actual change in their physical and practical world; the other claims to have all the solutions but refuse to get involved in the actual processes and therefore fail to bring about concrete change. This is the first of many modern examples of armchair revolutionaries and their practices.

Another example of Armchair Revolutionaries can be the Black Lives Matter movement, which started in July of 2013. This movement is not directly an armchair revolution; there are thousands of active members seeking real change in the societies that they live in. The movement started after a string of police killings of innocent African-Americans. Three African-American women decided that these killings had to stop and that black people living in America needed to be treated equally and fairly in relation to their white counterparts. Social media users began using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, to bring attention to the unjust treatment of African-Americans. Although the movement has genuine momentum and is actively seeking change, there are hints of armchair revolutionaries and activists. The movement has copious amounts of support online, on social media and other Internet platforms. However, many of the online supporters are not actively participating in rallies and other events in the real world. Many critics have called Black Lives Matter supporters a form of “hashtag activism,” where most of the action takes place online rather than offline. Critics also claim that online activism is simply for the purpose of soothing egos and making users feel as though they are contributing. Many “hashtag activists” are not physically getting involved and therefore are heavily criticized for their lack of action. There are several examples of hashtag activists in recent times.

Controversy
There are many controversies surrounding Armchair Revolutionaries. One of the primary concerns regarding the practice is its effectiveness. People have questioned whether armchair revolutionaries have brought about actual change or if it is another form of slacktivism. Armchair Revolutionaries often use the Internet as a source for protest and revolt. With the emergence of social media, there have been several cases in the past few years regarding activism and revolution online. One of the popular movements and revolts in recent years is Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter owes much of its success and exposure to online platforms. The movement spread and gained allies as a result of the activists online. However, there has been much dispute whether those commenting and showing solidarity from their computers at home are actually making a difference. Columnist Lili Stenn stated “You posting that you, as a student of a given University “stand in solidarity” with black students at Missou or Ithica does not efface the same change as the students physically protesting and creating activist spaces at those institutions.

Continuing with the discussion of effectiveness, the Kony 2012 case can also be examined. Kony 2012 was a film created by Invisible Children, Inc.  with the intent to bring awareness and stop Ugandan Militia Leader Joseph Kony. The film went viral and was viewed by millions. The film did raise awareness of Joseph Kony and what was happening in Uganda, however the lasting impact was minimal. As with many online campaigns, the masses seem to lose interest rather quickly and therefore no real achievements were made in the Kony 2012 operation. Furthermore, research showed that Invisible Children was only donating one-third of the money raised during the campaign, while the rest went toward employees and expenses. In addition, several years removed from the campaign it has lost steam and the majority of people who were intrigued at first seemed to have lost interest.

Criticism
Armchair revolutionaries have often been criticized for their practices and ideologies. One of the major criticisms is that many armchair revolutionaries believe they are activists and helping a cause even from an inactive position. Armchair revolutionaries and activists believe that by making blogs and partaking in debates on social media, that they are contributing to a real cause. This is seen as problematic by activists who are vigorously involved and engaged with the real world around them.

One criticism is the disconnect between armchair revolutionaries and the people seeking to bring about actual change. One of the popular events in recent years was the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. People living outside of Egypt cheered and encouraged the revolutionaries during this time. Social media and Facebook specifically played a big role in this revolution. Social media acted as a starting point for the revolution to gain traction, however much of the success and results came when people took to the streets and demanded change. Armchair revolutionaries also fail to realize the long-term effects that are had in actual revolts. Revolutions in the Middle East tend not to bring about democracy or long-term changes, as a result of many underlying factors. For example, The Arab Spring set to bring about radical changes but several years removed and not much has changed.

Defence
There has been much criticism of armchair revolutionaries however there have been arguments made in their defence. Many have argued that armchair revolutionaries can play a specific role in regards to activism. Although they are not actively participating and engaged with the real world solutions, there are several ways in which they can help. One of the critical ways in which they can help is by spreading ideas and extending the reach of social movements (citation). Even from an inactive position, talking about an issue or movement can be critical to its success. By using social media to talk about events and movements, they often spread and reach the masses much quicker than without it. Studies have shown that by tweeting on Twitter or posting on Facebook, they can double the reach of core protestors. Armchair revolutionaries can also encourage and educate other people, which in turn can spawn action. Armchair revolutionaries may not be in the streets actively demanding change but they can increase the visibility for those who are and that is extremely helpful in many cases.

Many argue that armchair revolutionaries can set the foundation for real change to be taken. Just by discussing theories and ideas, armchair revolutionaries can set the framework for an actual social movement, so there actions are not always counter productive. Armchair revolutionaries often contribute constructive arguments and ideas. Although they are not willing to actively participate, their arguments and ideas can spark action in others. Armchair revolutionaries can indirectly effect and help real world revolutions.

In Culture
Armchair revolutionaries have become embedded in everyday culture. There are news articles regarding their activities and usefulness often. News outlets and social platforms discuss them at length and have tried to identify their role in society. The portrayals of armchair revolutionaries in culture are predominately negative and demeaning. Armchair revolutionaries and activists have increasingly become central to political and social discussions.

They were a topic of discussion in the United States presidential election, 2016. Many believed that armchair revolutionaries and activists played an integral role in the outcome of the election. Social media platforms were a central medium during the election and therefore opened the door for many inactive people to participate. Despite constant discussion and arguments online and from their armchairs, many Americans did not show up to vote; the turnout was around 55%, which was stated to be the lowest in 20 years. The low turnout shows the disconnect between people who were discussing the election and those who were actively involved in it. Many Americans were upset at the result of the election however failed to realize that it was due to their inactive positions and armchair activism. The election was a wake up call for many armchair revolutionaries and activists. This election showed that despite the amount of activity online and from armchairs, real change cannot be brought without real action.

Armchair Politicians
Armchair politicians are closely related to armchair revolutionaries. Armchair politicians are described as people who have poorly based opinions and do minimal research, yet blindly defend and argue them. They discuss political issues and on goings with a strong belief in their loosely based opinions. Armchair politicians are also heavily criticized for their actions and beliefs. They are often barely involved in the political sphere; yet believe that they have the knowledge and solutions that real politicians do not. Similar to armchair revolutionaries, they speak from an inactive position and refuse to actively be involved in the real political processes. Armchair politicians serve a purpose similar to those of armchair revolutionaries. While they may not be actively seeking a change, they can often spark debate and invoke thought in the public. They can serve as an oppositional figure, which challenges the dominant ideals and encourages others to take concrete action in political matters.

Armchair Socialist
Armchair socialists are another group of people who are closely linked to armchair revolutionaries. Socialism is an economic and societal structure that advocates for community regulation or ownership on the means of production, distribution and exchange. The term armchair socialist was created German economists of the 19th century. The German economists mocked academics that were advocating for social policy, calling them “socialists of the chair”. A simple definition of the term today is describing middle and upper class people who often discuss politics but are not politically active in any way. In addition, they believe in socialism but are doing nothing to help the cause. Similar to armchair revolutionaries, they do more talking than doing. Armchair socialists often exist in democratic and western world societies. Furthermore, they tend to exist in capitalist climates. The reason for this is that in these kinds of societies people are free to discuss political matters and there if often no backlash or punishment. Due to the freedom granted in Western democracies, the people within them feel comfortable sharing their ideals and solutions without having to act upon them. Armchair socialists actively engage and contribute to political discussions, but like armchair revolutionaries, they are inactive in the real world solutions to problems. Armchair socialists are reluctant to join protests and other demonstrations as they believe there will be no change either way. Armchair socialists look back on decades of protest and see that many of the issues still persist and are unchanging. They see that problems such as poverty, disease, crime, capitalism etc. have persisted generation after generation and therefore are unwilling to exert their energy on trying to change them. Armchair socialists tend to fall on the left wing (internal link) of the political spectrum. To expand, they are people whose political views are liberal and they support social equality and egalitarianism. Armchair socialists also often refuse to get involved in political matters, such as elections or reforms. They tend to remain inactive in many situations and believe their efforts are not necessary as they will be in vain.

Examples of armchair socialists can be seen globally. Specifically, in places such as the United States of America, Great Britain and Canada. Recent elections in many of these countries show the position which armchair socialists take. Armchair socialists will actively engage with the political debates and candidates, however are inactive when the voting commences. They often offer insightful and informative ideas but due to the lack of activity, fail to bring about any real changes.

Future
The future of Armchair Revolutionaries is an intriguing area of study in the current social and political climate. Going forward, armchair revolutionaries have many choices, which can determine the outcome of future societies. Armchair revolutionaries can continue to participate from idealist perspectives in which they critique and offer their say on social on goings from inactive positions. The other option would be to take up active positions in social and political movements, with the aim to bring about real revolutionary changes. The modern world and the future of activism lay in the hands of armchair revolutionaries. Moving forward, there will need to be greater demands from larger groups of citizens. The current landscape of activism and revolutionaries is proving to be insufficient and therefore there must be significant changes to the way citizens go about them. Armchair revolutionaries can have a say in the way the future is shaped and constructed, however they must move from their inactive positions to a space of practical action in the real world. Offering critiques and analysis from an armchair position is increasingly unproductive and practical changes demand practical action. Armchair revolutionaries must recognize the potential had for change and move into practical spaces to share their thoughts, ideals and opinions.

banana

fruit