rev·o·lu·tion
/ˌrevəˈlo͞oSHən/Noun
1.A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.
2.(in Marxism) The class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of communism.
Is a revolution needed to effect real change in a corrupt government?
Personally, I think it might be. When a government becomes destructive of the rights of its citizens and politicians don't really care about making things better for the citizens that elected them and care more for lining their pockets with money, there's a problem.
When that problem isn't solved by electing different people, and only serves to further aggravate the problem with no real solution in sight. That's when I think that a revolution may be needed.
I think there's some potential for real debate here so go nuts.
Sorry for such a short OP, I'm pressed for time.
I completely agree. If people we voted are destructive for the nation and it's inhabitants, and new elections don't change anything. Revolution might be the only way. "You trusted us with power not we're giving it back to You, the people", why isn't it this simple?
If you ask me every government is corrupt in a way, only some show it more than others. The Swiss and Norway are a nice examples of how the government should treat its inhabitants.
What sort of revolution are we speaking about?
Imo, violent revolutions (especially ones lead by vanguard parties) are highly violent and don't actually change the composition of power a great deal (for instance, the French, American and Russian revolutions, plus those of 1830 and 1848).
With the tension rising between "west and east" and people growing more and more aware of what happens around the world 24/7 basically, there might even be a revolution in sight. Hopefully it will be beneficial, or revolutionizing, for us.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39843879]With the tension rising between "west and east" and people growing more and more aware of what happens around the world 24/7 basically, there might even be a revolution in sight. Hopefully it will be beneficial, or revolutionizing, for us.[/QUOTE]
West and east?
Revolutionizing?
theres a certain limit where you are abused by the state and you should be able to defend yourself
generally speaking though, revolutions tend to be ineffective because people simply dont read enough books and are sort of unorganized
reading books is probably a lot more effective than picking up a rifle
Revolution would just restart a cycle that is overstaying it's welcome, in the end, any authority will become corrupt eventually.
all revolutions are bad
prove me wrong
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Kentz;39844021]theres a certain limit where you are abused by the state and you should be able to defend yourself
generally speaking though, revolutions tend to be ineffective because people simply dont read enough books and are sort of unorganized
reading books is probably a lot more effective than picking up a rifle[/QUOTE]
A lot of people don't (or never will) have the ability and willpower for these sorts of things.
Of course, people claim "oh we just need to raise consciousness".
This has yet to happen.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39845230]all revolutions are bad
prove me wrong[/QUOTE]
British revolution? Kinda got america's freedom.
Revolutions rarely work for more than a few decades before the government returns to it's state before the revolution.
They are in turn pointless
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;39848950]British revolution? Kinda got america's freedom.[/QUOTE]
There has never been a British revolution though?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39849206]There has never been a British revolution though?[/QUOTE]
He means the American Revolution. Context, man.
[QUOTE=TH89;39850289]He means the American Revolution. Context, man.[/QUOTE]He might have meant the Revolution of 1688. It can be seen as a significant step for the American Revolution itself more than a century later.
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;39848950]British revolution? Kinda got america's freedom.[/QUOTE]
it was bad, the colonists ended up worse off than had they stayed within the empire
[editline]9th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=kamikaze470;39851210]He might have meant the Revolution of 1688. It can be seen as a significant step for the American Revolution itself more than a century later.[/QUOTE]
eh I wouldn't really call it the Glorious [I]Revolution[/I], more like the Glorious Coup d'Etat
plenty of coups ended well, and I think the "glorious" moniker is justified
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39852814]it was bad, the colonists ended up worse off than had they stayed within the empire[/QUOTE]
No they didn't? Please explain this.
[QUOTE=kamikaze470;39851210]He might have meant the Revolution of 1688. It can be seen as a significant step for the American Revolution itself more than a century later.[/QUOTE]
But Sobotnik said there's never been a British revolution, implying he doesn't know about the Revolution of 1688, which means there would only be one possible option 8L
Also, it's just kind of a stretch, if he's saying it "got America's freedom" it's a pretty fair bet he's not talking about that.
[QUOTE=TH89;39867330]But Sobotnik said there's never been a British revolution, implying he doesn't know about the Revolution of 1688, which means there would only be one possible option 8L
Also, it's just kind of a stretch, if he's saying it "got America's freedom" it's a pretty fair bet he's not talking about that.[/QUOTE]
The glorious revolution wasn't a revolution at all though. It was literally the prior monarch fleeing the country when a Dutch claimant came over.
[QUOTE=Liem;39849097]Revolutions rarely work for more than a few decades before the government returns to it's state before the revolution.
They are in turn pointless[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Revolution[/url]
Pretty much this. Most times the new regime that over threw the old one are more tyrannical than before.
-nope
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - 3rd Offense" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;39848950]British revolution? Kinda got america's freedom.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the way you look at it.
a) it gave more local power to local governments
b) it generally cemented the power of those that were in local power prior to the revolution
c) it generally led to a degrade of position of the natives
d) it had fairly negative impacts on large portions of the population
e) it was one cornerstones of the european nationalist and human rights movements
It's really hard to say if the US war of independance was actually good or bad in the long run.
As to a british revolution, not entirely sure which you mean? The puritans taking power? The sort of coup d'etat which happened or one of the other minor ones
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39845770]A lot of people don't (or never will) have the ability and willpower for these sorts of things.
Of course, people claim "oh we just need to raise consciousness".
This has yet to happen.[/QUOTE]
it's happened many times. france, the usa, russia, spain, germany, etc.
you can make the claim that most revolutions that have happened have been bad, but that doesn't mean people can't become agitated with power structures in their lives. it has happened many times before and manifested in many different ways.
also, what is the minimum you define as a revolution? would an anarchist organization of 20 people taking authority over their own living space and food production be considered a revolution? would a small group of people deciding to be autonomous from the government be a revolution? that's actually one of the core values of anarchism. trying to theorize about worldwide revolution is a great fantasy, but you have to put revolutionary values into your daily life first and foremost. the revolution is not some grand national thing; the revolution happens in the family, the community, the school.
by that definition, anarchist revolution has been fairly successful around the world. by any other definition you are probably right, revolution is generally bloody and eventually creates the same sort of power structures that were present before the revolution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
