Is Revolution Necessary For Change?

Page

Next Last

nandini

@Riddikulus

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 16 years ago

More often than not, when one thinks change, one thinks revolution...as a means to bring about change at a larger magnitude than perhaps another form of effort could, in real terms...and it is also equally often that a revolution begins with an ideal, and loses it along the way, with just a shell of it left for its partakers to feed on...one of the characteristics of revolution, more often than not, again, is violence...for instance the Anti-Catholic Revolution in the 1930s in Latin America...Mexico, to be precise...where Catholic Churches were shut down, and Priests gathered at the cemetery walls to be shot dead, as representatives of an archaic world order, preaching all the most reductive ideals to its followers, and blinding them to reality...executions were carried out in the name of saving mankind...and yet, the conditions under which 'mankind' lived within their very borders was on of total suffering...and a large part of that suffering was on account of the revolution carried out in their name...people killed for protecting priests' whereabouts, giving them shelter...taken hostage till their villagers spilled the truth on where they've see particular priests on the run, or shot dead in any case, only to be succeeded by more hostages, and more killings...and at the end of it all, their faith in the religion did not die out...they were left in a void of meaningless existence, waiting for the day they would perhaps be given the 'better' life they had been assured...because the revolution gave them no life at all, and the life they had lived with their faith intact and not hidden behind closed doors and smuggled religious texts, was what it took away from them...

this is, of course, just one isolated example, and cannot and should not be used as a generalised point of view...but it is true of most such radical revolutions, particularly in less prosperous areas of the world, that they are accompanied primarily by violence and conviction in the Cause arising more out of indoctrination than genuine belief...

What are your views on the question of revolution per se? violence as a part of revolution? and the nature of what a revolution can really achieve, in terms of the ideal it starts out with?

I know it's a very vast and vague question, but i decided to place it open for comment in any case...with as many different dimensions as it may invite...

cheers! 😃

Edited by nandinidev - 16 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

nuomi.riceball

@nuomi.riceball

Sparkler

Posted: 16 years ago

revolution is not necessary for changes, take for example the british. they changed to democracy by reformation and not revolution

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

Originally posted by: rongna
revolution is not necessary for changes, take for example the british. they changed to democracy by reformation and not revolution

The Magna Carta was not a result of peaceful negotiation, but one of armed rebellion.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

Some say that 'permanent peace is possible through violent revolution'. I'm not sure how much weight that statement deserves. I personally am a pacifist and the thought of 'violent revolution' does not sit down well with my ideals.

However, history is witness that revolution is essential for change. Without revolution the world remains static and change does not occur. I am not sure if violent revolution is necessary, or that if revolution can take place peacefully alone. But with history as witness, both violent and peaceful revolutionaries have been essential catalysts to the changing times witnessed.

The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution even our own Indian Independence movement saw peaceful negotiators and violent warriors fighting for common cause. Ideally I can say the revolutions would have eventually been successful through peaceful means, but no one can guarantee a better history by eliminating the violent revolutionaries. In fact they are equally as essential in the change that was achieved if not more.

Even in modern times the fight against apartheid and other civil rights issues, would not be the same without the occasional extreme revolutionary. Sometimes it takes more to make a point.

Revolution does not always have to turn violent. The 1960's counter culture is example of a generation of a peaceful iconic cultural revolution that changed the world.

But then is non violent revolution really possible - General Dyer did order fire on a peaceful gathering, and the American army shot their own at Kent State. I think it is in human nature to pull the trigger - question is just which side will pull first.

Quote

Shambo

@Shambo

Inactive

Posted: 16 years ago

Yes, revolution to create the illusion of change for the masses is necessary.

Rape, murder, robbing etc. against the enemy is morally acceptable. When it is over, we realise our faults, but we have moved foward. 😊

Quote

nandini

@Riddikulus

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 16 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Some say that 'permanent peace is possible through violent revolution'. I'm not sure how much weight that statement deserves. I personally am a pacifist and the thought of 'violent revolution' does not sit down well with my ideals.

However, history is witness that revolution is essential for change. Without revolution the world remains static and change does not occur. I am not sure if violent revolution is necessary, or that if revolution can take place peacefully alone. But with history as witness, both violent and peaceful revolutionaries have been essential catalysts to the changing times witnessed.

The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution even our own Indian Independence movement saw peaceful negotiators and violent warriors fighting for common cause. Ideally I can say the revolutions would have eventually been successful through peaceful means, but no one can guarantee a better history by eliminating the violent revolutionaries. In fact they are equally as essential in the change that was achieved if not more.

Even in modern times the fight against apartheid and other civil rights issues, would not be the same without the occasional extreme revolutionary. Sometimes it takes more to make a point.

Revolution does not always have to turn violent. The 1960's counter culture is example of a generation of a peaceful iconic cultural revolution that changed the world.

But then is non violent revolution really possible - General Dyer did order fire on a peaceful gathering, and the American army shot their own at Kent State. I think it is in human nature to pull the trigger - question is just which side will pull first.

Well said, and agreed to the most part. 😊

I suppose Revolution by its very nature consists of both approaches, the violent and the pacifist. And i guess they're both also essential for it to move forward towards its ideal. The one issue that is left unaddressed, however, is that the process of achieving that ideal can often be quite hard on the masses, in whose name the revolution is carried out, and without whose support it cannot have the desired impact. Revolution must involve the masses in order to make a decisive enough statement and push for change, but what if it is also the masses who suffer at its hands? Although here i must make a distinction between revolutions which are truly in the interests of the people, and those that are in the interests of a particular group of people, with a particular ideology, taking it upon themselves to indoctrinate whatever sections of society they can, and push for change 'in the interests of humanity at large'. I think that is the kind of revolution i have a hard time coming to terms with, especially if it comes at the cost of the lives it pretends to 'save'. An argument often given in favour of something like the killing of hostages in Mexico or the likes, is that it is a small evil in order to bring about a larger good. What are your views on that? just curious to know.

I do agree with the fact that Revolutions have played a major part in bringing about decisive change in the world. It is also a fact, however, that the idea of Revolution is something that is very often misused, especially in areas not so abundant with education, awareness, and to some extent prosperity, in terms of the conditions of living, where it can often be more tyrranical than enlightening. Which is where the problem lies, for me.

Cheers! 😊

Edited by nandinidev - 16 years ago

Quote

nandini

@Riddikulus

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 16 years ago

Originally posted by: Shambo
Yes, revolution to create the illusion of change for the masses is necessary.

Rape, murder, robbing etc. against the enemy is morally acceptable. When it is over, we realise our faults, but we have moved foward. 😊

Okay, so are you saying that Revolution brings about only an illusion of change, and not change in any real terms?

And, oh my...rape, murder, robbing is morally acceptable...?! okay, maybe that's your point of view. Personally, I tend to keep in mind that the 'enemy' consists of human beings, just like me. They may not think the way I do, or agree with what I say, but i don't think I can ever find anything morally acceptable about raping or murdering anyone, enemy or no enemy.

Quote

nandini

@Riddikulus

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 16 years ago

Originally posted by: rongna
revolution is not necessary for changes, take for example the british. they changed to democracy by reformation and not revolution

As already pointed out, the move towards Democracy was not such a peaceful one even in Britain. As an alternative instance, do you think India would be independent today had there not been a nationwide struggle for it? 😊

Edited by nandinidev - 16 years ago

Quote

nuomi.riceball

@nuomi.riceball

Sparkler

Posted: 16 years ago

Originally posted by: nandinidev
Okay, so are you saying that Revolution brings about only an illusion of change, and not change in any real terms?

And, oh my...rape, murder, robbing is morally acceptable...?! okay, maybe that's your point of view. Personally, I tend to keep in mind that the 'enemy' consists of human beings, just like me. They may not think the way I do, or agree with what I say, but i don't think I can ever find anything morally acceptable about raping or murdering anyone, enemy or no enemy.

it's not that i'm trying to condone revolution and violence but most of the time through history changes can only take place after revolution and violence.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#10

Originally posted by: nandinidev

I do agree with the fact that Revolutions have played a major part in bringing about decisive change in the world. It is also a fact, however, that the idea of Revolution is something that is very often misused, especially in areas not so abundant with education, awareness, and to some extent prosperity, in terms of the conditions of living, where it can often be more tyrranical than enlightening. Which is where the problem lies, for me.

Cheers! 😊

Revolution brings about change, but it can be positive or negative. It does depend on who leads the revolution. The American revolution and Indian freedom movement led to freed nations. However, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution took place because the growing aristocracy wanted power from the royals. They used the peasants to lead their revolution and then the aristocracy usurped power. Real freedom and equality did not occur till later. And its a problem the Soviet Union still struggles with.

Revolution can be a double edged sword and the change can be detrimental. Its upto the people to realize, what is it I am fighting for, whats it worth to me and humanity.

Quote

1 2

Is Revolution Necessary For Change?

Related Topics

Explore Topics