5 ms·
> A lot of people say that "we should have made a revolution", what they mean is that the "free", externally imposed peaceful transition may not have been the b
by rue 16y ago
> A lot of people say that "we should have made a revolution", what they mean is that the "free", externally imposed peaceful transition may not have been the best thing in the long run.
I think you are concentrating on the wrong word: "peaceful" instead of "external". A revolution need not be violent, and either way it implies that there is a real chance a sufficient percentage of citizens is ready to move on from the current system although both violent and peaceful revolutions are prone to slipping back toward the old system or some other form of authoritarianism, for different reasons: violence also attracts the wrong elements whether in itself or as opportunists whereas a peaceful transition may not be able to remove all the remnants of the old system.
The fundamental idea, though, is that the society needs to be ready and willing to change internally. In a way, as much as it infantilizes people, when most of a nation has grown up with a powerful authority, it is hard if not impossible to go straight to relative liberty. Part of it is cultural, part of it is the seeming evolutionary human trait of being either submissive (most people) or dominant (few people). It takes some time for a submissive person to learn to fend for themselves, and as we see with "highly developed" societies today, many are still highly susceptible to needing leaders.
Of the famous recentish revolutions, it should for example be remembered that Marx stipulated the "communist revolution" should happen in the highly industrialised nations (ill-advised as the idea of armed revolution is). Russia in particular, a backwards agrarian empire, was about the last place he thought would be ready for it. And turned out he was right.
Edit: clarified wording of drawbacks of violent/peaceful revolutions.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Maro 16y agoThanks for the comment, you may be right wrt. to "peaceful instead of external".
- psyconn 16y ago> Of the famous recentish revolutions, it should for example be remembered that Marx stipulated the "communist revolution" should happen in the highly industrialised nations (ill-advised as the idea of armed revolution is). Russia in particular, a backwards agrarian empire, was about the last place he thought would be ready for it. And turned out he was right. Do not forget the marxist model was exported by Russia wherever it could (Easter Europe block pops in mind) and failed in every case even if the country was industrialised. It is just plain wrong. Even China ditched it and now has real chances of becoming a superpower.
- rue 16y agoChina was (at that time) also a pretty backwards agrarian empire after its more glorious days. I do not want to delve too far off-topic, but then you are talking about two completely different things: A) An internal revolution (borne out of people's desire to change their system in the idealised version); B) An already-failed-at-communism totalitarian state's external enforcement of totalitarianism upon a mostly unwilling populace. The latter will, of course, not work. The former might.
- bsk 16y ago>>Russia in particular, a backwards agrarian empire, was about the last place he thought would be ready for it. And turned out he was right. Hmmmm, communist regime turned the agrarian empire into world's 2nd industrial power, that won the biggest battles in human history and was the 1st to send robots and humans to space.
- eru 16y agoAnd killed off a sizeable chunk of the population. Russia until the first world war was one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, though from a low base. So you can't really compare, without a time machine.