7 ms·

21H.001: How to Stage a Revolution

41 points by rms 17y ago

mahmud 17y ago
Such huge potential yet such underwhelming delivery. Just read their "Reading List" and was unimpressed by it: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/index.htm http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/... It's mostly academic, capitalist/liberal pseudo reflection and philosophy. And more than half of the people on that list are the dullest, most conservative and anything but revolutionary. The leftist literature has far more explosive, pin-point, HOWTO material. Instead, read Gramsci, Camus, Marcuse, and Arendt for the philosophy. Then see Battle of Algiers and read the revolutionary struggles and biographies of Che, Trotsky, Mao. Just studying Marxism is an individual act of revolution. The mental impact on one's mind, when you finally get it, is irreversible. "Class Consciousness" is a revolutionary virus of the mind.
- colins_pride 17y ago
  I would read even more recent stuff. I agree on Che. How about reading about Kevin Kelly and Louis Rossetto? Bob Hunter created Greenpeace out of nothing. Petraeus revolutionized the most powerful military in the history of the world. It's through a mix of ancient literature, philosophy and political economics that one gains perspective on human nature. And human nature does not, has not, and will not change. But the structure of the world evolves, making modern revolutionaries much more interesting. When I know what Kolakowski had to say about Marxism, I'm going to go move past Marx and spend more time on Popper who hasn't really been rebutted (to my knowledge) yet. Kolakowski -> http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14120114 http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...
  - mahmud 17y ago
    How about reading about Kevin Kelly and Louis Rossetto? Bob Hunter created Greenpeace out of nothing. Petraeus revolutionized the most powerful military in the history of the world. Now that you mentioned Petraeus, I see you're confused about what "Revolution" means in this context. The course is teaching actual political, armed-struggle type revolution. Big-R Revolution is very different from anything else. It's the popular uprising of a group of people and the assertion of their will upon, and demand for their rights from, another group they deem oppressive. Revolution derives its will from the people, and the people derive theirs from their group identity. No people, no revolution. Petraeus is a beauracrat; I don't see a nation of Petraeuses besieging the pentagon with small arms and demanding their birth right for a more efficient budget system. Bob Hunter is an activist, not a Revolutionary, for he still lacks the popular support of determined people who are willing to defend their home planet. He also lacks the Other; the target of his alleged Revolution. No opposing Other, no Revolution. Kolakowski is a Philosophe academic, plenty of pen-pushers to go around, frankly. I particularly avoided recommending the Western Marxists and academes because of their petty intellectualism. Good day, Sir.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      The late Bob Hunter (you are still speaking of him in the present tense, he died in 2005) may have created greenpeace out of nothing which was very commendable (it probably saved the whales, and - ironically - the whaling industry), but the greenpeace of today is now more of a marketing organization, not an activist platform. Fuel for their boats used to be the main operational cost, now it is media buys. Their CEO receives about 140K euros, which is a slight difference with an ideal driven activist. The people that support it do so from a strange mix of environmental consciousness and guilt (at least in my circle of friends). Some of its positions are just as shortsighted as those held by the industries that it opposes. That doesn't mean I'm against 'green', it's just that greenpeace has evolved to survive in a media driven society.
    - tayssir 17y ago
      I think this is too dismissive of other forms of revolution. I like Michael Albert's explanation of revolution, which is a fundamental change in at least one of a society's defining institutions. http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/2564 http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/2564 From this perspective, the 1953 US overthrow of Iran's parliamentary democracy (to install a monarch) was a successful revolution. And even a revolution with the best of intentions (which obviously wasn't the case with the 1953 revolution) won't necessarily result in an improved society. To the contrary, society might even regress. If a revolution suddenly occurred right now in the US, since we US citizens haven't laid the groundwork of serious popular organizing and institutions, we might expect a form of fascism to probably result.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Hm, maybe, but I would actually be most interested in how to overthrow communist regimes. Almost all dictatorships in recent times I am aware of started out with communism or socialism. Also, how much philosophy is really needed? I wonder how to overthrow a regime with a huge police force and secret police everywhere. Are there even any example where this happened without external forces? Maybe Rumania? In any case, it seems to be more a practical problem than a philosophical one.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    The object of a revolution is not usually to overthrow a regime, rather, it's to give political autonomy to the group. That's why secessionist movements are far more successful negotiating truce and power-sharing than insisting on imposing themselves over the entire region. The most important ingredient is the group self-identity; you can be unhappy with the State all you want, on your own, but you will have to convince your would be comrades that: 1) the regime is harmful. and 2) that they can govern themselves better. Philosophy is needed in that it gives the group a political framework they can use to imagine their Utopia governed by. A unifying philosophy is very important; if most people in the group can't see the future political rule being better than the current one, then there would be no mass popular movement. The IRA said they want Ireland as "another democratic European country" and it worked. In Palestine, half the people imagine their Utopia to be another secular Arab state, a la Syria and Egypt, while the other half wants an Islamic Republic, a la Iran. That's why it's easiest to kill a revolution from the inside, by introducing uncertainty to their philosophical foundation and spreading suspicion about the leading committee. The easiest revolution would be one forged under clear differences, say, based on race, language, or religion. Marxism was unique in that it was revolution based on class.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Many Romanians consider their revolution only a partial success. Many of the old party bosses made it into high spots in the government after the revolution, and continue in these positions to this date.
  - drags 17y ago
    1980-89 is pretty weak on their reading list, which would provide some insight to your question of how to overthrow a police state without external forces. Reading Timothy Garton Ash's work on Poland (The Polish Revolution is a good starting point) gives a lot of perspective into how a conservative Catholic majority can be the impetus for revolutionary change, and with greater earnestness than the dissident intelligensia at many times. For theory, Havel's work is a bit out there but definitely interesting. Try "Power of the Powerless" and "On Evasive Thinking" (it's in his Open Letters, I think); these are two of his best political theory essays. Havel's a bit of a contested figure, but I think it's fair to say that he roughly lives by the principles he expounded in his theoretical works, and that his emphasis on public dissent as a means of taking down authoritarian regimes heavily influenced other East Bloc dissidents.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Just studying Marxism is an individual act of revolution. The mental impact on one's mind, when you finally get it, is irreversible. "Class Consciousness" is a revolutionary virus of the mind. Thank goodness for a healthy mental immune system, then. Proponents of Marxist thought seem to believe that because they've found there's a different way of looking at the world that explains some things better than their default view, it must thus be correct in all respects. Pointing out that one has simply swapped one kind of tunnel vision for another tends to be poorly received. This is not to say the study of Marx is without value, but I'm being a lot kinder to Marxism here than Marxists are towards their perceived 'class enemies'. Anyway yes, the reading list is underwhelming. 4 works about Mao, but nothing by Mao himself, or by Che Guevara? Disqualifying fail. On Guerilla Warfare by Mao Tse-Tung Guerilla Warfare by Ernesto Che Guevara Coup d'etat: a practical handbook by Edward Luttwak The Authoritarian Specter by Robert Altermeyer On the psychology of military incompetence by Norman F Dixon That should see you through the practical end of things. 48 Laws of Power and other books by Robert Greene are good introductions to political strategy, along with Machiavelli's classic The Prince. A look at the aftermath of the French revolution is probably good idea as well if you intend to retire peacefully.
jdale27 17y ago
I hear the final project's killer.
- ynniv 17y ago
  Don't you mean "revolutionary"?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
plesn 17y ago
The true revolution changes social relations, changing people in power is quite superficial and it is foolish to blindly believe in it. Revolutions is the usual sense happen when current structures are so rotten that something else is needed, then some other form of social organisation prevails, often not really what was expected at the beginning (think russia in 1917 vs. russia after the civil war in 1921). But it is our role as humans to modify the world at our scale, to modify our ways of interacting with others and doing things to make the world a little better. Think of the changes between the middle age and now... there's so much room to do much better... At a bigger scale, for me, the next point is introducing more participative democracy in companies, especially big companies (they are truly the most prominent fascist-like organisations there...)
quizbiz 17y ago
This past year, senior year of high school, my history teacher based his curriculum on teaching us how to stage a revolution. He asked us to plan a revolution of the school, consider what/who needs to be revolted against, and how. It was entertaining at first and it made learning the Russian Revolution, the revolution in Argentina, and others more relevant but my teacher seemed to be bent on the fact that we should actually revolt against our government as soon as possible. I consider(ed) it nonsense. I'll try to stay away from a political debate and focus on the psychological argument. That Political revolution in the United States can be done within its current system, through election and democracy, and as bad as things are, there is no need for a cataclysmic shift. As I see it, democracy is evolutionary, it continuously evolves, checks and balances are self correcting just like natural selection. I'm all about learning practical stuff and I just don't see where this fits beyond in establishing a critical mindset. Please broaden my mind.
andreyf 17y ago
Dup! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=310818 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=310818

41 points by rms 17y ago

Such huge potential yet such underwhelming delivery. Just read their "Reading List" and was unimpressed by it: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/index.htm http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/History/21H-001Fall-2007/Readings/... It's mostly academic, capitalist/liberal pseudo reflection and philosophy. And more than half of the people on that list are the dullest, most conservative and anything but revolutionary. The leftist literature has far more explosive, pin-point, HOWTO material. Instead, read Gramsci, Camus, Marcuse, and Arendt for the philosophy. Then see Battle of Algiers and read the revolutionary struggles and biographies of Che, Trotsky, Mao. Just studying Marxism is an individual act of revolution. The mental impact on one's mind, when you finally get it, is irreversible. "Class Consciousness" is a revolutionary virus of the mind.

colins_pride 17y ago
I would read even more recent stuff. I agree on Che. How about reading about Kevin Kelly and Louis Rossetto? Bob Hunter created Greenpeace out of nothing. Petraeus revolutionized the most powerful military in the history of the world. It's through a mix of ancient literature, philosophy and political economics that one gains perspective on human nature. And human nature does not, has not, and will not change. But the structure of the world evolves, making modern revolutionaries much more interesting. When I know what Kolakowski had to say about Marxism, I'm going to go move past Marx and spend more time on Popper who hasn't really been rebutted (to my knowledge) yet. Kolakowski -> http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14120114 http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...
- mahmud 17y ago
  How about reading about Kevin Kelly and Louis Rossetto? Bob Hunter created Greenpeace out of nothing. Petraeus revolutionized the most powerful military in the history of the world. Now that you mentioned Petraeus, I see you're confused about what "Revolution" means in this context. The course is teaching actual political, armed-struggle type revolution. Big-R Revolution is very different from anything else. It's the popular uprising of a group of people and the assertion of their will upon, and demand for their rights from, another group they deem oppressive. Revolution derives its will from the people, and the people derive theirs from their group identity. No people, no revolution. Petraeus is a beauracrat; I don't see a nation of Petraeuses besieging the pentagon with small arms and demanding their birth right for a more efficient budget system. Bob Hunter is an activist, not a Revolutionary, for he still lacks the popular support of determined people who are willing to defend their home planet. He also lacks the Other; the target of his alleged Revolution. No opposing Other, no Revolution. Kolakowski is a Philosophe academic, plenty of pen-pushers to go around, frankly. I particularly avoided recommending the Western Marxists and academes because of their petty intellectualism. Good day, Sir.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    The late Bob Hunter (you are still speaking of him in the present tense, he died in 2005) may have created greenpeace out of nothing which was very commendable (it probably saved the whales, and - ironically - the whaling industry), but the greenpeace of today is now more of a marketing organization, not an activist platform. Fuel for their boats used to be the main operational cost, now it is media buys. Their CEO receives about 140K euros, which is a slight difference with an ideal driven activist. The people that support it do so from a strange mix of environmental consciousness and guilt (at least in my circle of friends). Some of its positions are just as shortsighted as those held by the industries that it opposes. That doesn't mean I'm against 'green', it's just that greenpeace has evolved to survive in a media driven society.
  - tayssir 17y ago
    I think this is too dismissive of other forms of revolution. I like Michael Albert's explanation of revolution, which is a fundamental change in at least one of a society's defining institutions. http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/2564 http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/2564 From this perspective, the 1953 US overthrow of Iran's parliamentary democracy (to install a monarch) was a successful revolution. And even a revolution with the best of intentions (which obviously wasn't the case with the 1953 revolution) won't necessarily result in an improved society. To the contrary, society might even regress. If a revolution suddenly occurred right now in the US, since we US citizens haven't laid the groundwork of serious popular organizing and institutions, we might expect a form of fascism to probably result.
Tichy 17y ago
Hm, maybe, but I would actually be most interested in how to overthrow communist regimes. Almost all dictatorships in recent times I am aware of started out with communism or socialism. Also, how much philosophy is really needed? I wonder how to overthrow a regime with a huge police force and secret police everywhere. Are there even any example where this happened without external forces? Maybe Rumania? In any case, it seems to be more a practical problem than a philosophical one.
- mahmud 17y ago
  The object of a revolution is not usually to overthrow a regime, rather, it's to give political autonomy to the group. That's why secessionist movements are far more successful negotiating truce and power-sharing than insisting on imposing themselves over the entire region. The most important ingredient is the group self-identity; you can be unhappy with the State all you want, on your own, but you will have to convince your would be comrades that: 1) the regime is harmful. and 2) that they can govern themselves better. Philosophy is needed in that it gives the group a political framework they can use to imagine their Utopia governed by. A unifying philosophy is very important; if most people in the group can't see the future political rule being better than the current one, then there would be no mass popular movement. The IRA said they want Ireland as "another democratic European country" and it worked. In Palestine, half the people imagine their Utopia to be another secular Arab state, a la Syria and Egypt, while the other half wants an Islamic Republic, a la Iran. That's why it's easiest to kill a revolution from the inside, by introducing uncertainty to their philosophical foundation and spreading suspicion about the leading committee. The easiest revolution would be one forged under clear differences, say, based on race, language, or religion. Marxism was unique in that it was revolution based on class.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Many Romanians consider their revolution only a partial success. Many of the old party bosses made it into high spots in the government after the revolution, and continue in these positions to this date.
- drags 17y ago
  1980-89 is pretty weak on their reading list, which would provide some insight to your question of how to overthrow a police state without external forces. Reading Timothy Garton Ash's work on Poland (The Polish Revolution is a good starting point) gives a lot of perspective into how a conservative Catholic majority can be the impetus for revolutionary change, and with greater earnestness than the dissident intelligensia at many times. For theory, Havel's work is a bit out there but definitely interesting. Try "Power of the Powerless" and "On Evasive Thinking" (it's in his Open Letters, I think); these are two of his best political theory essays. Havel's a bit of a contested figure, but I think it's fair to say that he roughly lives by the principles he expounded in his theoretical works, and that his emphasis on public dissent as a means of taking down authoritarian regimes heavily influenced other East Bloc dissidents.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Just studying Marxism is an individual act of revolution. The mental impact on one's mind, when you finally get it, is irreversible. "Class Consciousness" is a revolutionary virus of the mind. Thank goodness for a healthy mental immune system, then. Proponents of Marxist thought seem to believe that because they've found there's a different way of looking at the world that explains some things better than their default view, it must thus be correct in all respects. Pointing out that one has simply swapped one kind of tunnel vision for another tends to be poorly received. This is not to say the study of Marx is without value, but I'm being a lot kinder to Marxism here than Marxists are towards their perceived 'class enemies'. Anyway yes, the reading list is underwhelming. 4 works about Mao, but nothing by Mao himself, or by Che Guevara? Disqualifying fail. On Guerilla Warfare by Mao Tse-Tung Guerilla Warfare by Ernesto Che Guevara Coup d'etat: a practical handbook by Edward Luttwak The Authoritarian Specter by Robert Altermeyer On the psychology of military incompetence by Norman F Dixon That should see you through the practical end of things. 48 Laws of Power and other books by Robert Greene are good introductions to political strategy, along with Machiavelli's classic The Prince. A look at the aftermath of the French revolution is probably good idea as well if you intend to retire peacefully.

jdale27 17y ago

I hear the final project's killer.

ynniv 17y ago
Don't you mean "revolutionary"?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

plesn 17y ago

The true revolution changes social relations, changing people in power is quite superficial and it is foolish to blindly believe in it. Revolutions is the usual sense happen when current structures are so rotten that something else is needed, then some other form of social organisation prevails, often not really what was expected at the beginning (think russia in 1917 vs. russia after the civil war in 1921). But it is our role as humans to modify the world at our scale, to modify our ways of interacting with others and doing things to make the world a little better. Think of the changes between the middle age and now... there's so much room to do much better... At a bigger scale, for me, the next point is introducing more participative democracy in companies, especially big companies (they are truly the most prominent fascist-like organisations there...)

quizbiz 17y ago

This past year, senior year of high school, my history teacher based his curriculum on teaching us how to stage a revolution. He asked us to plan a revolution of the school, consider what/who needs to be revolted against, and how. It was entertaining at first and it made learning the Russian Revolution, the revolution in Argentina, and others more relevant but my teacher seemed to be bent on the fact that we should actually revolt against our government as soon as possible. I consider(ed) it nonsense. I'll try to stay away from a political debate and focus on the psychological argument. That Political revolution in the United States can be done within its current system, through election and democracy, and as bad as things are, there is no need for a cataclysmic shift. As I see it, democracy is evolutionary, it continuously evolves, checks and balances are self correcting just like natural selection. I'm all about learning practical stuff and I just don't see where this fits beyond in establishing a critical mindset. Please broaden my mind.

andreyf 17y ago

Dup! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=310818 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=310818