3 ms·

Revolution seems to work well as a way of wiping away a system that has become so corrupt or dysfunctional that there is no hope of iteritavely improving it. T

by ionised 11y ago

Revolution seems to work well as a way of wiping away a system that has become so corrupt or dysfunctional that there is no hope of iteritavely improving it. That's not to say the successor system would be any better. They often are not. Perhaps society sometimes needs that clean slate approach though. I'm beginning to think our hyper-dependency on financial institutions to the point of fear of punishing them for wrongdoing is unfixable in our current system. It's too corrupt.

jacques_chester 11y ago
> Revolution seems to work well as a way of wiping away a system that has become so corrupt or disfunctional that there is no hope of iteritavely improving it. I don't think that this has generally been the case. A total dissolution of social and legal structures tends to make conditions very conducive to psychopaths and sociopaths. Your dickhead boss, who previously could only make your working life a living hell, can now scale up his ambitions. That conniving neighbour from the block association is suddenly on the Committee for Public Safety. Everyone who dreams of revolution dreams of one in which they are the selfless, noble heroes, overthrowing the monomaniacs who control the evil system. Then everyone is surprised when the most ruthless people of all rise to the top in very short order. Basically, revolution is a fantasy. The actual outcomes are abysmal. The more intense the revolutionary outburst, the worse it goes for the common person.
- ionised 11y ago
  The English Civil War, which was a form of revolution was arguably a positive thing. Without it Britain would have remained a tyrannical monarchy for long afterwards. This event led to a democratic parliament actually being useful. The French revolution was bloody but ended immense corruption and repression on the part of the aristocracy. Again, this led to France being declared a constitutional Republic. Even the Bolshevik revolution. It was corrupted later but it began positively. Nobody is saying revolutions are clean or even desirable. I'm definitely saying that they seem inevitable at a point though. People can only take so much shit before they snap.
  - jacques_chester 11y ago
    You should've led with the American Revolution, which was more of an insurrection than a true revolution. It's usually the poster child for a "good" revolution, though. But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority. Reform is often possible without them, which is why (fortunately) true revolution is relatively rare.
    - ionised 11y ago
      > But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority. I don't think they do. Both the English and French revolutions led to better societies for the average citizen in spite of the bloodshed and chaos that was present initially. I would go so far as to say it was necessary. What group of powerful elites will relinquish total control willingly?
      - jacques_chester 11y ago
        Very few elites start with total control. Most of the reforms that have led to modern liberal democracy were taken voluntarily, even if begrudgingly.

by ionised 11y ago

jacques_chester 11y ago

> Revolution seems to work well as a way of wiping away a system that has become so corrupt or disfunctional that there is no hope of iteritavely improving it. I don't think that this has generally been the case. A total dissolution of social and legal structures tends to make conditions very conducive to psychopaths and sociopaths. Your dickhead boss, who previously could only make your working life a living hell, can now scale up his ambitions. That conniving neighbour from the block association is suddenly on the Committee for Public Safety. Everyone who dreams of revolution dreams of one in which they are the selfless, noble heroes, overthrowing the monomaniacs who control the evil system. Then everyone is surprised when the most ruthless people of all rise to the top in very short order. Basically, revolution is a fantasy. The actual outcomes are abysmal. The more intense the revolutionary outburst, the worse it goes for the common person.

ionised 11y ago
The English Civil War, which was a form of revolution was arguably a positive thing. Without it Britain would have remained a tyrannical monarchy for long afterwards. This event led to a democratic parliament actually being useful. The French revolution was bloody but ended immense corruption and repression on the part of the aristocracy. Again, this led to France being declared a constitutional Republic. Even the Bolshevik revolution. It was corrupted later but it began positively. Nobody is saying revolutions are clean or even desirable. I'm definitely saying that they seem inevitable at a point though. People can only take so much shit before they snap.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  You should've led with the American Revolution, which was more of an insurrection than a true revolution. It's usually the poster child for a "good" revolution, though. But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority. Reform is often possible without them, which is why (fortunately) true revolution is relatively rare.
  - ionised 11y ago
    > But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority. I don't think they do. Both the English and French revolutions led to better societies for the average citizen in spite of the bloodshed and chaos that was present initially. I would go so far as to say it was necessary. What group of powerful elites will relinquish total control willingly?
    - jacques_chester 11y ago
      Very few elites start with total control. Most of the reforms that have led to modern liberal democracy were taken voluntarily, even if begrudgingly.