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.
This is exactly what I meant when i spoke of misuse. And you're right, change can be detrimental, depending on what end it is really being brought about to serve, which in turn depends on who leads the revolution and in whose interests. The French Revolution, for instance, since you mentioned it, for all its talk of 'Liberty Equality Fraternity', did at the end of it lead to the establishment of a Bonaparte. It did achieve many of the goals it set out to, but the question then is, at what cost they were achieved, and how far they went in securing the interests of the people.Originally posted by: return_to_hades
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.
Interesting take on the question. The issue is, that every individual who constitutes society may not have access to even the awareness required to bring about change, whether on the inside or the outside. Which is also why misguided attempts at revolution can be so particularly disastrous, because the people they use to give their Cause more strength are people who are not really aware of the dynamics of what they might be getting themselves into. And so, even if they work on bringing about change from within themselves, it might not be a change that works in their interests, and might actually drive them on to their own destruction. This is where the question of leadership comes in, because who leads the Cause, and what end the Cause really serves, is what determines how far the revolution really benefits the people.Revolution happning in life itself slowly....Revolution should happen inner first then only its works...the problem I find we have taken revolution from a very wrong direction........We have thought that if you change the society, change the structure, economic or political, ......then one day the individuals, the constituent elements of the society, will change. .....This is stupid. Who is going to do this revolution?😊
Originally posted by: nandinidev
Interesting take on the question. ----What to do ..Ulta aadmi ulta sooch 😉....bored with same thinking....😃..The issue is, that every individual who constitutes society may not have access to even the awareness required to bring about change, whether on the inside or the outside. Which is also why misguided attempts at revolution can be so particularly disastrous, ---ya the mind of a revolutionary is a destructive... because the people they use to give their Cause more strength are people who are not really aware of the dynamics of what they might be getting themselves into. And so, even if they work on bringing about change from within themselves, it might not be a change that works in their interests, and might actually drive them on to their own destruction. This is where the question of leadership comes in, because who leads the Cause, and what end the Cause really serves, is what determines how far the revolution really benefits the people. -- I dont believe in political revolutions Political leaders are temporary leaders...those people exist in a certain context or periods ...A revolutionary is one who wants to change the society and they want to rule and not be ruled.😊.....they wants to replace it with another society...if millions of individuals change, thn the society will change as a consequence, not vice versa ...
Cheers! 😊
Um...Hey! Got the first bit, but didn't understand what you wanted to convey about the bit you've quoted from my post...?Originally posted by: poooohjjjazzzzz
revolution is definitely needed fora certain change ....if we need to develop our life according to time we need to change according to time....... 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............so..,its very important for revolution to take place every now and then..........
comment:
p_commentcount