all revoution inevitably leads to tyranny
in the book the rebel by camu, it says that all revolution inevitably leads to tyranny. now before i say anything else, just so you know, i haven't actually read the rebel, so i can't really back up his argument since i don't know what it is.
if you look at history, you can see that this has always been the case. and i'm not counting the american revolution because it was improperly named. a revolution has to be class against class, not country against county like the american revolution. but in every real revolution, you see that it's true.
i think the problem is that when you take away a leader, or a leading class, (by that i mean upper class, although i know that they don't really lead us to anything, but then again, neither do leaders, most of the time) then you are left with a sort of vaccum that is always filled by the worst sort of people, like napoleon or stalin. it makes sence, though. the only people who would take advantage of there not being a present leader, or who would exploit and manipulate the people for his own interests (that being power) is the person who would do the worst job as a leader. i mean, if he exploits you to become the person in charge , then why would he just stop there, why wouldn't he continue exploiting you for even further power? but, revolution or no revotution, that happens a lot anyway, but it's just that in a revolution, it's so far been defenate that that is what will happen.
so, i think that we should probably just stick to evolution.
if you look at history, you can see that this has always been the case. and i'm not counting the american revolution because it was improperly named. a revolution has to be class against class, not country against county like the american revolution. but in every real revolution, you see that it's true.
i think the problem is that when you take away a leader, or a leading class, (by that i mean upper class, although i know that they don't really lead us to anything, but then again, neither do leaders, most of the time) then you are left with a sort of vaccum that is always filled by the worst sort of people, like napoleon or stalin. it makes sence, though. the only people who would take advantage of there not being a present leader, or who would exploit and manipulate the people for his own interests (that being power) is the person who would do the worst job as a leader. i mean, if he exploits you to become the person in charge , then why would he just stop there, why wouldn't he continue exploiting you for even further power? but, revolution or no revotution, that happens a lot anyway, but it's just that in a revolution, it's so far been defenate that that is what will happen.
so, i think that we should probably just stick to evolution.