interesting quote:
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
-John Maynard Keynes
When is revolution necessary?
When those in power, and the system itself which propagates that power, is so corrupt, that it is no longer able to correct itself, from within that system (ie using the mechanisms in place), and it requires mechanisms from 'without', or a 'refutation' of the current system as falliable, incorrect or incomplete.
Revolution is the acknowledgement that the status quo is unsustainable, perhaps self-destructive, and needs changing, by whichever means possible, including peaceful ones: however, it is generally the nature of those who have gathered and protect their own power, I would presume, to try and cling on to and sustain that power - the degree to which this occurs, may be the degree to which forceful means may be necessary. However, the method of a peaceful revolution likely involves overcoming 'greed' to some extent - people choosing the good of the many over the good of the few - while at the same time, it becomes evident that in fact, the masses do indeed have some form of 'enlightenment', and that a 'new system' which solves some of the critical flaws of the past one, and is therefore more just, and better, for everyone is in fact, possible. If this is not the case, it will probably be evident to those in power, that neither a) will there be a lifestyle where thaey can in fact co-exist on some survivable level or b) the whole itself of society will be better instead of only the 'distributtion of power to different people' occuring - rather than a change in the actual system itself; if these things are not able to be seen to be different by those requiring to give up power, and if in fact certain crucial elements are not to actually change in said 'revolution', than all the turmoil and conflict and redistribution of power and restructuring of the systems of power and justice themselves, instead of 'evolving' the culture or society to a new, more sustainable and enlightened level, will probably, only, and perhaps to the great detriment of all, result in a catastrophic collapse of the system as a whole (wherein everyone alike suffers, and society as it has come to be seen, is untenable whatsoever).
The key, I think, is envisioning something else which is possible, which is better - which fixes the current flaws - which uses the knowledge and wisdom we have gained, and instead of 'sitting on it' - because it may not be in our immediate PERSONAL best interests (while being in the best interests of the whole, and probably our own long-term best interests, if one takes spiritual growth into consideration) - releasing and sharing all of what we know, and instead of twisting things to favour 'ourselves' - or whomever, to in fact be honest and serve the best good of the whole as best as possible. This may be a tall order, but it is indeed possible; it is more of a choice, than a question, and may be a choice which determines whether the people of earth will survive, and continue to evolve in a physical form on this world, or whether we will be forced to make room for something new, that perhaps 'does not have the systemic flaws of we' ...
That is the truth, as simply as I can see it and portray it, I think...
m_G
-John Maynard Keynes
When is revolution necessary?
When those in power, and the system itself which propagates that power, is so corrupt, that it is no longer able to correct itself, from within that system (ie using the mechanisms in place), and it requires mechanisms from 'without', or a 'refutation' of the current system as falliable, incorrect or incomplete.
Revolution is the acknowledgement that the status quo is unsustainable, perhaps self-destructive, and needs changing, by whichever means possible, including peaceful ones: however, it is generally the nature of those who have gathered and protect their own power, I would presume, to try and cling on to and sustain that power - the degree to which this occurs, may be the degree to which forceful means may be necessary. However, the method of a peaceful revolution likely involves overcoming 'greed' to some extent - people choosing the good of the many over the good of the few - while at the same time, it becomes evident that in fact, the masses do indeed have some form of 'enlightenment', and that a 'new system' which solves some of the critical flaws of the past one, and is therefore more just, and better, for everyone is in fact, possible. If this is not the case, it will probably be evident to those in power, that neither a) will there be a lifestyle where thaey can in fact co-exist on some survivable level or b) the whole itself of society will be better instead of only the 'distributtion of power to different people' occuring - rather than a change in the actual system itself; if these things are not able to be seen to be different by those requiring to give up power, and if in fact certain crucial elements are not to actually change in said 'revolution', than all the turmoil and conflict and redistribution of power and restructuring of the systems of power and justice themselves, instead of 'evolving' the culture or society to a new, more sustainable and enlightened level, will probably, only, and perhaps to the great detriment of all, result in a catastrophic collapse of the system as a whole (wherein everyone alike suffers, and society as it has come to be seen, is untenable whatsoever).
The key, I think, is envisioning something else which is possible, which is better - which fixes the current flaws - which uses the knowledge and wisdom we have gained, and instead of 'sitting on it' - because it may not be in our immediate PERSONAL best interests (while being in the best interests of the whole, and probably our own long-term best interests, if one takes spiritual growth into consideration) - releasing and sharing all of what we know, and instead of twisting things to favour 'ourselves' - or whomever, to in fact be honest and serve the best good of the whole as best as possible. This may be a tall order, but it is indeed possible; it is more of a choice, than a question, and may be a choice which determines whether the people of earth will survive, and continue to evolve in a physical form on this world, or whether we will be forced to make room for something new, that perhaps 'does not have the systemic flaws of we' ...
That is the truth, as simply as I can see it and portray it, I think...
m_G