Massive Social Upheaval: The Greener Grass?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

In my pathetically limited life experience, there's one motif that I've come across repeatedly in popular culture, be it movies, literature or other mass media, that seems to represent a concept present in the minds of many millions of people across the world: The end of civilization as we know it.

Revolutionaries of all stripes, anarchists, even some of the devoutly religious, would ultimately like nothing better than some kind of immense social change. Revolutionaries want revolution, anarchists want anarchy, (some) religious people want Judgment Day... Millions upon millions who wish deeply for disruption of the social order, whether or not they acknowledge (or even know) it. Why?

I suspect that this odd phenomenon stems from the perpetual lack of contentment that nearly every human struggles under. Deep in our minds, we fervently hope that there is a 'quick fix', a revolutionary change that will solve our problems and make us happy. We've all heard the phrase "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence", and it seems that this may be our greatest fence, a lofty goal that gives us all something to hope for. I hope for a nuclear apocalypse, with some zombies thrown in, and a bunch of nice anarchy in the aftermath. No matter how horrific or devastating this situation would actually BE, I fervently desire it, and I've admitted this desire to myself. I don't know for sure, and I can't know for sure, why I want my world to fall in utter ruin, but I do, and this post is speculation as to the reason.

Anything to add?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This, I think, should be in Opposing Ideologies, not Philosophy.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

why? It's not a statement of ideology, merely a question about the human psyche as it is manifested in all of you: I have only experienced my own.

EDIT: I guess it's not really phrased as a question, more of a theory. Still, though...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We do not debate the things you raise in this, a revolutionary forum -- we hive such things off to Opposing Ideology.

Read the FAQs:


Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, but that is all that many of us have in common. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive for proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=restrictions#faq_whatisrestrict

Alas, this policy is not open to debate.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Ah, I didn't realize I was proposing a debate. I know you shuffle all the conservatives off to opposing ideologies, but I don't consider myself conservative, or anything but a leftist revolutionary.

Obviously, I can't do anything about you're decision, just letting you know.

[Sentinel]

I hope for a nuclear apocalypse

As RL points out this is more fitting for OI -- the main forum is for discussion amongst revolutionary leftists on our vision for the future of mankind, and that does not include doomsday fantasies.

Thusly moved to OI. Further, may I ask, do you consider yourself a primitivist?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I hope for an apocalypse, but I don't support one, nor would I allow one to occur if I had the power to prevent it: This is because the world doesn't revolve around me.

My vision of the future is not complete, I dare not post it against (or with) such formidable, educated opinions until I have lived longer or experienced more. "Doomsday fantasies" are merely an example of social upheaval that I have witnessed in popular culture, they don't play any part in my actual life.

EDIT: I can't say I'm sure what a primitivist believes, but it sounds to me like reactionary, fundamentalist thinking, just from the term. That would mean no.

[Bud Struggle]

I don' see how the OP's post is Primitivist--but what do I know? He does make a good point about people wanting a cataclysmic change in the world order and that puts the Communists in the same league with the Born Again Christians in that respect.

And th OP pointed out--it is a contentment issue, but even more it's a power issue. BA Christians want YOU TO BELIEVE what they believe--and when Jesus comes you are going to get the proof that what thay have been sayin all along is right and then you'll look to them for guidence, etc.

I don't have to tell you Communists that you'll be the ones in power after the Revolution and things are going to be done your way, etc.

We Capitalists are the only content ones--things are already being done our way, and so now we have the power. :D

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Thank you, it seems as if you've thoroughly read my OP. I wish that didn't set you apart from the other two, but they seemed to think that my desires dictate my actions, my politics, my philosophy. They really displayed a disappointing lack of reading comprehension, will I get banned for saying that?

[Bud Struggle]

Thank you, it seems as if you've thoroughly read my OP. I wish that didn't set you apart from the other two, but the seemed to think that my desires dictate my actions, my politics, my philosophy. They really displayed a disappointing lack of reading comprehension, will I get banned for saying that?

No, but be careful--RevLeft is not always hospitable to Newbies. Sometimes they rip new Communists up and they get Restricted to Opposing Ideologies. And it's best to say on topic, they can get a little OC about it.

Anyway, and interesting point you made:


I suspect that this odd phenomenon stems from the perpetual lack of contentment that nearly every human struggles under. Deep in our minds, we fervently hope that there is a 'quick fix', a revolutionary change that will solve our problems and make us happy.

I wonder if AFTER the Revolution we still won't be wanting the "next" Revolution after a while. Maybe the need for change is something basic in human nature--the fresher pastures in the next valley as you alluded to. Here's the problem: that would make Communism only an illusion and just an enother step on man's endless staircase of change.

I don't think the boys (and girls) upstairs take much of a fancy to that kind of thinking. Communism wants the buck to stop with it.

Welcome to RevLeft. :)

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I wonder if AFTER the Revolution we still won't be wanting the "next" Revolution after a while. Maybe the need for change is something basic in human nature--the fresher pastures in the next valley as you alluded to. Here's the problem: that would make Communism only an illusion and just an enother step on man's endless staircase of change. I strongly suspect that this is the case, as evidenced by the fact that revolutions still occur. If people were content with their revolutionary governments, they wouldn't overthrow them again. Furthermore, if people were ever content with their lives, they wouldn't become corrupt and poison the virtue of said revolutionary governments. It's sad, but I think it may be true.


I don't think the boys (and girls) upstairs take much of a fancy to that kind of thinking. Communism wants the buck to stop with it. Hah! PATHETIC! How dare they presume to represent a flawless ideology? This kind of close-minded bullshit fits an internet community like a sandpaper condom.


Welcome to RevLeft. :)

Thanks, it seem(ed) like a really nice place.

[Sentinel]

I can't say I'm sure what a primitivist believes, but it sounds to me like reactionary, fundamentalist thinking, just from the term. That would mean no.

There are several kinds of primitivists; some define themselves as anarchists and have egalitarian ideas, while others can be best characterised as social darwinist 'eco-fascists', and believe in the survival of the 'fittest' in nature etc. But basically primmies either actively wish to regress mankind's technological level through a revolution, or believe in an inevitable eco-catastrophe that will cause the regression.

Some of them dream of a pre-industrial utopia while others go as far as supporting a hunter-gatherer society and wishing to abolish written and spoken language, such as John Zerzan. Believe me, these people actually exist!

So while some of them are naive idealists that merely fail to grasp historical materialism and the fact that technological progress is what made social progress possible in the first place, others are outright lunatics or at least openly misanthropic sad individuals.

We restrict primitivists to Opposing Ideologies here on Revleft since a couple of years back.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There are several kinds of primitivists; some define themselves as anarchists and have egalitarian ideas, while others can be best characterised as social darwinist 'eco-fascists', and believe in the survival of the 'fittest' in nature etc. But basically primmies either actively wish to regress mankind's technological level through a revolution, or believe in an inevitable eco-catastrophe that will cause the regression.

Some of them dream of a pre-industrial utopia while others go as far as supporting a hunter-gatherer society and wishing to abolish written and spoken language, such as John Zerzan. Believe me, these people actually exist!

So while some of them are naive idealists that merely fail to grasp historical materialism and the fact that technological progress is what made social progress possible in the first place, others are outright lunatics or at least openly misanthropic sad individuals.

We restrict primitivists to Opposing Ideologies here on Revleft since a couple of years back.


Hmm, interesting. I'm definitely not any type of primitivist, and to be quite honest, I'm unpleasantly surprised that you assumed I was from my OP. I don't recall making ANY statements of ideology whatsoever, and I daresay you've figured out by now that my desires don't control my politics. Why, exactly, did you assume that they did? If everyone functioned that way, we'd live in a vastly different world.

[Sentinel]

Well, incase you aren't a primitivist I apologise, but the phrase 'I wish for a nuclear apocalypse' just sort of hinted in that direction. :rolleyes:

It's often very hard to know what people actually mean on the internet, and thus we have to take statements literally unless they explain otherwise.

That's why I asked.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Ok. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[Scary Monster]

I strongly suspect that this is the case, as evidenced by the fact that revolutions still occur. If people were content with their revolutionary governments, they wouldn't overthrow them again. Furthermore, if people were ever content with their lives, they wouldn't become corrupt and poison the virtue of said revolutionary governments. It's sad, but I think it may be true.

Weelll, as i see it, as long as people are deprived of their most basic needs, and there is still a group of people that are being exploited, killed (as a consequence of a period's current system, such as imperial war and colonization, that it cant function without) and mistreated, then there will always be people who are malcontent enough to want a revolution. These have all been present throughout all of history havent they?

[Kayser_Soso]

Doomsday scenarios are often used by various idealistic or utopian movements who have trouble explaining how they intend to gain power, for various reasons. For example, Neo-Nazis in America(among other places), when faced with the reality of how small they are, how incoherent their ideas are, and how their movement is basically a highly entertaining circus of drama- will explain that they expect to take power when the American infrastructure collapses and that apocalyptic "race war" begins. This belief is so common that the infamous National Alliance actually wrote it into their old member handbook.

Many other groups who subscribe to conspiracy theories hope for some kind of massive catastrophe, which will somehow create conditions whereby they may finally expose the evil power-brokers who hide behind the curtain.

We real revolutionaries need to keep in mind the difference between a "revolutionary scenario" and an idealistic apocalypse. One reason why people love the latter is that the enemy, the government, military, etc. just collapses into chaos- somehow the militias, the Neo-Nazis, the Truthers, or whatever...they will suddenly just materialize as a force and sweep into power. No jails, no torture, no arrests, no killing, fighting, living life on the lamb. The whole infrastructure will just fall apart and the path to power will be open. This of course, is nonsense- generally monopolized by the various right wing groups I have mentioned here. Leftists should not jump on this bandwagon.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What bandwagon? This thread isn't about the apocalypse, it's about the psychology of social upheaval. It's not a matter of politics or personal philosophy, at all.

I explicitly said that my ideal concept of nuclear war was ridiculous, horrific and highly improbable, why are people completely missing the point?

[ZeroNowhere]

That sounds incredibly profound (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1536656&postcount=35).

Also, I heard that people waiting for a new book or album to be released are incredibly similar to people who believe the world will end in 2012! Sophistry is fun.

[Conquer or Die]

We restrict primitivists to Opposing Ideologies here on Revleft since a couple of years back.

Also, you restrict revolutionary communists in favor of any capitalist that understands the labor theory of value.

[Green Dragon]

In my pathetically limited life experience, there's one motif that I've come across repeatedly in popular culture, be it movies, literature or other mass media, that seems to represent a concept present in the minds of many millions of people across the world: The end of civilization as we know it.

Revolutionaries of all stripes, anarchists, even some of the devoutly religious, would ultimately like nothing better than some kind of immense social change. Revolutionaries want revolution, anarchists want anarchy, (some) religious people want Judgment Day... Millions upon millions who wish deeply for disruption of the social order, whether or not they acknowledge (or even know) it. Why?

I suspect that this odd phenomenon stems from the perpetual lack of contentment that nearly every human struggles under. Deep in our minds, we fervently hope that there is a 'quick fix', a revolutionary change that will solve our problems and make us happy. We've all heard the phrase "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence", and it seems that this may be our greatest fence, a lofty goal that gives us all something to hope for. I hope for a nuclear apocalypse, with some zombies thrown in, and a bunch of nice anarchy in the aftermath. No matter how horrific or devastating this situation would actually BE, I fervently desire it, and I've admitted this desire to myself. I don't know for sure, and I can't know for sure, why I want my world to fall in utter ruin, but I do, and this post is speculation as to the reason.

Anything to add?

It is interesting that socialists share the same type of "the end of the world is nigh" claptrap with certain type of religious fanatics (how many "socialism or death" notes pop up hereabouts)? What happens after the revolution, the "day of judgement" (are you a proleteriat? Are you now, or ever been a capitalist or a sympathiser?)? Yep, rapture.

[Tungsten]

For some unknown reason, every generation wants to think it's living in the end times. Self-importance, if you ask me.