Honesty Is The Path To Revolution

[Outinleftfield]

Has anyone read Timur Kuran's "Private Truths, Public Lies"?

The book is about how people lie about what they really believe to appear socially acceptable.

Revolutions happen suddenly and unexpectedly when the public already is widely disgusted with the status quo and desire radical change and suddenly changes happen convincing them to be honest about their beliefs. As the revolution gains momentum even old supporters of the status quo start pretending that they supported the revolution and had all along.

The more we share our beliefs with the people we know the more people will who agree with us will feel comfortable about talking about their own beliefs.

So the way to start a revolution is really simple, tell the truth. I bet there are many of us on here who rarely talk about communism, socialism, or anarchism with the people they know on a daily basis. Some of us might even argue openly in favor of liberalism. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of us in highly conservative families even pretend to be conservative around our relatives.

If we never try to cover our beliefs, if instead we speak out strongly and vocally when ever we have the chance the revolution will come.

This preference falsification is a double-edged sword. If racism becomes more socially acceptable we could see hatred suddenly become socially acceptable again. That's only more reason we need to be more vocal. There are always "anything-but-the-status-quo" people who will latch on to any explanation for their problems and adopt any solution. We need to share our explanation or they will fall for other explanations.

[red cat]

A revolution does not happen suddenly. The masses, no matter how disgusted they may be with the system, do not stand any chance against the ruling classes if they lack organization.

A revolution is a long process of organizing, militarizing, politicizing and empowering the masses, which leads to the act of overthrowing the state.

There are many places in the world, specifically where the revolutions are happening at present, where you risk to be murdered if you speak of communism or revolution openly. Being vocal might be a good start in the first world, but it is all different elsewhere.

[Outinleftfield]

A revolution does not happen suddenly. The masses, no matter how disgusted they may be with the system, do not stand any chance against the ruling classes if they lack organization.

A revolution is a long process of organizing, militarizing, politicizing and empowering the masses, which leads to the act of overthrowing the state.

There are many places in the world, specifically where the revolutions are happening at present, where you risk to be murdered if you speak of communism or revolution openly. Being vocal might be a good start in the first world, but it is all different elsewhere.

But even Lenin didn't think he was ever going to live to see revolution in December 1916 and then it happened the next year. Same with other revolutions. Few people, not even the revolutionaries themselves had any idea it was about to happen.

[red cat]

But even Lenin didn't think he was ever going to live to see revolution in December 1916 and then it happened the next year. Same with other revolutions. Few people, not even the revolutionaries themselves had any idea it was about to happen.

The immediate conditions might have hastened the revolution, but it was known that the revolution would take place in near future.

[spaßmaschine]

There are many places in the world... where you risk to be murdered if you speak of communism or revolution openly.If you believe this, then why did you spend three pages on the Pol Pot thread trying to goad the ICC into publicly naming one of their Indian comrades on the internet, and then claiming their comrade didn't exist because they refused to name them?

Or does this
Being vocal might be a good start in the first world, but it is all different elsewhere.mean that you can be as dishonest as you like, because you're supposedly off making armed struggle somewhere?

[Sam Da Communist]

Outintheleftfield, you are talking about a book about social psychology, peer pressure based peoples mentality. all said are very relevant to a democratic revolution and dictatorship of the people.

Peer pressure based ideas and norms exist without real proper understanding at times. I have met racists that are racist, but say they are not racist on fear of being ridiculed in public as racist!

there are also gays that are always hiding behind closets in fear of communtiy isolation.

Peer pressure can exist for good things and evil things, eg Nazi germany's nationalist peer pressure was totally evil, so is capitalism's peer mentallity that being rich is glamourous indotrinated by the rich media.

socialism uses peer mentality for good reasons, a sense of international community, equality, etc.

As revolutionaries we must learn social psychology well! tell us more about the book comrade!

[red cat]

If you believe this, then why did you spend three pages on the Pol Pot thread trying to goad the ICC into publicly naming one of their Indian comrades on the internet, and then claiming their comrade didn't exist because they refused to name them?

Because there is no such Indian ex-Maoist. On one hand they claimed that he is nationally known, while on the other they made a drama out of the issue of naming him. If he is already nationally known then what is the problem in naming him ?




Or does thismean that you can be as dishonest as you like, because you're supposedly off making armed struggle somewhere?How did you deduce this ? Please explain the steps in your reasoning.

[¿Que?]

Sort of reminds me of Goffman's dramaturgy (keep in mind I'm going by the title alone). Private truth would correspond to backstage and public lies to frontstage. I guess the difference is that Goffman didn't see the difference between backstage/frontstage as involving dishonesty.