When Someone Says I Want Revolution...

[anomee]

When Someone Says I Want Revolution...

Why is it that it seems what they are really saying is:

I Want to Rule?

And maybe this should be asked as a separate question, but:

After the Revolution, what then?

Utopia?

Or is revolution an end in itself?

[Hegemonicretribution]

It seems that they say they want to rule because in every instance of "revolution" thus far (perhaps not every but I am speaking generally), the intended aim has been to replace the established order with a new order; that of the "revolutionaries."

Revolution in a Marxist sense means simply the removal of the ruling classes, some may argue that this leads to a de facto state; the dictatorship of the proletariat...this does differ in both form and function from the dictatorships or states that have existed to date.

There is a thread in the learning forum now (I won't like because it is still fresh) about the DoP, it might be worth a look.

Post revolution: There is no consensus here, and personally I think it is a good thing. Some would claim that the revolution is an ongoing process that will never end. Some claim it stops at utopia (others claim this is bullshit). Revolution itself however can be considered in several lights; as the process that results in the removal of the state apparautus, or the process that results in the establishment of a new, functioning, stateless order.

It really depends what you mean by revolution in this case, because what happens next will have already happened under one consideration of the term, and will not be applicable under another.....there are of course other views of revolution, I just threw out some vague examples...

Any use? Or are you after personal takes on the questions asked?

[Janus]

Why is it that it seems what they are really saying is:

I Want to Rule?
Because of the organizational structure and ideology of the revolutionaries.


After the Revolution, what then?
It depends on the type of revolution.

[anomee]

First, thank you both for the responses, hegeret and Janus.

hegeret:


It seems that they say they want to rule because in every instance of "revolution" thus far (perhaps not every but I am speaking generally), the intended aim has been to replace the established order with a new order; that of the "revolutionaries."

Yes, that is what I see and think precisely.

Funny, I've scarcely ever seen a new order that I want to embrace totally, and only one old order which I did and would embrace again, if anything were to bring it back -- including a new revolution.


Revolution in a Marxist sense means simply the removal of the ruling classes, some may argue that this leads to a de facto state; the dictatorship of the proletariat...this does differ in both form and function from the dictatorships or states that have existed to date. There is a thread in the learning forum now (I won't like because it is still fresh) about the DoP, it might be worth a look.

A dictatorship is a dictatorship including any rule by a group of people to whose ideas, concepts, ideology everyone in proximity or the environs must subscribe or be removed from the group or ostracized.

And I've never seen anything of a dictatorial nature that I could love, or like or even stand.

I'll give a look at the article.


Post revolution: There is no consensus here. Some would claim that the revolution is an ongoing process that will never end. Some claim it stops at utopia (others claim this is bullshit). Revolution itself however can be considered in several lights; as the process that results in the removal of the state apparautus, or the process that results in the establishment of a new, functioning, stateless order.

Now there's a question I'd have: Never mind the theory, hypotheticals and rhetoric, how in reality and practical terms would a "functioning, stateless order" work?

And yes individual takes on this would be great! I'd love to hear how others imagine, predict or assume that this would work in real, practical terms?

In order to work, would this "functioning, stateless order"pretty much require the extinction of the individual as a functioning psycho-emotional entity? :)

And Janus:



Why is it that it seems what they are really saying is: I Want to Rule?

Because of the organizational structure and ideology of the revolutionaries.

Then I'd like a different revolution, please, one in which the "organizational structure and ideology of the revolutionaries" doesn't not as a consequence automatically set the revolutionaries in place to rule.

Care to show me one that does not work this way and where it has taken place and succeeded? Or will take place and succeed?



After the Revolution, what then?

It depends on the type of revolution.

Having searched the functioning cognitive banks of knowledge, memory, social etiquette and grace, wisdom, mental and verbal acuity, in the extensive masses and caverns in my aging gray matter, I find there is no satisfactory response for this answer of yours, and am caught between "how coy" and "no duh!"

Oops, sorry about that... uhm, yes... :blink:

How about how many types are there in reality and which ones would you suggest?

Seriously, there are reasons I'm asking these questions, btw, or I wouldn't be here.

[bcbm]

As I see it, there is no post-revolution. We keep pushing forward continually, always in a state of critical challenge to structures of power and domination that may arise.

[anomee]

As I see it, there is no post-revolution. We keep pushing forward continually, always in a state of critical challenge to structures of power and domination that may arise.

So bcbm, revolution as change, change as revolution, both being constant and revolution as a vehicle to effect forward motion whether the forward motion is actual "progress" or not?

Is that what you mean by your answer?

I honestly want to understand what you are saying and find it really interesting. :)

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 12:04 am
As I see it, there is no post-revolution. We keep pushing forward continually, always in a state of critical challenge to structures of power and domination that may arise.
All revolutions eventually cool down. Long periods of relatively slow growth are always followed by brief periods of very fast change, which are in turn followed again by long periods of stability. Look up the theory of punctuated equilibrium

To answer the original question when someone says they want a revolution, it does in a way mean that they want to rule. Leon Trotsky once said that a revolution is a situation in which the masses begin to take part actively in politics and take their destiny into their own hands

[Janus]

Care to show me one that does not work this way and where it has taken place and succeeded?
The Paris Commune and what occured during the Spanish Civil War spring to mind but there are plenty of other examples in which ordinary people established democratic institutions after overthrowing their oppressors.


How about how many types are there in reality and which ones would you suggest?

Seriously, there are reasons I'm asking these questions, btw, or I wouldn't be here.
What happens after a revolution (you never specified what kind we're talking about) depends on the causes of the revolution and socio-political structure of the pre-existing state. In certain political revolutions, the pre-existing institutions are largely left intact while only the leadership and various other characteristics are changed. In a proletarian revolution however, there should be all encompassing political, social, and economic change following the revolution.