Do you justify the people, when it rises against the élites who own all the powers of the consitutional field?
Here the take of the Bastille
Here the take of the Bastille
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is revolution ethical?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
To me the word élite is not even in question.
I don't even consider it as a word.
To me the leaders shall be chosen among the people and by the people.
And those who have too much economic power should be excluded from politics.
Since the res publica is light years away from the private wealth, the res privata.
I think that when the people is mistreated, oppressed and humiliated, it has the sacred right to use its destructive force to punish the oppressors.
I do not think that these élites have a chance of salvation, if and when the armies and law enforcement decide to side with the people.
I don't even consider it as a word.
To me the leaders shall be chosen among the people and by the people.
And those who have too much economic power should be excluded from politics.
Since the res publica is light years away from the private wealth, the res privata.
I think that when the people is mistreated, oppressed and humiliated, it has the sacred right to use its destructive force to punish the oppressors.
I do not think that these élites have a chance of salvation, if and when the armies and law enforcement decide to side with the people.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Ethical or not, it eventually becomes necessary for survival. When the greed and selfishness of the empowered elites have no enforced limitations, it devours everything and everyone; even the elites, themselves. Forced limitations have to be imposed before this happens. Sadly, however, the elites and those who protect themselves by serving the elites, and those who want to become elites, will fight the imposition of these limitations, and so revolutions are almost always very bloody and destructive.
Allowing these elites to gain too much wealth and power by not imposing limitations on their greed and selfishness has always been mankind's greatest social/structural flaw. And it has led to the destruction of every human civilization in history. Sadly, when we do not establish and enforce those limitations when it's relatively easy to do, it eventually becomes very hard to do. And doing it then becomes a horrific and bloody task.
Allowing these elites to gain too much wealth and power by not imposing limitations on their greed and selfishness has always been mankind's greatest social/structural flaw. And it has led to the destruction of every human civilization in history. Sadly, when we do not establish and enforce those limitations when it's relatively easy to do, it eventually becomes very hard to do. And doing it then becomes a horrific and bloody task.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
You may find this book interesting:
- Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt by Chris Hedges
The nature of history is cyclical, unfortunately.
The common pattern is this:
1) after the revolution the people elect an assembly that writes a new Constitution.
2) This Constitution codifies social justice, economic equality, centrality of labor.
3) the very first years, after the birth of this Constitution are splendid: no unemployment, rights for everyone.
4) The élites start playing the victim saying the people are spoiled and have too many rights and too many legal protections.
5) Some politicians start to curtail these rights (violating the Constitution by doing so). They will be acclaimed as saviors.
6) One curtailing after the other, until these merciless laws are normalized. Labor is not considered a right any more, but a privilege.
7) The people slowly absorbs like a sponge, until there is the needle the breaks the camel's back. Even armies are oppressed.
8) A revolution breaks out ...back to 1)
These élites will never learn.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If one is badly treated with nothing to lose, sure.
Augustus
…
A more common pattern is:
1. People are badly treated
2. People rebel against government
3. Moderate elements divided and poorly organised. Better organised, hierarchical, hardline elements take control of the process
4. Hardline elements install themselves in power and start oppressing rivals
5. Oppression spread more broadly
6. People are badly treated
It's quite rare that genuine revolutions produce a significantly better outcome, and often produce a worse one.
Ones that succeed, for example The American "Revolution" were really more regime change than revolution. The "revolution" was driven by elites who wanted improved status, rather than wanted to fundamentally remake society. On taking power, the new regime largely maintained the same values and institutions as the previous one with relatively minor changes.
Compare this to the French or Russian Revolutions where people wanted to radically remake society according to their will and the application of reason, and found that what works "in theory" doesn't work in reality.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Are revolutions ethical? Yes. Are they likely to greatly improve the lives of the People? No.
If we see government as a decision-making process, we humans have yet to invent a government that wasn't to varying degree both corrupt and inefficient.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
How do you 'detain' powers? What is that ...?
Revolution against any kind of extremely tyrannical power is a natural reaction.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
The leaders have never been chosen that way, and Republics have always been governed by the politically influential elites of their respective society. As Marx pointed out correctly, government is intrinsically a government in the interest of the ruling classes.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's not an issue of seeking perfection. It's an issue of recognizing the flaws of human nature and creating social systems that will mitigate them reasonably well for all our sakes. Governments are corrupt because humans are corrupt. All governments are somewhat corrupt because all humans are somewhat corrupt. But we have the ability to understand this, and to create governments and commercial systems that discourage corruption. And social climates that despise corruption (the corruption of greed, selfishness, and willful ignorance).
But we have to want to do this. And that's where we come up short. We'd much rather justify our greed and selfishness than mitigate it.
That is why I am a leftist. I side with the people against the elites.
Unlike some leftist parties in Europe.
The lounge-loving and carefree Democratic Party of Italy sides with bankers and the elites.
So they are rightist.
But they declare themselves leftist.
I too can declare myself a tree.
But that does not make me one.
I am not a tree.
So...the greatest hoax in history is that: rightists who want to pass for leftists
Last edited:
Sorry .
I corrected it.
This is a very intelligent analysis.
That is why Politologists have invented the right term to describe the phenomenon: gatekeeping.
Gatekeepers are politicians who are hired by the economic elites to deceive the electorate, by making them believe they side against the very elites they work for.
So they gain the people's trust.
The people elect them to fight the elites.
But actually they will work for them behind the scenes.
That is why certain revolutions have miserably failed in the past. Because of gatekeepers.
Gatekeeping will ultimately increase people's rage.
Because in the 21th century it has been denounced and exposed.
Gatekeepers motivate people to rise up...even more, because they will have more reasons to do it.
It occurs to me that a group has to have a fair bit of political and economic power to begin with to actually carry out a successful revolution or coup.
Very rarely, this power is a matter of individuals with little personal power themselves en masse as a group that's large enough to have power in aggregate. Slave revolts like the Haitian Revolution would be examples of this.
... but in something like the American Revolution, the revolution was led by the elites of the colonies.
Thinking about it more, it seems to me that most revolutions are a matter of "the elite" being replaced with up-and-coming rivals and not so much about spontaneous uprisings of the people.
Last edited:
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
I struggle with this, because revolution, even when necessary to throw off oppression, will include collateral damage to innocent people. But oppression by definition inflicts damage on innocent people, so...
Which revolutions actually threw off oppression?
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
Solidarity in Poland is the first one that came to my mind.
Are you saying that it's impossible to throw off oppression because it will remain and/or return in new form sooner or later?
Exactly.