Some people use that term to denote how technological changes affect society such as the invention of the printing press with movable type, the Industrial Revolution, or the emergence of the internet.
One might argue such technological revolutions are more far-reaching in their effects than political ones.
There is also the connotation of cultural change, such as the ‘sexual revolution’ in the 1960s.
But as for political revolution, and the idea of power being abused and situations of oppressed people taking a stand against it, a couple ideas come to mind.
We’ve already talked about one of the ideas regarding power : Erich Fromm says in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness that the revolutionary character is not awed by power.
I would add that the type of approach to ‘revolution’ I have in mind, if I am to use the term ‘revolution’ is one in which those engaged in it neither covet nor are cowed by power.
In my mind, that stance draws from Fromm and at least two other writers, one a food sovereignty writer who visited Columbus in March of 2012, Eric Holt-Gimenez.
As I recall, he quoted one of the Campesinos as saying they sought to change their relationship with and their attitude toward power,instead of seeking to seize power.
The other source of that idea for me is Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics, who said during Occupy that if the aim is just to seize power, we’re likely to end up with yet another form of the so-called 99 percent.
Such points about one’s attitude toward power itself—for example, neither coveting it nor being cowed by it—-pertains to questions of strategic nonviolent resistance vs a ‘diversity of tactics.’
I don’t want to be cynical, but it’s fair to ask. How many folk who talk about violent revolution do so not because power is being abused, but because they themselves aren’t the ones in power ?
My years in activism are relatively few, but so far most of the folk I’ve encountered over the past few years who talk about violent revolution seem to be white males with middle and upper middle class backgrounds.
It’s not cynical to at least ask about the extent to which such folk talk revolution because they think that they have a chance of being among the leadership if there were a revolution; and that, in the mean-time, given their education and social connections and technological gadgets, they are the ones who will ‘educate’ the uninformed masses.
An impression I got during one of the Ferguson solidarity marches is that maybe some of the Black folk can offer a type of leadership that is less megalomaniac than that of people who more class and racial privilege who call themselves ‘radicals.’ Perhaps I need to revise my ideas here in order to be more constructive and less cynical. What I am saying here I consider a draft, a set of notes, an exchange of ideas among community members, and not a definitive statement of my stance.
Regarding other aspects to the subject of ‘revolution,’ you made, when we last spoke in-person, the point of asking whether ‘revolution’ was a matter of seeking to change ourselves from within or a matter of seeking political change. Let me know if I’ve mis-characterized your question, but if I haven’t, I’d suggest that it’s both internal and external, and mutually reinforcing.
‘Revolution’ occurs within ourselves in terms of achieving a type of ‘spirituality’ based on our indisputable dependence on nature, and a scientific understanding of how our lives are a small part of the universe, which is incomprehensibly vast, yet non-transcendent.
Forms of spirituality that are not subject to scientific verification lend themselves to the creation of hierarchies whereby a class of esoteric knowledge-keepers wield power.
By contrast, a spirituality based in nature depends on science, historiography, and other aspects of rationalism. As such, no one within this type of approach to spirituality can claim to be infallible or otherwise more in tune than you or me to a source of omniscience.
Further still, the claims of immutability so often found within religious dogma and its influence on societies, is a key part of impeding liberation. Consider caste in India, or Islamic fundamentalism regarding feminism or Queer Liberation. Scientism is similarly problematic, but is it such to the same degree of severity we see in religious dogma ?
With such a spiritual revolution based on our indisputable connection with nature, we unavoidably change how we structure our daily lives and human civilization, in terms of our relationships among humans and between humans and the rest of life on Earth. With this in mind, I see the need for a positive term regarding this sort of immanent spirituality.
‘Atheism’ seems defined by what it is not. But including here a point from Andre Comte-Sponville might help. He writes in The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, “To be an atheist is not the deny the existence of the absolute; rather it is to deny its transcendence.”
A person note here: for me, ‘revolution’ involves both the personal and political, in terms of being an atheist, queer, and someone attempting to make strides in terms of animal liberation and ecology in general. (Ecology includes the issue of relations among humans– ie social justice.)
Ecology movements are key to ‘revolution’ and animal liberation is a part of that. But when I hear some Some people use that term to denote how technological changes affect society such as the invention of the printing press with movable type, the Industrial Revolution, or the emergence of the internet.
One might argue such technological revolutions are more far-reaching in their effects than political ones.
There is also the connotation of cultural change, such as the ‘sexual revolution’ in the 1960s.
But as for political revolution, and the idea of power being abused and situations of oppressed people taking a stand against it, a couple ideas come to mind.
We’ve already talked about one of the ideas regarding power : Erich Fromm says in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness that the revolutionary character is not awed by power.
I would add that the type of approach to ‘revolution’ I have in mind, if I am to use the term ‘revolution’ is one in which those engaged in it neither covet nor are cowed by power.
In my mind, that stance draws from Fromm and at least two other writers, one a food sovereignty writer who visited Columbus in March of 2012, Eric Holt-Gimenez.
As I recall, he quoted one of the Campesinos as saying they sought to change their relationship with and their attitude toward power,instead of seeking to seize power.
The other source of that idea for me is Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics, who said during Occupy that if the aim is just to seize power, we’re likely to end up with yet another form of the so-called 99 percent.
Such points about one’s attitude toward power itself—for example, neither coveting it nor being cowed by it—-pertains to questions of strategic nonviolent resistance vs a ‘diversity of tactics.’
I don’t want to be cynical, but it’s fair to ask. How many folk who talk about violent revolution do so not because power is being abused, but because they themselves aren’t the ones in power ?
My years in activism are relatively few, but so far most of the folk I’ve encountered over the past few years who talk about violent revolution seem to be white males with middle and upper middle class backgrounds.
It’s not cynical to at least ask about the extent to which such folk talk revolution because they think that they have a chance of being among the leadership if there were a revolution; and that, in the mean-time, given their education and social connections and technological gadgets, they are the ones who will ‘educate’ the uninformed masses.
An impression I got during one of the Ferguson solidarity marches is that maybe some of the Black folk can offer a type of leadership that is less megalomaniac than that of people who more class and racial privilege who call themselves ‘radicals.’ Perhaps I need to revise my ideas here in order to be more constructive and less cynical. What I am saying here I consider a draft, a set of notes, an exchange of ideas among community members, and not a definitive statement of my stance.
Regarding other aspects to the subject of ‘revolution,’ you made, when we last spoke in-person, the point of asking whether ‘revolution’ was a matter of seeking to change ourselves from within or a matter of seeking political change. Let me know if I’ve mis-characterized your question, but if I haven’t, I’d suggest that it’s both internal and external, and mutually reinforcing.
‘Revolution’ occurs within ourselves in terms of achieving a type of ‘spirituality’ based on our indisputable dependence on nature, and a scientific understanding of how our lives are a small part of the universe, which is incomprehensibly vast, yet non-transcendent.
Forms of spirituality that are not subject to scientific verification lend themselves to the creation of hierarchies whereby a class of esoteric knowledge-keepers wield power.
By contrast, a spirituality based in nature depends on science, historiography, and other aspects of rationalism. As such, no one within this type of approach to spirituality can claim to be infallible or otherwise more in tune than you or me to a source of omniscience.
Further still, the claims of immutability so often found within religious dogma and its influence on societies, is a key part of impeding liberation. Consider caste in India, or Islamic fundamentalism regarding feminism or Queer Liberation. Scientism is similarly problematic, but is it such to the same degree of severity we see in religious dogma ?
With such a spiritual revolution based on our indisputable connection with nature, we unavoidably change how we structure our daily lives and human civilization, in terms of our relationships among humans and between humans and the rest of life on Earth. With this in mind, I see the need for a positive term regarding this sort of immanent spirituality.
‘Atheism’ seems defined by what it is not. But including here a point from Andre Comte-Sponville might help. He writes in The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, “To be an atheist is not the deny the existence of the absolute; rather it is to deny its transcendence.”
A person note here: for me, ‘revolution’ involves both the personal and political, in terms of being an atheist, queer, and someone attempting to make strides in terms of animal liberation and ecology in general. (Ecology includes the issue of relations among humans– ie social justice.)
Ecology movements are key to ‘revolution’ and animal liberation is a part of that. But when I hear what some folk who call themselves Marxists say about ‘revolution,’ it seems to lean heavily on a narrative conceived during the Industrial Revolution, a time when few, if any, human beings had a sense of our ecological predicament. Such folk seem uninterested in animal liberation and ecology in general.
In the spirit of thesis-antithesis-synthesis,
Tom
Leave a Reply