Revolution

Cathartic but less effective than talking to people

A lot of people claim to want a revolution because they fail to see a viable path to a just political and economic system based on the current state of affairs.

"You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world. But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out." -Lennon/McCartney

In a modern democratic capitalist society, even when many institutions are run by oligarchs, there are always still non-violent ways for the people to enact their will when they unite behind a popular idea. Progress can easily be opposed when support is 50% or less. Once a supermajority consensus is reached, things are still able to happen. Social media has caused us to move away from consensus building and focus more on motivating and agitating the existing base of support around issues. Our reliance on this technology allows oligarchs to use the algorithm to maintain the 50/50 division on most issues. We must get offline and return to peer-to-peer persuasion in person.

"Those who make peaceful resolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable" -John F. Kennedy

Democracies can still enact the will of the majority. It only seems like they can't because we haven't been able to reach a tipping point on a new consensus about our vision for the future, allowing those who profit from the status quo to easily divide us. However, the oligarchs are also aware that violence is terrible for profits, and will usually refrain from escalating conflicts to that point. They don't want to make peaceful revolution impossible, just slightly less difficult than violent revolution.

Practicing the power of persuasion, peaceful protest, political praxis, and populist partnerships, can probably prevent pugnacious people preparing to plunge the public into pugilism.

Revolutionize Revolutions

Historically, revolutions have led to one of the following outcomes:

1. Revolution fails, leaders are killed or imprisoned. (Vast majority)
2. Revolution fails, remaining factions resort to terrorist tactics. (IRA, ISIS, FARC, etc.)
3. Revolution succeeds, but is unable to create a stable government. Factions vie for power, leading to long-term instability and chaos. (French Revolution, Early USSR)
4. Revolution succeeds and a new government is established. But authoritarian enforcement of revolutionary ideology simply creates a new oppressor. (Stalin, Mao, etc.)
5. Revolution succeeds and establishes a new and stable government that significantly improves the quality of life (America, India, and other colonial independence movements)

Although every revolution tries to achieve outcome #5, only a handful of modern examples exist that have, and the vast majority were overthrowing an occupying, colonial force rather than established local power structures. Therefore, anyone looking to find a better system than the one we have should focus on finding alternatives to the traditional method of resorting to violence.

Evolution, Not Revolution

It is not practical nor desirable to tear down the institutions of an advanced society and attempt to rebuild them from scratch using some ideological or utopian model. If we look to history for examples, we find only a few examples where revolutions have not simply replaced one oppressor with another. Since the means is the ends, violence rarely provides a path to peace.

Incrementalism is the necessary approach to social change in modern society. This is not to say that big changes that impact many lives are not possible, but these must be achieved within the framework of democracy in order to achieve them without coercion via actual or implied violence.

The modern revolutionary is self-defeating. If you believe that the overthrow of modern capitalism and/or socialism is the only way to fix the system, you can sit back with self-satisfaction, telling yourself that when the revolution happens you'll be on the front line. In the meantime you don't have to do anything because democracy is broken and participating in the charade is pointless. It's a way to feel like a heroic radical while doing absolutely nothing for the cause. No praxis. 0.0000% of communism has been built. [1]

Voting for someone who promises to break the system is similarly fraught. We need a remodel, not a wrecking ball. You want a nicer house than the one you got, but you're going to hire a demolition crew to get it? Find a general contractor that knows what they are doing and if there are some parts that need a tear down they can sub that out. The guys with sledge hammers will only leave you rubble.

Change can happen in democracy if people focus attention and build consensus one issue at a time. The most effective protest movements in recent (American) history--civil rights, Vietnam, environmentalism, LGBTQ+ rights, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, etc., have all created long-term conversations about a single issue until the public awareness and opinion shifted dramatically. While we are all sick of complacence, we must still be patient. And focused, which is increasingly hard in a society addicted to social media.

This approach also has the advantage of actually appealing to a majority of people, unlike any major revolutionary upheaval which will only ever attract a radical minority. Broad consensus can be built around the incrementalistic approach in the same way that we broadly agree with democracy, regardless of who we choose to vote for. If we build a sustained movement to raise awareness of why we need democracy, balance of power, trust in institutions, and the possibilities of consistent, incremental change, we can get people to stop thinking about breaking the system and to start working on fixing it.

Evolution, Not Revolution Revolution

Breaking the Two-Party System

In America, the two-party system seems to have created an insurmountably entrenched neoliberal establishment. This is one of the most common reasons given by those who choose not to participate in democracy and instead patiently wait for someone else to start a revolution.

What we often fail to realize is that the actual parties are made up of a handful of local volunteers in every locality across the nation. If a different handful of like-minded people who want to move the country in a particular direction simply join their local party organizations, they can quickly gain a majority and hence determine the future direction of that party.

We have already seen this happen in the Republican party, with the Tea Party of the Obama years moving them significantly towards libertarianism and anti-establishmentarianism, and then the MAGA movement taking over a few years later. The Republican party is completely different today because handfuls of highly motivated people across many localities joined their local party organizations and voted to change its direction.

Now, what if the sane people did that? Granted it's more difficult because they tend to have more friends, family that talks to them, and generally richer lives that leave less time for volunteering at the local precinct. Political grifters make this stuff their job, how can people with real jobs compete?

Before we can implement structural changes like ranked choice voting, banning gerrymandering, getting rid of the electoral college, and others that would fundamentally change the two-party balance of power, we must start by taking over the local party apparatuses and filling them with people who support these policies. If we don't have enough volunteers yet to accomplish this, then we need to have one-on-one conversations to spread this meme until we do.

In this video, Adam Conover makes a similar point. Civic organizations, unions, and party participation used to be how progress got made. We need to rebuild these communities to take the 2-party system back from the oligarchs.

The Secret History Behind Why the Dems Keep Losing

Duverger's Law explains why first-past-the-post voting results in 2-party dominance.

Duverger's Law and the Two-Party System Explained

Songs of the Revolution

A lot of great songs about revolution. Here are a few.

Beatles - Revolution

Gil Scott-Heron - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Bob Marly - Revolution

Nina Simone - Revolution (Pts. 1 and 2)