Molotov wrote:It's 'hear, hear', Jess.
Sorry.
Molotov wrote:It's 'hear, hear', Jess.
Molotov wrote:Darvian: Presumably the loss of the hunter-gatherer society, and with the digital revolution, who knows? If it exists, and is revolution rather than evolution, it is still undergoing. This is not my area of course and, as you said, it isn't really anything to do with the discussion.
Molotov wrote:Chazza wrote:We have had some revolutions and those revolutions have turned out badly, you can say it is due to the process of revolution, I can say it is due to the people involved in them, the way they were carried out and the policies carried out post-revolution neither of us are necessarily correct; empirical evidence does not produce objective truths.
Well, there are philosophical reasons for my position. Change, in any context, represents certain loss with only possible gain. Revolutions represent the greatest change possible and so the greatest certain loss, with only the smallest possible gain. With such consideration, the individual character of the revolution, its events and promulgators, don't really matter.
As to the empirical evidence, as far as it stands, there hasn't been a revolution that has not turned out badly. Why? Well, usually the simplest answer is the correct one: the simplest answer is that it is revolutions themselves that are bad. Your answer, whilst possibly correct, is more of an excuse for revolutions. It's Marxist thinking, roundabout thinking, usually wrong thinking (so far as I am concerned, I'm not claiming that I am God and always right.)
That's not necessarily correct, in that depending on what you lose you may make a massive gain. What would the Iranian people lose in a revolution? A dictatorial, theocratic, discriminatory, oppressive regime? What would they gain? Who knows but it's got to be better than that.
Darvian wrote:I'm surprised none of the local commie lovers haven't busted out Lenin's definition of a revolution.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests