Are you worried about...

[JuliaAJA]

It's 'hear, hear', Jess.

Sorry.

[Molotov]

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.

[Darvian]

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.

Oh yes, I readily concede I was just throwing a red-herring out there. Though, on the latter of the two 'revolutions' you are quite right that it is very much on-going. Though, don't be naive about such things. If we were having this conversation at a hypothetical climax of the 'digital-revolution' many of the concepts discussed here will be dramatically altered. Though, this hinges on the philosophical and flat conjecture at this point in our species young lives.

[GreekIdiot]

Revolution in Iran? Now, why would a Yank government official in Yankeeland worry about that?

[Chazza]

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.

In any case even if, while we disagree on this, revolutions have turned out badly, when faced with a system and a regime that cannot be changed from within, what other option is there for the Iranian people?

[Sam]

The only outcome of a true revolution is anarchy. The American Revolution was a war of independence, not a revolution.

[Molotov]

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.

Chazza, that is exactly what they said the last time. (Except for the theocratic bit.)

[Sam]

Indeed, that's what they said in every revolution.

[Darvian]

I'm surprised none of the local commie lovers haven't busted out Lenin's definition of a revolution. It's quite good actually.

""When the old order can not go on in the old way, and the people do not wish to go on the old way."-Lenin

Iran by that definition has fit the qualifications but, in my view; they aren't there yet. Though, who the hell knows. Foreignpolicy.com wrote a piece on the question and said probably rightfully so, don't listen to any expert. I'm sticking with that for now.

[AngryMollusc]

I'm surprised none of the local commie lovers haven't busted out Lenin's definition of a revolution.

Do we have any commie lovers left? Sam's a lover of commie history, not commies, and the rest seem to have quietly faded out...