Revolution

ruthies

most often, the word 'revolution' is employed to denote a change in socio-political institutions.[2][3][4] Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. A broad one, where revolution is "any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion"; and a narrow one, in which "revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power."[5] Jack Goldstone defines them as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and noninstitutionalized actions that undermine authorities.[6]


Are they extinct or could it happen and how would you feel about it?

hallelujajordan

ruthies wrote: »

most often, the word 'revolution' is employed to denote a change in socio-political institutions.[2][3][4] Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. A broad one, where revolution is "any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion"; and a narrow one, in which "revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power."[5] Jack Goldstone defines them as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and noninstitutionalized actions that undermine authorities.[6]


Are they extinct or could it happen and how would you feel about it?

I think you need to give your own view on the matter when posting a thread like this. . .

My 2c. . there must be at least two threads opened on here every week calling for a revolution of some description. If all you revolutionary OP's got your heads together and actually began to work within the political system as opposed to posting nonsense on bulletin boards from your cosy middle-class bedrooms you might actually get your revolution. . .

ruthies

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think you need to give your own view on the matter when posting a thread like this. . .

My 2c. . there must be at least two threads opened on here every week calling for a revolution of some description. If all you revolutionary OP's got your heads together and actually began to work within the political system as opposed to posting nonsense on bulletin boards from your cosy middle-class bedrooms you might actually get your revolution. . .

Well my two cent would be,I feel a complete over haul of the dáil is needed.I wouldn't go as far as previous revolutionary standards,as in storming government buildings and burning them.But i would go as far as fresh faced untainted party members and younger to take over.And for a branch who is above them to over see and police them.
They ignore any input from anyone who is not a majority chair holder.
There is no clean up so long as the old crowd sit in the Dáil.

And i live cosy do i,how would you know?

hallelujajordan

ruthies wrote: »

Well my two cent would be,I feel a complete over haul of the dáil is needed.I wouldn't go as far as previous revolutionary standards,as in storming government buildings and burning them.But i would go as far as fresh faced untainted party members and younger to take over.And for a branch who is above them to over see and police them.
They ignore any input from anyone who is not a majority chair holder.
There is no clean up so long as the old crowd sit in the Dáil.

Which party are you a member of ? Have you tried to influence them with your younger, untainted views before deciding that they were not willing to listen to you ?

ruthies wrote: »

And i live cosy do i,how would you know?

Just speculating. . contradict me if I'm wrong

ruthies

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Which party are you a member of ? Have you tried to influence them with your younger, untainted views before deciding that they were not willing to listen to you ?



Just speculating. . contradict me if I'm wrong

I am not a member of any party at all.
This is political theory isn't it?
I simply asked how do you feel about political revolution?
I know i am for it,i want to see how others would feel and what the problems that may arise and what the pros would be if one came about.
A complete over haul is needed they are not going to punish themselves nor are they fixing the problems they have caused.
And people are blaming that corner this corner and the politicians just sit back and carry on enjoying life.


And you have been contradicted

hallelujajordan

ruthies wrote: »

I am not a member of any party at all.
This is political theory isn't it?
I simply asked how do you feel about political revolution?
I know i am for it,i want to see how others would feel and what the problems that may arise and what the pros would be if one came about.
A complete over haul is needed they are not going to punish themselves nor are they fixing the problems they have caused.
And people are blaming that corner this corner and the politicians just sit back and carry on enjoying life.


And you have been contradicted

Your personal view (stated above) is for political reform as opposed to revolution. You want fresh, young (although that in itself is ageist and I'm not sure I understand why they need to be young) and untainted people to take over the running of the political parties . . but you claim that the parties "ignore any input from anyone who is not a majority chair-holder" . . . .

But yet you form this view without having joined a political party or made any attempt whatsoever to influence the political system because it is easier (and cosier) to postulate about revolution on an internet bulletin board.

The country is full of anonymous internet revolutionaries demanding change but none of them seem willing to recognise that change starts with them and it doesn't start on boards.ie

ruthies

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Your personal view (stated above) is for political reform as opposed to revolution. You want fresh, young (although that in itself is ageist and I'm not sure I understand why they need to be young) and untainted people to take over the running of the political parties . . but you claim that the parties "ignore any input from anyone who is not a majority chair-holder" . . . .

But yet you form this view without having joined a political party or made any attempt whatsoever to influence the political system because it is easier (and cosier) to postulate about revolution on an internet bulletin board.

The country is full of anonymous internet revolutionaries demanding change but none of them seem willing to recognise that change starts with them and it doesn't start on boards.ie

No but questions and debate and ideas are formed here,Correct?

Again you are acting like i said lets have a revolution,do not try put words in my mouth.
I am using revolution as a word for the example of a complete over haul of the government is needed.
What party are you a member of?
Easier for me to talk about it on the Internet and find understanding because i am not so lucky to be politically educated.

They aren't listening to the people when they are voicing their protests or to chair members who warned of the up and coming troubles.
It was ignored until to late.
That's something you might do with a bill in your house hold leave to last minute or a tooth that needs seeing to,as it wont bring down a whole economy in a whole country.

Denerick

There are two kinds of revolutions; Peaceful and violent.

A peaceful revolution will entail a fundamental overhauling of a countries political system through either moral force or mass passive resistance. (e.g, Gandhi in India, Mandela in South Africa (For the most part, there was of course some violence involved) Martin Luther King and the 1964 Civil Rights Act etc. etc.)

A violent revolution will entail a fundamental overhauling of a countries political system through either military force or mass anarchy. E.g, The Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, the Irish War of Independence etc.

People seem to think that peaceful revolutions are bloodless. Not so. With every anti establishment movement there are often dire consequences. The Russian and French Revolutions led to a genocide of the landed classes. The Irish War of Independence and Civil War saw the Protestant population decline by more than a quarter. Gandhi's non violent campaign eventually led to partitition, ethnic warfare and profound ethnic and religious divisions. Mandela's South Africa led to the steady decline of the white population and an exponential crime rate.

Revolutions have serious consequences. Before taken place, they must always be considered very carefully. Often they are conceived by intellectuals who will never handle a gun. The IRA campaign in the North was led by a cadre of men who gave orders but rarely shot anyone. The average footsoldier was a warped young man, the local thug for the most part, who was elevated to the position of a freedom fighter. Consider a revolution to be a release of a societal safety valve - once humanity and respectability is unplugged, it is very difficult to put it back again. Mankind is at heart a vicious, covetous and murderous animal, and is capable of the very worst evil. I would say that no political system is worth even one drop of human blood, and unless faced with critically intolerable tyranny, I would do everything in my power to REFORM the system, not break it.