Comments:


     Fri, Mar 28, 2008  Permanent link
Hey, I really like this post. It touches upon something that I'm half done finished writing because my half-ass is too lazy to do this all in one stretch, but I'll finish it tonight hopefully.
meganmay     Sun, Mar 30, 2008  Permanent link
I agree with above comment, and am similarly working on a post to formulate what revolution is in our time, why it's needed, what the means are for accomplishing it, and how to avoid being cast right back into the system you went up against in the first place. I'm interested in doing projects to experiment with these ideas, and I've been pondering how to create a larger Space Collective project around this impulse...more to come soon. Thanks for bringing some clarity to this huge subject, can't wait to hear more.


sjef     Sun, Mar 30, 2008  Permanent link
The following quote of Willis Harman seems fitting, it's lifted from the end of David Cogswells essay "Revolution Time", which mostly concerns the political situation in the US, but still has some good general points.

"Throughout history, the really fundamental changes in societies have come about not from dictates of governments and the results of battles but through vast numbers of people changing their minds — sometimes only a little bit.

Some of the changes have amounted to profound transformations — for instance the transition from the Roman Empire to Medieval Europe, or from the Middle Ages to modern times. Others have been more specific, such as the constitution of democratic governments in England and America, or the termination of slavery as an accepted institution. In the latter cases, it is largely a matter of people recalling that no matter how powerful the economic or political or even military institution, it persists because it has legitimacy, and that legitimacy comes from the perceptions of people. People give legitimacy and they can take it away. A challenge to legitimacy is probably the most powerful force for change to be found in history.

To the empowering principle that the people can withhold legitimacy, and thus change the world, we now add another: By deliberately changing the internal image of reality, people can change the world. Perhaps the only limits to the human mind are those we believe in. "

- Willis Harman


In answer to question 1, probably yes, but destruction only of rusted thought patterns and perceptions, not material. As the essay linked also states, this should be a revolution of ideas, not guns or muscle.
"It will take intelligence, and intelligently exercised force."

Question 2 is a lot harder, however if a goal of the revolution is the bringing about of a situation in which change for improvement is the norm, and the feedback loops between those who execute said changes and those who are effected by them are much tighter, wouldn't that of itself create an environment in which there is a constant questioning of the status quo, thus fulfilling the need for resistance?
Sophie406     Tue, Apr 1, 2008  Permanent link
I think that revolution will be more subtle over the next few generations. It will require a new means of schooling our children. Our educational system is largely based on Prussian modes of thought that required obedience from the populace. Until we get outside of the 'raise your hand before asking a question' type of teaching, we'll be stuck inside of the current system. The system we emulate was designed to give the government full control, and because it was always about 'war' and 'protecting the nation', it had to be a type of schooling where we ask permission for every little thing. You'll find that people who are in school for a very long time no longer have an easy time of 'thinking freely'. It's always about the 'teacher's needs and wants' over one's own. The Sudbury School is revolutionary in the sense that children learn what they would like- they are not told that they have to obey blindly- and they certainly do not have to ask permission every five minutes to do the smallest thing....