Chapter 17: Reflections: Revolutions: Pro and Con

"To those who complained about the violence of revolutions, supporters pointed out the violence that maintained the status quo and the unwillingness of privileged classes to accommodate changes that threatened those privileges. It was persistent injustice that made revolution necessary and perhaps inevitable" (Strayer, p.520).

The last part feels like deja vu-like something I encountered recently, maybe on a test, or final exam. Nevertheless, to the issue of the violence brought on by revolution, Strayer makes a good point of turning our attention towards the violence maintained by the status quo. But not only violence, but injustice, oppression, exploitation-and everything else protected for by the standing order.

This all goes back to a recent post of mine, where I wrote about how often revolutions are put into action by an outside party-pointing out the North's role in initiating the call for abolition of slavery, so incessant in the South. Granted, there's always this negative connotation associated with revolution, but I argue that we shouldn't be surprised. Nor should we be quick to judge. For it's my opinion that if people are unhappy with something, it's their right to oppose it-the means in which they do so depends on the severity to which they feel they've been robbed of their dignity. Robespierre slaughtered some thousand "enemies of the revolution." I applaud him for it.

Going back to Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, how many people do you think thought he was outright crazy for calling for equal rights for a black people. Think about how absurd that would have seemed if you were a white person living in the 1950's and 60's. Or a man living during the early part of the 21st century, when women were calling for equal liberties and the right to vote. Downright outlandish right? And now we have gays asking for the same. How dare they!?

What I mean to comment on in all of this is people's subjective experience. We're all making history, and we're all having history done to us, if that makes any sense. Who are we to devalue the way another person sees things, no matter how extreme or how far from the norm they [appear to] fall. Who are we to judge? History has shown us, and it is quite evident, that people in power don't like giving up that power. It's been repeated in the lab. Look no further than the Stanford Prison Study of 1971. In any case, when African Americans demand reparations, which they have been denied in the past, it's often viewed as outlandish. But why? Because it goes against...what? The standing order-the way things are. Revolutions do just that-challenge the so-called natural order. I urge us all to consider what the "natural order" is. Just to finish that thought, what came of 40 acres and a mule? The Reconstruction? When we talk about redistribution of resources in this country and beyond, we might want to start there.

Strayer goes on to comment: "to their victims, critics, and opponents, revolutions appeared quite different. Conservatives generally viewed human societies, not as machines whose parts could be easily arranged, but as organisms that evolved slowly. Efforts at radical and sudden change only invited disaster, as the unrestrained violence of the French Revolution at its height demonstrated."

So in light of this, should one who is unhappy with the way things are address their grievances and allow 200 years for things to change? After all, that's reasonable given our timeline. Or is it? I think certain situations necessitate so-termed "disaster." The responsibiliy, in my opinion is for us to see it (the injustice), and counter it before it reaches a boiling point.

Going back to Professor Fitzgerald's comment last night about the uncertain, but sometimes obvious future, I think too may times we live life reactively, and shield ourselves from life's events under the cloak of ignorace we call the future. While I may have posted this quote, by Shakespeare, before, I neverthless find it a great point to end on. While Strayer also makes this contention, Shakespeare captures it quite eloquently: "There is a chronicle for every man’s life, which shows what happened to him in times now past. If you study that chronicle, you can prophecy what lies ahead with some accuracy. The seeds of things to come are buried in the things that have already happened. These seeds grow, and become the children of time."

The Aims of Society

So everything I've written this morning has had this patronizing overtone. I can't helpt it, reading history does that to me. It strikes a deep chord within my soul-whatever that means.

In reading about the first industrial society-the epic transformation of social life, the shift of wealth from landowners to men of industry, the class system that ensues-I came to wonder what society really is. Is society as it's defined-a structured community of people, a group sharing interests, or a relationship among groups? Is it something else entirely?

It seems to me, that much of the inequality that exists, in societies and institutions, are functions of belonging to this thing we call a society. A structured community of people, it definitely is; a group sharing interests, I'd say it's not; while a relationship among groups I'm inclined to accept. What if one wants out of society? Is it that easy? Societies, I might be inclined to think, are responsible for the ills and inequalities that exist within our governments. So what are those of us that see things this way to do? Pack up and leave for a home in the wildneress, where I can be left to my own my devices, that is until society begins to encroach upon the land I'm living on, blacken my sky, and warm the planet I'm living on? Everywhere we go, we're affected by the actions of others. It only gets worse when self-interest is taken into account. When we think about the sheer numbers of people that the industrial revolution produced, and the limited resources we're going to face in the coming years, it makes me wonder what's going to come of all of it. Will we ever have a just society-one where all people are created equal-have access to equal opportunity, even if we don't all have the same things. Because one definitely can't say that now.

Even if I were to complete my doctorate degree, get a job paying me 120k or more, and work for the rest of my life, I'll never be part of that owning class. So what's it all for? What's it all mean?

Marx (1818-1883)

"To Marx, the story line of the human past and the motor of historical change had always been "class struggle," the bitter conflict of "opressor and oppresed" (Strayer, p.539).

Hmm....
Aside from the conquests taken by various empires, I would have to agree that the vehicle of historical change has otherwse been class struggle-especially in recent centuries. But what is so damaging about class struggle? Capitalism, our economic system/way of life, demands it. Not only that, but doesn't life outside of these systems/institutions demand it? In gather-hunter societies, did some not fare better than others? Even amidst the agricultural revolution, surely, some were producing more than others, which was a reflection of their agency (right?).

So I guess my question is, is class struggle/the deprived condition, not a natural condition?

Chapter 18 > The Laboring Classes

About the condition of ubran workers and their relationship to the more priveleged, "Nor was there much personal contact between the rich and the poor of industrial cities." As described by Benjamin Disraeli, "these two ends of the social spectrum [operate] as 'two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets'" (Stayer, p.538).

I think it arguable that the same can be said of our society, even now. While industry has improved, and conditions I assume have as well (I don't know firsthand as I've never worked in one), the relationship between rich and poor is still very polar. I'm not sure how prevalent homelessness was during that time, but one might even say that the relationship has worsened now as some own NOTHING, while others live in a state of excess that characterizes the American way of life, consciously ignorant of the needs of others. Are these people provided for by our government-local or otherwise? It would seem not. Should they be?

Globalization

So, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution came the idea of globalization. While perhaps what started off as an idea whereby industry would be adopted on a global scale, what has followed, and has many Americans in an uproar, is the accompanying job loss here in the U.S. It seems as a result of globalizing industry, coporations have taken root or sent jobs places where maintaing business operations is more economical. While this is troubling for our national economy, is this dynamic not set forth by globalization, and beyond that, capitalism?

Remember when Professor Fitzgerald talked about unforseen forecasts. Is this not one of those things we should have seen coming?

Nonviolence and Gandhi

"Non-violence means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tryant."
- Mohandas Gandhi

Mahatma, literally tranlsated means "the Great Soul." I'd say his ideology reflects that. Then again, maybe that's my conditioning talking. Speaking from experience, I've always been quick to anger, and take a sometimes violent stand. The reason I call it conditioning is because I've done martial arts for years and of course, there's the time I spent in the military.

In recent time however, I've taken up a very different philosophy, which I've attributed to what else than, another martial art-capoeira. Capoeira, an afro-brazilian martial art, which appears much like dance fighting to outsiders, is as much about personal control-over one's body and emotions, as much as it is anything else. I've really benefitted from it in the sense that I can now honestly appreciate, and embrace Gandhi's sentiment.

The above quote also reflects another statement for which Gandhi is very well known - that "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." What the two have to do with each other is that they seek to express that you can't go on combating violence with violence, becauase you're effectually pereptuating the cycle. It takes greater control, and a certain amount of transcendence to stand in the face of oppression, without succumbing to one of the most deeply rooted human emotions-anger.

Answering Strayer's Questions

"Can the spread of nuclear weapons be halted? Will democracy flourish globally? Are Islamic and Christian civilizations headed for a global clash? Can African countries replicate the economic growth experience of India and China?" (Strayer, p.719)

Looks like I'll have to post my thoughts on these subjects tommorow, because right now, I'm outta here.