LOL...History? Vive la Révolution
youtube.com
......it's all good? How would we know if it wasn't for the freedom of the press......out with the old in with the new?.....".it's what the "people" want"<g>
LOL....there's nothing new under the sun times, resistance is futile.....the wise owl seize all?<g>
They kill good trees to put out bad newspapers.......to every purpose is a sin?
A radical political upheaval or transformation. Originally understood through an astronomical metaphor, revolutions were cyclical processes moving through four stages: tyranny, resistance, civil war, and restoration. In modern times, the term has shed that reference and come to designate a change in constitution, regime, and social order. The change is intentional and programmatic, undertaken on the basis of an ideological argument painting the old regime as tyrannical, corrupt, or oppressive, promising a new age, and justifying the (usually high) costs involved.
Revolution should be distinguished from coup d'état, where only the rulers are changed, not the system as a whole (‘palace revolution’ is a coup in a monarchist or autocratic état), and also from secession and national liberation, where the goal is independence from foreign rule, not or not necessarily a radically new state and society. Hence, the justifications for revolutionary politics, once the cyclical metaphor is dropped, must extend beyond a catalogue of the crimes of a particular ruler or set of rulers, domestic or foreign. If they are to justify what needs justifying, they will have to include a detailed defence of the proposed new regime and a description of the transformations this regime will effect in society as a whole. A struggle for independence can be called revolutionary only when its protagonists defend their enterprise in this large way, aiming, like eighteenth-century Americans, at a ‘new order for the ages’.
Given the scope of the changes promised, the newness of the ‘new order’, revolutionary politics is sometimes described as a form of secular messianism, a reproduction in political terms of Jewish and Christian visions of the end of days. Certainly, revolutionaries sometimes adapt and use religious rhetoric, but their programme, while necessarily radical in relation to the old regime, is not necessarily radical in relation to the whole of human history. It can and often does describe a particular system of oppression, not a fallen humanity, and a particular set of transformations, not a singular and universal redemption.
And this, our life, exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in the
running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything.
youtube.com |
