In order to answer the question of what is revolution and what are the philosophical instruments which inform revolution, I have distinguished between the political mainstreams and contrasted them against liberalism, in a manner which allows for the appreciation of revolution as a thing in and by itself, without the colouring of revolution with occasioned references to particular brands of revolution.
The most important thing in life is change. Given the short term of our lives, in comparison to the age of planet earth, the changes that occur in our lifetimes provide markers for the macro-journey of the human race over the time of the extent of the universe. Saying this without qualifying the implicit assertion, that what happens to and with human beings is important, is misleading as it implies that as an animal the human being is special.
That means that we have to consider the state of the world, with all animals, all plants and all things, as being part of a symbiotic ecosystem that functions organically and naturally. And in so doing we have to consider the life-times of human beings as being peculiar, in that human beings record the transactions and occurrences, that take place in the course of human life and compare these acts and actions with other acts and actions, across periods of time, actors and locations.
Having said that, it remains that, change is documented, recorded and compared and change is respected and accommodated. This idea of change, that super-cedes all other actions which continue the process in the same vein, must be viewed with an appreciation of the fact that change in and by itself and change for the sake of change – that is, self-serving change – are both normative and not directed at any one thing or the other.
It is satisfied and stoked by effecting change – just that, effecting change; regardless of whether the change is for the better or the worse, and regardless of whether the change is organic and natural to, in and with the system that is changed. It does not shy away from conflict, as it is intended to elicit conflict, that is, that change does not bring about more of the same. So regardless of whether change is needed or required, it takes place and lays waste to the system that is changed.
Organised change – that is, change that is managed and directed – not change in its intrinsic state and not self-serving change – is only effected when it is required and when it is needed. It does not simply impose itself and then sit back in the ensuing chaos, rubbing its hands with glee. It does not create conflict, because the conflicts were worked out in the process of taking the change from its intrinsic state into and through to its organised state.
That is the reality of change. On its own and without purpose it is destructive and chaotic, on its own and with purpose it is a dangerous weapon, organised and without purpose it is wasted while organised and with purpose it is tool for development and progress. This is where we are – knowing what types and kinds of change we need and when we need it – and where we are going in this discussion about a type of change that functions in all four states of change.
The four states of change have been explained, and exist both intrinsically and extrinsically, but do not have the energy to effect or impose themselves on any system. They have to be used and implemented by actors who are attempting to change the course of the human experience. They must be viewed as tools and as weapons and as four types of tools and four types of weapons.
This type of change is called revolution. It is at times intrinsic and purposeless, at times intrinsic and purposeful, at times organised and purposeless and at times organised and purposeful. The type of change that is known as revolution, is not something that occurs freely – it has to be synthesized from differing strains of change by the changer before either being imposed or effected.
Revolution is not a dirty word, it is a summarily definitive term that explains the nature and extent of the change that is imposed or effected. It does not mean going around and around in circles without achieving anything, and it does not mean “more of the same”. Revolution is a defining feature of the markers of the macro-journey of the human race over the time of the extent of the universe.
Just start with the idea. The idea that is for something different. The idea that is intended to change things for the better. Now ask yourself what change is needed for the idea to be realised, and what change is available that will move things toward the realisation of the idea. It is not that the need for change brings revolution, but rather that the need for the idea, brings focused change which brings revolution.
Just because its change, doesn’t mean that it is revolution, and just because it is revolution does not mean that its progressive change. Revolution is natural change without purpose or natural change with purpose or organised change without purpose or organised change with purpose. Depending on how the revolution is formulated and how the revolution is implemented, depending on how the change is drawn together and how the change is synthesised and depending on how the purpose is integrated and how the purpose complements the change; revolution can either be constructive and useful or it can be destructive and useless.
Just because you like the idea of being involved with revolution or just because you think that there’s something romantic about revolution, you shouldn’t take the position that endorses revolution regardless of circumstance. Sometimes the effects of revolution result in the situation as it is experienced being worse than before the revolution. It’s a matter of carefully choosing the mix of change and the nature of revolution that will result in revolution being the thing that you like or that you find romantic.
Just in time for the eventuality of change; that is the eventuality that over time things change, to meet needs and to cope with conditions; revolution may be too much for the system to bear, so that if you want revolution you must ensure that your timing is correct. Revolution that is timed to be effected or imposed when it is most needed, when the system is most susceptible to chaos as dissatisfaction is at its height, is revolution that will take root, be popular and resonate with the intentions of the human beings involved with the system being changed.
This is an immutable rule, that will make sense to anyone that has worked in organisations or associations. If revolution is desirable, because it is dependent on the ingredients of the change that composes the revolution, it must be that revolution is considered to be a final approach. That is that attempting change in small or incremental stages is not working or not working fast enough; and something more decisive is needed.
This status of revolution as being the final effort to effect change, must never be neglected, underemphasised or ignored. In fact, it can be said that the formulation of the revolution, from the choosing of the strains of change, to the selecting of the implementation of the change, to the organisation of the change and the determining of the purpose of the change; must be of fundamental concern to those touting the revolution.
It must be that the definition of the scope and range of the revolution, is of critical importance and fundamental locus to the process of actually implementing the revolution. While the implementing of the revolution is the romanticised part where heroism abounds, it is in the making of the revolution that the minds of the revolutionaries must be applied with some vigour and attention to detail. For it is in the making of the revolution that the nascent propensity for the revolution to be acceptable is decided.
That only leaves timing and careful implementation to round out an effective revolution. From start to finish a sure-fire method to effect real and substantial change for the better. And yet it seems that we are missing something, that we are glossing over something. That something is the receptor for the revolution. That is the thing that receives the revolution into the system to be changed and hosts the revolution for the period of the implementation of the revolution. This receptor needs to be primed to the exact nature of the revolution, and it needs to be able to survive the implementation of the revolution and to be able to survive the changes that the revolution brings. That is that it needs to literally survive the revolution.
With this in mind, let us go through the process of the revolution. First you have to choose changes that will satisfy the criteria of the desired change, and then you have to draw them together, that is that you must make them work with each other – that is that they cannot be changes that cancel each other out. Now you must decide on the modus of implementation and then work out the problems that could occur during the implementation.
You have to think creatively about the problems so that your implementation plan is successful regardless of circumstance or influence. You have to literally decide which change happens when, and which change is focused on, and then you have to troubleshoot the activities and work out how you will implement the changes without being derailed by the problems.
Finally, you have to determine the purpose or lack thereof of the package of changes that your revolution will bring. This being said I return to the earlier assertion that revolution is change that is either intrinsic and purposeless, intrinsic and purposeful, organised and purposeless or organised and purposeful. By intrinsic it is meant change in and by itself or change for its own sake. By organised it is meant negotiated change and predetermined change.
Having gotten to this point all that remains is to ask you to ask yourself whether the revolution you had in mind and the revolution you now have in mind are the same things – or is the revolution that you have now a more complex and involved thing than the romanticised notions of revolution that you had previously.
This is not a problem or a bad turn of events. It is only natural that after explaining the intricacies of revolution that your perception of revolution would have changed, no pun intended. If however you are certain that your previous understanding of revolution and your current understanding of revolution is the same, then we must ask whether you have considered that revolution for the sake of revolution is ultimately meaningless.
Nonetheless it is now time to illustrate different types of revolution and revolutionaries. It is necessary to sperate the various types by a lucid identifier, and the one that has been chosen is political ideology. So, in the next few chapters we will illustrate different types of revolution and revolutionaries as understood by Socialism, Conservatism, Nationalism, Communism, Workerism and Theologicism.
Socialist revolution is predicated on effecting change to install and institute a socialist paradigm. This is a situation of believing that all people are created and nurtured equally and that all people have the same abilities and aptitudes. There is no individual, there is only the group of people known as society. These people pool their resources and opportunities into a state which is then the enabler of the society, the polity and the economy.
Socialist revolutionaries are often associated with the somewhat heroic nature of fighting for the people and demanding justice for the people in political terms, in social terms and in economic terms. The socialist project, the world over, has become enamoured with grandiose gestures of equality and heroism, relying on escapism to justify the stretch of the imagination required to believe that socialist revolution is in the best interests of all people.
This creates the fundamental problem with socialist revolution in that it cannot be replicated, in principle because no two groups of people, in society, are the same. Yet socialist revolution is almost always imported from somewhere else. Inspired by the event of a socialist revolution taking place somewhere, socialist revolutionaries elsewhere often press their luck in trying to effect a socialist revolution where they are.
Sometimes this works, and the socialist revolution takes root, and sometimes it ends disastrously, with the socialist revolution being discredited. The problem with the implementation of socialist revolution is that in almost every instance – it is effected by denying political rights to dissenting views, thus closing out the democratic space and effecting an almost totalitarian institution in the name of a socialist revolution.
Then the socialist revolutionaries spend their time trying to justify their actions in terms of them being “in the best interests of the people” and “necessary”. This leads to hypocrisy, dishonesty and interminable double-speak. No sooner has the socialist revolutionary put out the flames of one critical conflict then there appears another, more strident than the previous ones.
Socialist revolution lends itself to a hierarchal distinction between leaders and followers despite the premise of socialism that all adherents are equal in status. This distinction is implemented to disconnect the people from all of the information and to facilitate the distribution of only some of the information to the people. Think of the Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic, the socialist revolution is obsessed with crafting the shadows and ordering the sounds to create an induced state of belief in what is real.
Some socialists will disagree with this and say that the socialist revolution is directed to liberate the people from inequality and servitude, that it is only the socialist revolution led by socialist revolutionaries that provides for the welfare of the people and specifically all of the people. They will describe great socialist projects of public service delivery in the areas of housing, healthcare, education, welfare and employment, and they will claim that it is only the socialist revolution making use of the socialist state that provides these necessities.
Most socialists have reconciled themselves to not having an answer that solves the problem, other than the state will provide or the state will pay; and have shied away in recent years from claiming that a purely socialist revolution is the answer. They have cited the third way, a mix between the command economies of the socialist revolution, and the directed market economies of conservatism; as being the solution. That is a dispensation is some social welfare, some state-owned enterprise, some large monopoly capital and some social justice for the people.
The socialist revolution and the socialist revolutionary appear to mean well, that is that they have seemingly good intentions, when you consider their macro and big picture plans. They want equality, justice, dignity and a living wage, they want co-ordinated development that creates employment and diversifies the economy and they want a democratic environment that encourages civic participation. That’s all well and good, but they socialist revolution and the socialist revolutionaries are completely wrong in how they go about getting these things.
Equality, justice, dignity and a living wage don’t come from declaring all people equal and hoping that people will lose their individual personalities and propensities. Co-ordinated development that creates employment and diversifies the economy is produced by competition not by a command economy, and democratic environments that encourage civic participation are not associated with a state that controls the difference between leaders and followers and controls the public’s access to information.
So, this is where the socialist revolution fails. This is where the socialist revolutionary fails. And they fail badly. No longer the untried formula that just might work – socialism, the socialist revolution and socialist revolutionaries have been discredited all over the world, after having been given the opportunity to shine. The fundamentally flawed logic of socialism, that all people are created and nurtured equally lends itself to the conflation of socialist mythology that drifts from a touchy-feely social justice perversion to a hard-core dislike of effort and consideration.
Nowhere in the pantheon of socialism is there an explanation as to why the socialist revolution and the socialist revolutionary fails to achieve the socialist objective. There are excuses, of hidden and shadowy socio-economic forces made up of minority capital and conservative establishment, that actively seek to thwart the actions and intentions of the socialist revolution making the task of the socialist revolutionary nearly impossible.
The socialist revolution when separated from the heroism and the bland assertions of “for all the people” is little more than a silly idea premised illogically on contentions that do not agree in the first instance. That is, that the socialist revolution is attempting to achieve the objects of democracy through undemocratic means. This is doomed to fail from the start.
The socialist revolutionary planning on how to solve problems with only “the state will provide” and “the state will pay” as options, is almost like a grandiosely delusional fool thinking that all of his or her escapism can be paid for by an imaginary bank. Without a firm grounding in reality the socialist revolutionary will descend into a nightmarish cycle of tax and spend, and then expropriate and provide. Neither of these systems work effectively or sustainably.
The socialist revolution cannot work and cannot be implemented successfully because of the underlying faults in the logic that informs the socialist revolution. The socialist revolutionary likewise cannot succeed because their attempts are in vain. This does not mean that socialism itself is bereft of value, only that its value is rather in telling us what not to do, and how not to do it.
Conservative revolution is much like neo-fascism in that it attempts to restore order to a social system that has long since dispensed with the need for the hierarchical distinction between groups of people, organised into classes. The polity, society and economy is no longer defined in terms of class and hereditary privilege, because in the modern world it is the activities of people that determine their success, status, wealth and indeed privilege.
The conservative revolution to return our countries to a state that subsisted a hundred years ago, or even earlier, is nowhere in the offing of what could be successful. The conservative revolutionary is quiet and sullen, not being able to disguise fear and hate as personal choice and taste. There are in some countries conservative governments that attempt to instil either a religious or ethnic bias into their formulation of society in the decision-making that informs how the conservative state works, functions, exists and interacts with the people.
The conservative revolution only aims to achieve this situation in as many places as is possible. Not to reinvent the wheel, not to redefine the state and not to impose upon the people such onerous actions that would make it unpopular. The problem with this is that every conservative state and every conservative government is illegitimate and unfounded. This is because it can only represent some of the people, in terms of what it believes and in terms of what it promises.
The conservative revolutionary spends much time hoping that common ground is found with opposing political forces, so as to create the spectre of legitimacy with a more “for all of the people” spin being provided by coalition partners. The conservative revolutionary dare not campaign for what is truly and deeply in mind, because this is a divisive and alienating philosophy that seeks to secure prosperity for some while ignoring the aspirations of the rest.
Conservatism is dependent on fear and dispassionate reasoning that says that the privileged few are entitled to protect their privilege, to guard their positions against the tide of the many and to entrench their control over the state and the apparatus of the society, the polity and the economy. Monopolies and extreme private wealth are imperatives that must not be tampered with, nor must the status quo of the rich being able to dictate to the poor be altered.
Conservatism is fearful of change, of development and of progress. If conservatism were to become really revolutionary it would demand that each protected group be allowed to contract out of the society, the polity and the economy choosing instead to exist in their own, protected, private and closed off societies, polities and economies. The conservative revolution would thus actually have something to fight for, rather than the misguided agenda of minority privilege.
The conservative revolutionary is unable to answer questions of how public services are to be provided, of how community development is to take place and of how fundamental change is to be effected. The conservative revolutionary is unable to explain why the conservative solution to every problem is to create a monopoly that exists in a delusional state of the absence of competition and accountability.
The conservative revolutionary is not well placed to answer questions on the role of the state in regulating relationships between big business and government, because the conservative state exists to foster and facilitate these relationships and incestuous dealings for the entrenchment of the positions of the conservative elite.
The conservative revolution cannot be implemented in a democratic manner, as it does not consider the opinions and perspectives of those who fall outside of the elite, outside of the privileged few and outside of the upper classes. This means that regardless of how much support there is for a conservative revolution, for conservative revolutionaries, for conservatism, for conservative, for a conservative government and/or for a conservative state, they will never be able to claim to represent the people, nor will they have the authority to represent a mandate on behalf of the people. This means that no amount of conservative or conservatism is ever enough to satisfy the conditions of meaningful change, because it is the intention of conservative and conservatism to keep things as inequitable as is possible.
Conservative revolution is implemented by undemocratic means, it is supported by ignorance that is constructed by the conservative revolutionary and it is sustained by an unwillingness to challenge the autocracy of the privileged upper classes. Conservative revolution could only find new favour in a country with a middle class that is tired of the socialist state, where that middle class has ambitions of prosperity and where that middle class is prepared to live with the initial status of being second class as compared to the elite.
Conservative revolutionaries in such countries could contrive ethnic or socio-economic arguments to make the case for conservative and conservatism, but regardless of how well these arguments are contrived they will not be able to deliver to that middle class what that middle class actually wants, and that is equal opportunity.
Conservative revolutionaries are the apologists for the elite with their competition-less monopolies and monopoly capital and their social networks of the known elite. They apologise from day one because they solicited support from the middle class under false pretences and because conservative revolution is intended to silence and cancel-out dissenting views, to control the flow of information and to entrench a culture of leadership that is above accountability and public criticism.
Conservative revolution does not have what it takes to be attractive to the masses, to the many and to the downtrodden. Conservative revolution has only to consider what it values to see why it is not a threat in a democratic space. However, in the modern world, with the predetermined messaging in the media and the sway of monopolies and monopoly capital over influencers, it is quite obvious that illegitimate conservative revolution is achievable, though not perfectly implementable.
Conservative revolutionaries are thus quick to seek their advantages where they can and to make lasting impacts on the state while they have access to controlling it. You see this every time the Republicans win an election in the United States and every time the Tories win an election in the United Kingdom. They try to carve their influence upon the state so that they are in de facto power long after they have been run out of office.
The people do not benefit from conservatism, conservative, conservative revolution, the machinations of conservative revolutionaries, a conservative government and/or a conservative state. The people suffer at the hands of the agenda of conservative revolution, and wither with the imposition of the directives of conservative revolutionaries. The people cannot in good conscience and without much undemocratic manipulation vote conservative or allow conservative revolution to take root.
Conservative revolution is thus not to be taken seriously, but rather it is to be watched hawkishly for signs of life that could threaten the welfare of the people, if given the chance. Conservative revolutionaries must be taken apart for the illogical and dishonest actors that they are, and this must happen everywhere.
Nationalist revolution is decried by Fanon, in “the pitfalls of national consciousness” as being a false liberation that only achieves the re-enslavement of the people under the authority of the new oppressor, the national bourgeoisie, and cheats the people of the freedom that they supported in the first place. He cites technological advantages that position the national bourgeoisie above the people and the indoctrinated nature of the slave or peasant who has been conditioned to obey and behave in a manner that is acceptable to the master.
In every instance of nationalist revolution, we must ask how the nation is being constructed and how the nation is being positioned. In most instances, nationalism is appropriated to group identity and intertwined with ethnicity, language, race, religion and nationality. Nationalist revolution must then be seen as an attempt to effect change for the benefit of the nation, or at least for the benefit of the leaders of the nation. Nationalist revolutionaries attempting to implement nationalist revolution do so without considering the reality that some of the citizens may not be of the nation.
This creates a paradigm that says that the state and the government is only for some and that the agenda of the nationalist revolution which informs the decision-making of the nationalist state and nationalist government, must be given priority over all else. This paradigm is further complicated by the economic disposition of the nationalist revolution, which is usually conservative or socialist. This leads to a nationalist revolutionary either demanding competition-less private monopolies or competition-less public monopolies.
Either way the nation as a whole is adjudged, by the nationalist leadership, to benefit just because the agenda is determined to be for the benefit of the nation. This does not take into account the actual needs of the people, because it is designed to unite the nation, on whatever lines the nation is associated. The nationalist revolution is implemented by seeking consensus within the nation, and excluding the aspirations of those outside of the nation. The nationalist revolution depends on the stratification of the nation into leadership, organisers and followers, so that the consensus within the nation is perceived to be united in principle.
The nationalist revolutionary is faced with the reality of having to fabricate legitimacy by claiming that the nation represents all of the people, and that the nation is constituted of all of the people. The nationalist revolutionary implementing the nationalist revolution does so in an undemocratic manner, ignoring all that is outside of the nation, and in so doing does the nationalist revolution a world of disservice as it gets started on false premises.
The inability of the nationalist revolution to achieve legitimacy during implementation is carried with the nationalist revolution as it attempts to assert its dominance over the state and the government and then over the people, and because of this the nationalist revolution is unable to secure long term influence over the state, the government or the people. The nationalist revolution withers and in so withering reveals that at its core, nationalism is much like conservatism in that it seeks to represent groups of people on the basis of a common identity; and that at its core, nationalism is much like socialism in that it seeks to solve everyone’s problems by only solving the leadership’s problems.
Nationalist revolution is not impotent or weak, far from it, nationalism has the potential to destroy societies, wreck polities and cripple economies. The reorientation of the agenda towards the objects of the nationalist revolution lends itself to a monocultural society, an undemocratic polity and a command economy. Nationalist revolution can only be implemented if the nation receives preference in matters of division and allocation.
There can be no nationalist revolution if the implementation of the nationalist revolution is stymied by persons outside of the nation enjoying preference in matters of division and allocation. This cannot be allowed to occur, and in general nationalist revolution seeks to rationalise the means of information and communication, until the media is sanitised and nationalised – regardless of whether publicly or privately owned.
This coupled with a reliance on organisers to solicit consensus means that the followers of the national revolution, the actual people who make up the majority of the nation, are completely disinformed about the reality of the status of the nationalist revolution. Nationalist revolutionaries make efforts to conceal the failures in the implementation of the nationalist revolution, and make efforts to misrepresent the nationalist revolution as being supported by all of the people.
It seems like a lie that is told by socialist, conservative and nationalist alike – simply making it seem that all of the people are in favour of the revolution, of the agenda of the revolution and of the tactics of the revolution. What’s the harm in that? It only destroys democracy and removes any hope for political legitimacy, while extending to the revolutionaries the responsibility of misdirecting the people for a long enough time that their masters may make of the opportunity what they will.
Nationalist revolution does not take into account the aspirations of the people, because nationalist revolution is drafted to unite nations that are divided, and nations that are not actually nations. The aspirations of the people, equally ignored by socialist revolution and conservative revolution, could very well be diametrically opposed to the agenda of the nationalist revolution, and as such would not be a consideration for the nationalist revolutionary.
Nationalist revolution is only ever implemented without consideration for the expression of the democratic process, as it paternalistically opts to believe that the nationalist revolution will tell the nation what to believe and how to vote. This is a common theme among nationalist revolutions and nationalist revolutionaries the world over. This is also a common theme among socio-nationalists and conservative-nationalists the world over.
Nationalist revolutionaries are not supported by the people outside of the nation, and as such do not interact with them, they literally have no idea what the people outside of the nation have in mind and have uppermost in their demands. They are the uncanvassed and the unpolled – the many that will never be afforded an equal place in the country. This is worse if the nationalist revolution has captured the state and the government and is directing the public space to serve its own ends and to entrench its own agenda.
Nationalist revolution being imbalanced and bereft of popular legitimacy does not attempt any sort of self-critical appraisal, choosing instead a sort of lurching correction that is intended to keep an imbalanced boat steady. Failure to achieve the agenda of the nationalist revolution causes the leadership to return to the founding premises of the nationalist revolution and in so doing make corrections to the activities of the nationalist revolution, hoping to keep the enterprise afloat.
This is comedic at best, as by undemocratic behaviour the nationalist revolution was implemented illegitimately and from that time to the time that it is overthrown, it slowly unravels revealing a self-convincing fallacy that is without any support or following whatsoever. The nationalist revolutionary is by contrast simply wrong in assertion, in direction and in formulation.
Communist revolution is as storied as the history of the world itself. Communist revolution is the ultimate pipe dream of communes and co-operatives of workers owning the means of production, working together and for the common good, and sharing the proceeds of their labours equally. And all these years later, we are still waiting for at least one practical example of this idea to work in reality.
Without a doubt the logic of communism is misguided, as it assumes that people do not have the freedoms of movement, of choice, of association and of speech. It makes these assumptions in determining that people are equal and equally able, that people want to associate with each other in quite a personal and trusting way, that people want to live where they are from, that people do not have disputes and that people will simply do what they are told to do.
Communist revolution is, similarly to socialist revolution, conservative revolution and nationalist revolution, implemented in an undemocratic manner, given that the flow of information is controlled against the people and for the state, and that the dissent that naturally occurs with revolution is over-ruled in the interests of the common good.
Communist revolution does not ask the people, in communes and co-operatives, what work they want to do, nor whether they want to participate in the common works program in the first place. It just assumes that the labour that the people have to offer on the market is for the benefit of the communist state via the communes, co-operatives and communist structures. It does this without considering that the labour is not the same from one worker to the next and that the production capacity of workers varies from one worker to the next.
Communist revolution depends on the suspension of democracy, the commanding of all economies for the benefit of the communist state, and the conscription of the will of the people for the benefit of the common good. These are clear violations of the rights of people as we understand them today. There can be no doubt that communist revolution implemented in a dishonest manner and reliant on a passive citizenry to survive, is without any basic legitimacy whatsoever.
By contrast it seems that communist revolutionaries are inherently dishonest as they scheme to defraud the people of their social rights, the political rights and their economic rights, all for the benefit of the communist state and “the common good”. Communist revolutionaries cannot be trusted to do anything other than to manipulate every circumstance towards a situation of a static picture of socio-economic viability that falls apart with the slightest variation.
In life variation is normal and if a socio-economic system cannot survive variation then it is flawed and you would be ill-advised to support it. This means that throughout history and all over the world whenever communist revolution was propounded, implemented and sustained that its damaged the potential and value of the people over whom it ruled, in a manner that cannot be recompensed once the communist revolution is shown the door.
Wherever communist revolution has failed and wherever communist revolution has been overthrown, the people chose to assert their rights to determine their social status, their political dispensation and their economic activity. This has often come at the expense of many lives and many lost years of communist revolution directed inertia. There isn’t a fund that compensates the victims of communist revolution and yet given what atrocities communist revolution commits, every communist revolutionary should be taxed to create a fund to compensate the victims of communist revolution.
There cannot be any tolerance of communist revolution or the machinations of communist revolutionaries, if we are to demand that democracy and pluralism be normal things in today’s world, if we are to demand that work and prosperity be normal things in today’s world and if we are to demand that equal opportunity and multiculturalism be normal things in today’s world.
Communist revolutionaries from the beginning of the synthesis of the communist revolution have been unable to deliver a functional communist state or communist system. Much like socialist revolution, conservative revolution and nationalist revolution; communist revolution attempts to harvest the fruit of the market economy without planting or tending the trees and plants of the market economy.
Put simply they want the benefits but they don’t want the onerous restrictions on undemocratic and unjust activities. This is because in the implementation of these revolutions, undemocratic means are used and in the sustenance of these revolutions, unjust means are used. This is true regardless of how these revolutions are presented or directed.
Communist revolutionaries would like to believe that they are fighting the conservatism of monopoly capital, but they don’t enable competition which is what defeats conservatism and monopoly capital. Communist revolutionaries would like us to believe that they mean well and that given perfect conditions the communist system could work and could work functionally. This is nonsense as communist revolution steals from the people and deprives the people of their basic entitlements – so they don’t mean well. This is also nonsense because there are no such things as perfect conditions, so that means that the communist system is theoretical and dysfunctional.
Communist revolutionaries do not have integrity, how could they have integrity if they start out to deceive, proceed to defraud and continue to misrepresent? Communist revolutionaries have historically relied on the absence of human rights, the rule of law and democracy to implement communist revolution and to sustain communist states and communist governments. Communist revolutionaries do not work well in competitive and just circumstances as the rapacious nature of communist revolution does not stand up to criticism.
Communist revolution does not provide answers to major problems like the provision of public services, it simply dictates that some people will forgo their rights and will be involved with the provision of what amounts to public services for the elite and in the principle urban areas, with no real direction whatsoever.
Communist revolution seeks to relocate economic impetus to small groups of workers who, in the theory of communist revolution, band together to compete economically. While in reality what actually happens is that the state media spends most of the communist revolution’s time highlighting isolated instances of the success of the communist system, that have been contrived and staged to look as though the communist revolution is still worth supporting.
Communist revolutionaries do not need lessons in bureaucratic time-wasting, and they do not need lessons in double-speak, because these are the tools of the communist revolutionary. It only gets worse, where violence has been used to pacify the people, and the communist revolution is in power and the whole of the apparatus of the state and the government is directed to the purposes of the communist revolution; in such instances the communist revolution and the communist revolutionaries must be overthrown all at the same time, in a fell swoop cleansing the country of communist revolution and communist revolutionaries.
Workerist revolution is enunciated by Labour parties and trade unions. It is the politer cousin of socialist revolution and communist revolution. It casts off the lecherous socialist revolution and the deleterious communist revolution to simply advocate for a worker-centred dispensation. These are workers who work in normal working conditions, they aren’t slaves or workers in a commune or co-operative that strips them of their freedoms.
Workerist revolution does not always choose undemocratic means in the implementation of workerist revolution. But the agenda of Labour parties and trade unions is insipid beyond conditions of work and rates of pay, both things that can be negotiated and agreed without a workerist revolution and without workerist revolutionaries.
Workerist revolution is always bound to identify with the struggles of workers and the struggles of working people. This seems innocuous, until we look at how workerist revolution goes about ameliorating the struggles with which it identifies. Trade unions choose to negotiate with employers and groups of employers in a manner that strips the labour market of competition. Labour parties champion the causes of better working conditions and better rates of pay, at the expense of productivity and economic output.
Workerist revolution when questioned about anything other than conditions of work and rates of pay, default to the socialist revolution answer or worse still to the communist revolution answer. This means that workerist revolution is a mere puppet, a mere proxy for socialist revolution and communist revolution. Workerist revolution cannot be allowed to beguile the people with promises of socio-economic justice and enticements of fabled egalitarianism.
Workerist revolution does not seek to be implemented in a destructive manner, but when isolated workerist revolution also believes in constraining and limiting information and access to information, in a manner that seeks to dumb down and sanitise the packets of information that are fed to the workers who are the supporters of workerist revolution. This is no different to what socialist revolution, conservative revolution, nationalist revolution and communist revolution do when attempting to secure power.
Workerist revolution is predicated upon solidarity between and among workers, they are inculcated with a belief that approves bargaining together and enjoying the same benefits regardless of their individual abilities and propensities. Workerist revolution thus views workers as being equal and as having equal abilities and capabilities. The only distinction between workers is between types of jobs.
Workerist revolution has to be slated alongside every other revolution that does not recognise the rights of people to be considered as individuals with individual personalities and attributes.
Workerist revolution seems harmless but is no less dangerous than socialist revolution or communist revolution, and if allowed to creep into the mix of contending revolutions will prove itself to be a carrier of the same undemocratic disease that troubles socialist revolution and communist revolution.
Workerist revolution must not be allowed to take control of the state, the government or the people because this will lay the groundwork for increasingly workerist policies that transcend the working environment and make inroads into public services and the decision-making regarding the society, polity and economy. This must not be allowed to occur, as this will reinforce the role of workerist revolution in representing and advocating for workers.
Workerist revolution is not required for the representation of and the advocacy for workers, the labour market is more than capable at arriving at working conditions that are acceptable to workers individually and rates of pay that are acceptable to workers individually. This is how the economy works and as a result of which, artificial settlement processes that negotiate and agree for groups of people (all presumed to be equal) do nothing other than create economic inefficiencies.
Workerist revolutionaries seem like genial Labour party campaigners and trade union representatives, going about their days with a resolute belief in the solidarity of workers and the common good that all workers share. In reality workerist revolutionaries are the hatchet men of the process to redirect the economy into a state of dysfunction, that is held to ransom by unjust worker demands.
Workerist revolutionaries have the task of implementing workerist revolution, and of doing so in a manner that does not give away the sinister nature of workerist revolution. So, there will great grandstanding about human rights, democracy and the rule of law; all the while neglecting to mention the economic inefficiencies that have been introduced by the instance of the Labour party’s activities and the trade union’s manoeuvres.
Workerist revolutionaries do not have to implement workerist revolution in a conflict-ridden and acrimonious manner, they simply have to pander to the egos of the workers and make it seem that the supporters of workerist revolution are satisfied with the extent of the democratic process – and then they can do whatever they want. Wherever in the world workerist revolution has been implemented the state and government has been looted and the economy brought to a standstill. The exact devastation of workerist revolution is dependent on whether it was socialist revolution or communist revolution pulling the strings.
Workerist revolutionaries must not be allowed to misrepresent their constituency of workers, who work progressively fewer hours for progressively more money, as being representative of the people. The vast majority of people who work are not represented by a trade union and do not support Labour parties. The vast majority of people who work do not subscribe to workerist revolution and do not have time for workerist revolutionaries.
Workerist revolutionaries have the same tendencies that socialist revolutionaries, conservative revolutionaries, nationalist revolutionaries and communist revolutionaries have, insofar as their misrepresentation of legitimacy and popular mandate. The truth is that if each person was canvassed none of these revolutions would be popularly supported and if the people were actually taken into consideration, none of these revolutionaries would have a purpose.
Workerist revolutionaries have to play a double game, on the one hand fighting for workerist revolution and on the other hand fighting for workers. They aren’t the same objectives, because it is in the defrauding of the people that workerist revolutionaries function, and that workerist revolutions thrive.
Workerist revolutionaries have to spin the presentation of workerist revolution in such a way that the workers are taken in by the scam that seeks to defraud them, and in such a way that the people feel sympathy for the cause of the workers. They have to do this while implementing workerist revolution in a seemingly legitimate way that does not arouse the suspicions of the people.
Workerist revolutionaries are therefore the most cunning of the undemocratic and unjust revolutionaries and the most dangerous in terms of the potential damage that they could do to a society, a polity and an economy. It would stand all in good stead to be well shot of workerist revolution and workerist revolutionaries.
Theological revolution has swept the world over the last twenty years, with more theocracies than ever before. Some even claim the status of statehood, while others engage in terrorism that makes territories ungovernable. Theological revolution is an old enemy of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Human rights get in the way of absolute power, democracy is fiddly thing when telling everyone what to do and it is always so much easier to rule by law, than to be just.
Theological revolution aims at its most basic level to secure power in the hands of the believers of a certain theology. It is not an industrial representation thing that wants power for all believers of all faiths, that is that it does not seek power for theological ends, but rather than theological revolution is demonstrated by the specific adherents of a specific theology in terms of the premises of that specific theology.
Theological revolution is implemented by undemocratic means, the very construct of a theocracy is not democratic. It secures power in the hands of the elite few and then simply bids the following mass to accept, follow and support that elite few. This is not conducive to development and it is not conducive to justice.
Theological revolution must demonstrate that it is for the people, by virtue of the tacit belonging of the people to that faith. It must demonstrate that it is supported by the people, in order for it to garner legitimacy and for it to hold popular mandates. The people cannot question the authority of the theological revolution, because that would call into question the legitimacy of the theological revolution.
Theological revolution even if it is supported by all of the people, because all of the people are from that specific faith, must be seen to be above the realities of the society, the polity and the economy, for it to have ascendency and God-like power. You see control over the state, the government and the people is not enough, theological revolution must involve the divine God-given right bestowed upon the elite few to truly hold sway in the matters of the people.
Theological revolution uses all of the tricks of socialist revolution, conservative revolution, nationalist revolution, communist revolution and workerist revolution to suppress dissent and to discourage conflicting perspectives as it informs decision-making, resulting in theological revolution existing at a sedate pace that is not quite so vibrant as its fellows, regardless of the occurrences in the society, the polity and the economy.
Theological revolution exists and is a contender for power because of the large number of people who subscribe to and fervently follow theistic religion. The one reasonable thing is that there are so many theistic religions and so many different versions of each theistic religion, that no one theistic religion is able to dominate to the exclusion of all others.
Theological revolution dictates that the adherents of the theology follow it without question, and do so knowing that their lives belong to and are accounted for by the theocracy. This is a difficult matter as it implies that the person has contracted out of their human rights, out of democracy and out of the rule of law; choosing instead the civilisation determined by the theocracy.
Theological revolution could be implemented in a democratic manner if every opposing view was allowed to be heard, and if the people outside of the specific theology seeking power were allowed to express their status of not being represented by the theological revolution. But in reality, theological revolution is implemented violently and forcefully, often in the absence of any real justice.
Theological revolutionaries are from the elite few than control the theocracy and determine the rules of the theological revolution. They are the ultimate instruments of the power of the theological revolution, taking in their stride the complete forfeiture of life on the part of the followers and the complete adherence and support on the part of the followers.
Theological revolutionaries are charged with the responsibility of formulating the theological revolution and implementing the theological revolution in the most appropriate manner. They do not have to choose between political ideologies, because in most instances the theological revolution already carries with it the rules for society, polity and economy that are acceptable to that theology.
Theological revolutionaries do not consider the rights of those who are not represented by the theological revolution, and they do not consider the rights of those who choose not to submit to the authority of the theological revolution. They just don’t have to care about these matters, because God instructs the elite few and the elite few command the great many.
Theological revolutionaries are informed by the theological revolution even inasmuch as they formulate the theological revolution. They return to the source of the authority to settle matters of division and allocation. They do this knowing full well that the extent of the power of the theocracy is limited to the territories actually governed by the theological revolution, and that it requires the adherents to actually accept the power of the theological revolution in order for its divine God-power to be binding.
Theological revolutionaries must be discouraged the moment that they occur, they must not be allowed to inculcate a belief in the group identity of the followers that ignores their individual personality and life. Theological revolutionaries must not be allowed to find purchase so as to push their agenda of theological revolution, because this undermines and destroys human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Theological revolutionaries cannot be considered in the same lot as socialist revolutionaries, conservative revolutionaries, nationalist revolutionaries, communist revolutionaries or workerist revolutionaries. Theological revolutionaries are much worse, as with them there is no consideration for the value of life, but rather a dogged adherence to the rules of the theocracy which are predetermined to favour the elite few.
Theological revolutionaries do not hesitate to violate human rights, democracy and the rule of law; because they are allowed to do this. They machinate the goings on and affect the lives of the followers of the theocracy in serious and life altering ways. They hold their power over the people to entrench their positions as part of the elite few.
Theological revolutionaries must be isolated and suppressed, if the construct of modern society is to have any hope of survival. Theological revolution is a direct threat to the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Theological revolution must not be allowed to take root anywhere, as this only creates the impression that it is acceptable and appropriate.
Having seen thus what are the different types of revolutions and revolutionaries on offer in the mainstream of politics, it is necessary to actually define revolutionary beyond the obvious epithet that a revolutionary is one who is involved with revolution. This being said, it is not untrue that a revolutionary is involved with revolution, but it is quite limiting to simply define revolutionary in this manner.
A revolutionary is an actor for change that creates revolution from the basic components that have been exhaustively described, who implements revolution in the manners that have been identified and who holds revolution accountable for the changes effected and for the achievement of the goals of the changes.
To be a revolutionary is no small thing. It conveys with its existence a responsibility for getting everyone from where they are to where they are destined to be. It carries with it the best wishes of everyone who had anything to do with the formulation of the revolution and the best intentions of everyone who endorsed the revolution at any stage of its development. Finally, it is concomitant with a direct liability for the achievement of the intended objectives.
That means that being a revolutionary is more than writing and making rousing and impassioned speeches and its more than drafting and crafting well illustrated pamphlets and posters. Being a revolutionary is something that will not come to everyone that participated in the formulation of the revolution, nor will it come to everyone that participated in the implementation of the revolution. This seems unfair, but the truth is that the responsibilities of being a revolutionary are not holistically for everyone who thinks it’s a good idea.
And the process of creating revolution lends itself to this measure, at times requiring skills from some, techniques from others, and throughout the responsibility of the revolutionaries. It is not just responsibility for the realisation of the idea, but it is responsibility for the revolution throughout its process. This means that the revolutionary has to take responsibility for the perceptions of the revolution, and to take responsibility for the promises made, whether directly or indirectly, by the revolution.
In balancing opinion about the revolution, the revolutionary has an obligation to ensure that the revolution is successful, and to ensure that the revolutionaries are not in conflict with each other or in conflict with the supporters of the revolution. This is achieved by problem-solving and trouble-shooting the implementation of the revolution. This is also guaranteed by the organising of the change so that there is no conflict between the instances of change.
But most of all this is achieved by determining the purpose, or lack thereof, of the changes. If revolution is either intrinsic and purposeless, intrinsic and purposeful, organised and purposeless or organised and purposeful; then knowing in advance what kind of revolution is being developed and knowing in advance what kind of revolution is being implemented, stands the revolutionary in good stead.
The revolutionary can only be strengthened by a resolve to harmoniously blend the changes, to systematically implement the changes, to avoid conflict that is not a direct result of the changes and to imbue all of the changes with purpose, so that the revolution is well grounded and well supported. The revolutionary is thus directed towards the organised and purposeful. But what would happen if the revolution was intrinsic and purposeless or intrinsic and purposeful or even organised and purposeless?
Well let us consider these, hypothetically:
Revolutionaries develop a revolution that is intrinsic and purposeless and implement it systematically, removing the opportunity for dissent and removing the prospect of conflict by simply changing things for the sake of changing things. Haphazardly changing things to solving problems in a make-it-up-as-we-go-along approach that does not provide for the supporters of the revolution to take ownership of the revolution. This separates the revolutionaries from the supporters of the revolution in a hierarchical structure that places the onus of providing direction on the revolutionaries, or leaders of the revolution as they will come to be known. In essence this sort of revolution is doomed to fall apart because it alienates supporters and entrenches a leadership that doesn’t know what’s going to happen next. Sheer bloody chaos, or
Revolutionaries develop a revolution that is intrinsic and purposeful and implement it systematically, removing the opportunity for dissent and removing the prospect of conflict by simply changing things according to the purpose and then silencing complaints that may arise. Reactively changing things to solve problems in a dogmatic adherence to the purpose that requires supporters to keep up with the pace of the revolution and to keep up with the unfolding purpose of the revolution and then exact precedence of the implementation of the purpose of the revolution. This alienates slower supporters and separates supporters into those that know what’s going on and those that support the revolution but are not up to speed on the details of the purpose of the revolution. Having purpose does not compensate for the change-for-the-sake-of-change mentality that drives this type of revolution. In essence this sort of revolution is doomed to fail over a longer period of time, while disappointing a great many supporters and leaving many supporters feeling hard-done-by, and finally
Revolutionaries develop a revolution that is organised and purposeless and implement it systematically, and having problem-solved the implementation avoid conflict in doing so. However, without purpose, the revolution must rely on the negotiated changes, brought by the revolution to solve problems without direction. This means that the supporters are incentivised and encouraged by the smooth nature of the revolution – but discouraged and disincentivised by the lack of direction, lack of cohesive decision-making and lack of unity of purpose. This creates pockets of supporters, all of whom support the revolution, but none of whom agree with the other pockets’ positions. This causes a fundamental problem of inertia and the potential for organisational disintegration with every controversial decision that is made. The absence of purpose will erode into the advantage created by the organised nature of the changes and in the end will result in the revolution failing – not because the changes were wrong – but rather because the revolution was purposeless.
From these three scenarios it is obvious that revolutions that are developed as organised and purposeful and that are implemented systematically, will produce the best results for the revolutionaries. The only problem with this is that many revolutionaries neglect to organise the changes, neglect to imbue the changes with purpose and neglect to implement the changes systematically. As a result of which many revolutionaries are from the three scenarios detailed hereabove.
In being a revolutionary, you must choose how successful you want to be and to make an effort to choose the type of revolution that will satisfy your intended successfulness. In doing this, you will as a revolutionary be more than just involved with revolution. Taking the responsibilities described and working in the preferred manner, your status as a revolutionary will not be ignored by anyone.
Liberal revolution is predicated upon liberalism, and liberalism is predicated upon human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Liberal revolutionaries are never permitted to compromise on the principles of liberalism, regardless of the circumstances. Liberal revolution is factually a thing that cannot be hypocritical, simply because each component of liberalism is necessary for the whole of liberalism to exist and to subsist.
Liberal revolution is firstly about personal liberty and the individual freedoms, rights and responsibilities that are a fundamental feature of liberalism, which considers each person as an individual, that is unique and valuable, whose identity is self-orientated and never dependent upon group identity. Liberalism does not address the needs of the society, the polity and the economy by assuming that every person is the same, or that every person has the same needs.
Liberalism is directly opposed to socialism, conservatism, nationalism, communism, workerism and theologicism, because none of these other ideologies consider the individual as an individual, they all consider the individual as a part of a group that represents the members of that group without considering that no two people are the same.
Liberal revolution is a difficult thing to implement, it does not have the short-cut mentality of socialist revolution, conservative revolution, nationalist revolution, communist revolution, workerist revolution and theological revolution; that is that liberal revolution cannot be implemented by abusing power, by monopolising information, by fabricating consent, by suppressing opposition, by ignoring conflict, by convincing itself or by misrepresenting mandates.
Liberal revolution, when contended in theory, is well supported and greatly popular, this is because the principles of liberalism are geared toward personal and individual liberty and freedom. In the society, in the polity and in the economy, liberalism is unlike any of the other ideologies mentioned previously. It is truly remarkable in that liberalism specifically provides for the uniqueness of personality that is understood to be the reality of human beings.
However as liberal revolution gathers momentum, and is faced with difficulties, its refusal to take short-cuts and to compromise on its principles, makes it progressively less popular and less supported, by those that prefer dishonesty. This may seem ridiculous, given that it is the principles of liberalism that all of the other ideologies proclaim to want or represent. For example, freedom from slavery and indentured labour is a liberal principle, and yet if you listen carefully the socialist revolution, the conservative revolution, the nationalist revolution, the communist revolution, the workerist revolution and the theological revolution have all at some point or the other proclaimed to be fighting for freedom from slavery and indentured labour.
And yet when it comes down it, socialist revolution, conservative revolution, nationalist revolution, communist revolution, workerist revolution and theological revolution, collectively the dishonest revolutions, all corrupt the labour market, nationalise the labour of workers and ignore the basic right that each and every person has to trade his or her labour, on terms and for the prices that are acceptable to the individual person. They literally choose to defraud working people, rather than protect the freedoms, rights and responsibilities that liberalism says that every working person has.
And it’s not just working people that suffer disappointment at the hands of the dishonest revolutions, the very means by which the dishonest revolutions are implemented, that is the very means by which the dishonest revolutions seek and secure power; whether over the state, the government or the people; proves that the dishonest revolutions do not care about the welfare of every person, or even consider the opinions of those that are not represented by their group mentalities. The dishonest revolutions do not see anything wrong with controlling information, opportunity, democracy and participation for their own purposes, to shore up the perceived support for their regimes, in the absence of dissent, of criticism and of competition.
Liberal revolution does not even consider undemocratic processes as being permissible. Liberal revolution cannot violate human rights. Liberal revolution is never in breach of the rule of law. There is no way that liberal revolution would be implemented in the dishonest manner that the other revolutions are implemented. There is no suppression of opinion, belief and/or participation in the process of the implementation of liberal revolution.
And yet none of the dishonest revolutions would ever get anywhere near power and/or control without violating human rights, democracy and the rule of law. That is that without misrepresenting their mandates, while suppressing competing mandates, they would not be able to make it seem like they are supported, popular and legitimate. This façade of political will is not sustainable and in every instance of a dishonest revolution in power, the people rise up, some quickly and some eventually, and get rid of the dishonest revolution.
That is why there is no functional socialist revolution, no legitimate conservative revolution, no respectful nationalist revolution, no practical communist revolution, no just workerist revolution and no solvent theological revolution. Furthermore, given that the dishonest revolutions are never implemented without disregarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law; they never exist in a manner that encourages multiculturalism or pluralism.
Liberal revolution is by comparison a completely different animal. Not that comparison is welcome among the dishonest revolutions, given that none of the dishonest revolutions endorse competition in any sense. The dishonest revolutions are terrified of competition and all prefer publicly-owned and privately-owned monopolies that do not give people choice, but rather allow illegitimate regimes to control, by only presenting one option, the activities of the people.
Liberal revolution, in the context of the society, promotes the tolerance of differences between individuals and encourages an appreciation of the uniqueness of individuals, while in the context of the polity, promotes multi-party democracy and encourages dialogue for understanding, and in the context of the economy, promotes free enterprise and a free market and encourages competition and the removal of barriers to market entry.
Liberal revolution is implemented by obtaining a mandate from each person in the system being changed. If the majority do not support liberal revolution and if those that do not support liberal revolution are not represented accurately; then liberal revolution cannot be implemented. It’s that simple. Liberal revolution is never implemented just for the sake of seizing power or obtaining control over the people or over the apparatus of the state and/or the government.
Liberal revolution is a sophisticated thing that depends on widespread legitimacy and wholesome interaction, that makes it possible for liberal revolution to hold power, control and influence in a manner that is accepted, never disputed and always transparent. Liberal revolution is implemented in a manner that is accountable and directly beholden to the people, not as some group of supporters and fans, but as individuals, some of whom have given a mandate to liberal revolution and some of whom have made representation of their alternate mandate that does not empower liberal revolution.
Liberal revolution is unlike any other revolution, because even those that do not support it, must be represented by it. That is the only way that liberal revolution is formulated and implemented. The difference between liberal revolution and the dishonest revolutions is that liberal revolution recognises the individual personality of each person and in so doing takes the position that every opinion is valuable, regardless of whether some of those opinions are contrary to liberal revolution; dishonest revolutions are insecure and cannot afford to suffer criticism, and in every instance of the implementation of any of the dishonest revolutions, those contrary positions are suppressed in a manner the violates human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Liberal revolutionaries are all without exception proponents of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Liberal revolutionaries do not behave like socialist revolutionaries, conservative revolutionaries, nationalist revolutionaries, communist revolutionaries, workerist revolutionaries and/or theological revolutionaries. Liberal revolutionaries do not take short-cuts, do not misrepresent mandates and do not suppress their opponents.
Liberal revolutionaries implement liberal revolution in a manner the first seeks to obtain authority from each and every person, and then seeks to enable those that did not provide authority to be able to voice their demands and the authorities that they do provide. This is vastly different from the sort of exclusionary politics of the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries, where dissenting views are condemned and not allowed to be heard.
Liberal revolutionaries do not take their roles for granted and do not presume to have any right or entitlement to represent the people without a firm and clear mandate from the people, that is expressed on an individual basis. Liberal revolutionaries do not seek to emulate the dishonest revolutions and/or the dishonest revolutionaries in any way, or at any time. Liberal revolutionaries are chiefly concerned with protecting the personal liberties and individual freedoms, rights and responsibilities of the people, unlike the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries.
Liberal revolutionaries formulate liberal revolution from the principles of liberalism and implement liberal revolution according to the principles of liberalism. This is not easy, given that each person has opinions that are necessary, that each person has objectives that are essential, and that each person has freedoms, rights and responsibilities which are immutable. It is a lot easier to control, disconnect, suppress, misrepresent and tell lies; which is why the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries are drawn to the injustice and dishonesty.
Liberal revolutionaries do not think in terms of represented constituencies and unrepresented constituencies, because they represent all constituencies, regardless of disposition. Liberal revolutionaries do not think in terms of us and them and do not approach the implementation of liberal revolution from the perspective of “as long as we gain power… suppress those that don’t support us”. Therefore, it can be certainly concluded that liberal revolution cannot be compared, in real terms, with socialist revolution, conservative revolution, nationalist revolution, communist revolution, workerist revolution and/or theological revolution.
And yet politics being what it is, comparison is the order of the day. Competition between revolutions and between revolutionaries is an ever-contending reality that does not allow for the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries to get away with their chicanery. That seems like a good thing, given that competition is a fundamental liberal value and that dishonesty is not a liberal value, but it must be said that simply decrying the opponents of liberal revolution does not solve the problem that the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries are used as short-cuts and easy-ways to gain through fraud, access to power, control and influence.
Liberal revolutionaries promote equal opportunity, tolerance and free enterprise within the framework of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; and this means that monopoly capital and monopolies as things do not have a place in liberalism, do not have a purpose in liberal revolution and are not tools of liberal revolutionaries. Liberal revolutionaries demand that transparency and accountability be normal things that are never corrupted. This brings us to the most important feature of liberal revolutionaries, that they are never corrupt, and if they are corrupt, they cease to be liberal revolutionaries upon the instance of them having become corrupt.
In and among the machinations of the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries, corruption is used to gain power, control and influence and used to maintain illegitimate authorities in positions of power, control and influence. This corruption in the context of the dishonesty, destroys what little support and legitimacy the dishonest revolutions and dishonest revolutionaries have and enjoy. It is usually the wholly corrupt dishonest revolution that finds itself on the wrong side of the people, who having grown tired of the lies from the dishonest revolutionaries, want nothing more than to get rid of the corruption.
Liberal revolutionaries in eschewing corruption, separate themselves and liberal revolution from the disease that is corruption, and do so mindfully and intentionally, knowing full well that the dishonest revolution and the dishonest revolutionaries cannot avoid or do without corruption. It is a similar case when looking at detrimental discrimination and objectified exploitation within the context of participation. Liberal revolutionaries do not seek to control participation by detrimental discrimination or objectified exploitation. Dishonest revolutionaries are well versed in detrimental discrimination, or the process of excluding people from their right to participate on the basis of their identities. Dishonest revolutionaries are also well versed in objectified exploitation, or the process of excluding people from their right to participate on the basis of their personalities.
Liberal revolutionaries are not given to treat life as being cheap or worthless, and as a result of which do not believe in the sacrificing of the lives of the people for the benefit of the leaders of revolution. Dishonest revolutionaries are very willing to sacrifice the lives of the people for the benefit of the leaders of dishonest revolution. It is almost a given that socialist revolution, conservative revolution, nationalist revolution, communist revolution, workerist revolution and theological revolution are implemented with, and at the cost of, the loss of life, liberty, property and dignity.
Liberal revolutionaries are by nature willing to consider every opinion, and by nurture willing to encourage every opinion. Liberal revolutionaries favour dialogue and understanding over violent conflict and bloodshed. Liberal revolution is a practical and considerate thing, not borne of the disregarding of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; that favours participation over exclusion and equal opportunity over privilege. Liberal revolutionaries, in implementing liberal revolution, are required to be able to explain what they did in the course of implementing liberal revolution, not just to make sure that they did not compromise liberal revolution, but also to make sure that they were considerate and mindful of all of the participants and actors. Liberal revolutionaries have to hold themselves up to a higher standard, than other revolutionaries, and similarly liberal revolution has to hold itself up to a higher standard than other revolutions.
Liberal revolutionaries are not familiar with larceny, because dishonesty is not a liberal value, but liberal revolutionaries are familiar with sincerity, because sincerity is a liberal value. This is the tool that enables liberal revolutionaries to implement liberal revolution with popular support, broad plural representative participation and efficiency. Finally, liberal revolution is imbued with honesty and integrity, because of how it is created and how it is implemented.
To my knowledge I am not obligated to those that have been defeated by my politics, and whose recourse to survival is dependent upon dishonesty. To my mind I do not tolerate, nor do I allow the tolerance of, treason, identity fraud, forgery, personation and/or impersonation; and do not give credence to imposters, in any way whatsoever. In answer to the pleas from those who have been defeated, having clung unadvisedly to corruption and inefficiency, No.