Kill the Culture and Burn the Pulpit Part 1: An Analysis of a revolution

[The Wizard]

Culturejamming?

Too a large extent, that is what I'm planning. I've got a short term plan in the works to see whether I can use the culture jamming community or not.

I think culture jamming is good for occasionally jogging loose a cog, or throwing a little sand in the gears, but I don't think it will or can fundamentally change The Machine.

Maybe. I'm gonna try it out first and see how things go. I think maybe if thing's were done on a larger scale, it might have different results.

[malvarma]

Revolutions are doomed to fail by their nature. It's a wonder any have worked at all.

As I see it, revolutionaries succeed by the strength of their commitment. The status quo may have more guns, but the revolutionaries are fighting for a cause they believe in, and will fight to the bitter end. This is their fatal flaw, because once they win, that same zealotry remains, and they begin targeting "counter-revolutionaries". They fought so hard to get in power that they'll do anything to stay in power, and they become the new dictators.

For this reason, I've come to reject revolutions. Of course, gradual reform is equally worthless. Perhaps there is something in a dual power strategy. Don't fight for a new world, but actually create the world you want to see, then outlive the enemy.

[Captain Utopia]

"A revolution today, can only solve the problems of yesterday, not those of tomorrow"
-- Some Guy

Say you want a revolution?  Well what do you mean - forcing a new leadership on a Governmental institution, or changing the way the institution works?

My problem with the word "revolution" is that it has the connotation of a non-representative violent militia imposing its will upon a people, and as the OP points out, this makes little difference in the medium-long term if the institutional structures remain largely the same.  On the other hand, cultural/societal-scale changes from the industrial revolution to the information age, have profound and lasting effects on institutional structures, and funnily enough, they aren't seen as a direct threat by the ruling elite of the time.

One example - it follows that as the ability for a population to communicate amongst itself grows, then the elite will find itself under increasing scrutiny - and indeed, if Google is to be believed, then people are becoming less concerned about traditional news-at-eleven crime and more so with scandals performed by the elite:

Crime Scandal

The elite was certainly asleep at the wheel when they allowed a computer in every home, with a network to bind them.  For this is bad news.  Bad news indeed.  Especially given the massive bump in "crime" referenced/reported by the news at the beginning of the US 2008 Presidential election cycle -- that had no effect.

Think about it - an elite which controls mass media and who can pump many more crime fnords into the brain-stems of a compliant population, has just lost control of the herd.  There's something going on here, I can't put my finger on it, or exactly how the institutional structures are being changed, but this is the type of revolution which interests me.

[The Wizard]

Well what do you mean - forcing a new leadership on a Governmental institution, or changing the way the institution works?

Either one. Pretty much any major shift in the power structure or society.

On the other hand, cultural/societal-scale changes from the industrial revolution to the information age, have profound and lasting effects on institutional structures, and funnily enough, they aren't seen as a direct threat by the ruling elite of the time.

Good point. The folks in power might not have seen it coming, as such groups tend to be short sighted in nature, or thought the benefits of the changes would outweigh the losses.

One example - it follows that as the ability for a population to communicate amongst itself grows, then the elite will find itself under increasing scrutiny - and indeed, if Google is to be believed, then people are becoming less concerned about traditional news-at-eleven crime and more so with scandals performed by the elite:

True, but I'm not sure if that change has proven entirely beneficial. At least in recent years, public scrutiny towards the elite has proven to be more about simple entertainment than exposing them. Politicians are starting to turn the way of tabloid celebrities. The public is more interested in what they have on their i-pod than what they stand for or are actually doing. The press is spending more time selling the power group than keeping them honest.

Think about it - an elite which controls mass media and who can pump many more crime fnords into the brain-stems of a compliant population, has just lost control of the herd.  There's something going on here, I can't put my finger on it, or exactly how the institutional structures are being changed, but this is the type of revolution which interests me.

I'm not sure if this is really a good thing either. All it seems is that they've changed their game. The political and economic elite still control the media. The only real difference is that they have stopped distracting the public with crime, and started distracting them with scandal. The public craves yellow journalism, and so that is what is given to them.

Not trying to shoot down your ideas, just stating some concerns. You should see how you can use what you've written about for you own efforts. Also, I should have the second part of the essay written in the next couple of days.

[Captain Utopia]

On the other hand, cultural/societal-scale changes from the industrial revolution to the information age, have profound and lasting effects on institutional structures, and funnily enough, they aren't seen as a direct threat by the ruling elite of the time.

Good point. The folks in power might not have seen it coming, as such groups tend to be short sighted in nature, or thought the benefits of the changes would outweigh the losses.

Also, structural changes in the way an institution works can be somewhat unpredictable.

One example - it follows that as the ability for a population to communicate amongst itself grows, then the elite will find itself under increasing scrutiny - and indeed, if Google is to be believed, then people are becoming less concerned about traditional news-at-eleven crime and more so with scandals performed by the elite:

True, but I'm not sure if that change has proven entirely beneficial. At least in recent years, public scrutiny towards the elite has proven to be more about simple entertainment than exposing them. Politicians are starting to turn the way of tabloid celebrities. The public is more interested in what they have on their i-pod than what they stand for or are actually doing. The press is spending more time selling the power group than keeping them honest.

Sure, and I can see the attraction of that -- celebrities "get away" with their bad behaviour all the time, and certainly there are more cases now of politicians involved in sex scandals for whom it does not mean the end of their career.

But I am certain that eroding the publicly-held dignity of the political profession will have unpleasant consequences for those who rely upon that bluff.

Think about it - an elite which controls mass media and who can pump many more crime fnords into the brain-stems of a compliant population, has just lost control of the herd.  There's something going on here, I can't put my finger on it, or exactly how the institutional structures are being changed, but this is the type of revolution which interests me.

I'm not sure if this is really a good thing either. All it seems is that they've changed their game. The political and economic elite still control the media. The only real difference is that they have stopped distracting the public with crime, and started distracting them with scandal. The public craves yellow journalism, and so that is what is given to them.

I'd say a major difference is that "crime" is a fault of the populace, whereas "scandal" is a fault of an elite.  The potential to control the media has been diminished by the ability for a scandal story to distribute itself via email and blogs and forums -- the mainstream media no longer has the luxury of choosing to bury any story it wishes.

Not trying to shoot down your ideas, just stating some concerns. You should see how you can use what you've written about for you own efforts.

Shoot away, no-one likes an echo-chamber!  I don't understand the second sentence though.

I suppose that when it comes to politics, frustration is a general rule.

This is going to be what the second part will be about. My theory is that one reason that politics is now a pointless way to run a revolution, due to the sheer impossibility of getting anything done. So, I think that a different point of attack should be used, one that influences politics as well as the way people think and act.

Agreed 100%.  I'm looking forward to the second part!

[The Wizard]

I don't understand the second sentence though.

I meant that if you can find a way to exploit these societal changes for your own cause, then you should. If that's what you're into, of course.

But I am certain that eroding the publicly-held dignity of the political profession will have unpleasant consequences for those who rely upon that bluff.

Fair enough. That variety won't do well in the changing environment. Do you think it's possible that a new breed of politico will develop, one that embraces and makes use of scandal rather than trying to bluff it away? If that group hasn't already appeared, a la Palin.

The potential to control the media has been diminished by the ability for a scandal story to distribute itself via email and blogs and forums -- the mainstream media no longer has the luxury of choosing to bury any story it wishes.

Those forms of media suffer from a high substance to noise ratio. For a lot of people, the mainstream media is still the only thing they think they can trust.

[Captain Utopia]

I don't understand the second sentence though.

I meant that if you can find a way to exploit these societal changes for your own cause, then you should. If that's what you're into, of course.

Ah yes, thanks, I am!

But I am certain that eroding the publicly-held dignity of the political profession will have unpleasant consequences for those who rely upon that bluff.

Fair enough. That variety won't do well in the changing environment. Do you think it's possible that a new breed of politico will develop, one that embraces and makes use of scandal rather than trying to bluff it away? If that group hasn't already appeared, a la Palin.

Silvio Berlusconi is close to that, too.

But I think we want to respect authority.  This is different from wanting an authority deserving of our respect.  We flip from the former motivation into the latter once an individual threshold is crossed.  Consider the meme against pop stars/entertainers commenting on political issues which are "out of their depth",  and the whole "he's just a celebrity" attack on Obama.

That disconnect, to me, signals a loss of top-down control, especially as the scandals don't seem to follow a strict partisan divide.

The potential to control the media has been diminished by the ability for a scandal story to distribute itself via email and blogs and forums -- the mainstream media no longer has the luxury of choosing to bury any story it wishes.

Those forms of media suffer from a high substance to noise ratio. For a lot of people, the mainstream media is still the only thing they think they can trust.

Okay - but the mainstream media are reporting more scandal stories.  I can only speculate why - and I think it's a tragedy of the commons issue, with the tasty grass being the juicy secrets - where with fewer players the status-quo was previously held by a loose gentleman's agreement.

[Doktor Howl]

Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.

[Adios]

Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.

Is there a better cover for doing vile things?

[Captain Utopia]

Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.

I'd rather steer towards a vision of utopia than let the ship sail in the opposite direction.  While I instinctively reject the limitations in such either/or choices, I can't see a third way.

[Jasper]

3)  Don't try to engineer the fate of the world / prevent others from same?

Why do you trust your ability to make the world work?

[Doktor Howl]

Underneath every utopia, something vile lurks.

I'd rather steer towards a vision of utopia than let the ship sail in the opposite direction.  While I instinctively reject the limitations in such either/or choices, I can't see a third way.

Utopias require a few things:

1.  Universal buy in.  You aren't going to get that, mostly because there are jackasses like me in the world, who can't be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.  You'll have to do something about us.

2.  Stasis.  If the society changes, that means it wasn't perfect.  Ergo, utopias require stagnation.  Promoters of new ways of thinking have to be dealt with.

3.  Artists and other left-handed thinkers will have to be run out of town (even Plato said that).  They're nothing but trouble, and they upset the perfection of the system with their constant commentary and odd behavior.

So, yeah, you can probably achieve a Utopia of sorts, for a period of time...But it, like all Cities, will have to be built on a foundation of the bones of those who didn't want it and wouldn't get out of the way.

But hey, eggs/omelets, right?

[Captain Utopia]

3)  Don't try to engineer the fate of the world / prevent others from same?

Why do you trust your ability to make the world work?

Doing nothing is option #2.  I don't think I can make the "world work", but I do trust that I can be part of something which will make it slightly better.

Utopias require a few things:

1.  Universal buy in.  You aren't going to get that, mostly because there are jackasses like me in the world, who can't be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.  You'll have to do something about us.

2.  Stasis.  If the society changes, that means it wasn't perfect.  Ergo, utopias require stagnation.  Promoters of new ways of thinking have to be dealt with.

3.  Artists and other left-handed thinkers will have to be run out of town (even Plato said that).  They're nothing but trouble, and they upset the perfection of the system with their constant commentary and odd behavior.

So, yeah, you can probably achieve a Utopia of sorts, for a period of time...But it, like all Cities, will have to be built on a foundation of the bones of those who didn't want it and wouldn't get out of the way.

But hey, eggs/omelets, right?

We don't know how to travel at the speed of light but we know what to do if we want to approach it.

I don't believe that any utopia is possible, or sustainable, pretty much for the reasons you give.  But I think it is definitely possible to steer towards something which looks better than what we have now.  Avoiding stagnation pretty much guarantees that steering towards something better will be a continual task.

[Doktor Howl]

We don't know how to travel at the speed of light but we know what to do if we want to approach it.

Yeah, get fried by hydrogen atoms that hit like neutron radiation (given 1 hydrogen atom per meter^3 in deep space.  It's even worse inside a solar system).  Also, we know that we CAN'T travel at light speed.  Period, so the analogy gets even better. 

I don't believe that any utopia is possible, or sustainable, pretty much for the reasons you give.  But I think it is definitely possible to steer towards something which looks better than what we have now.  Avoiding stagnation pretty much guarantees that steering towards something better will be a continual task.

And just how to you plan to steer things?  Either you buy into the current system - and we've seen how well that works - or you overthrow the system in favor of something that looks good on paper (Engels and Marx may have some useful hints).

[Adios]

I am sure 'Utopia' would bore me to fucking death in 3 days. And I'm being generous by giving it 3 days.