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

[The Wizard]

This is something I just started writing a half hour ago, while under the influence of lots of caffeine and even more punk rock. So, read and critique to your hearts content. Part 2 will be feature my own personal ideas, and will be posted once I write. So, sometime today or tomorrow. Also, do you think I should add examples to this or is it fine as is? Just something to think about.

The human species has played host to countless revolutions throughout its young life. These revolutions tend to develop along the same lines; you start with an oppressed group, usually the majority but sometimes an influential minority. This group is stuck in a less than acceptable position by the current regime, who are either terrified of the people they oppress or dismissive of them and their needs. Tensions rise, with the oppressed group complaining about their situation and the power group cracking down on them as a result. Eventually a leader appears, someone with the charisma (note I do not say moral righteousness or intelligence) to unite the oppressed group. This leader decides the nature of the revolution, whether it is violent or not, whether it will work within the law or whether they'll just murder the power group. War ensues, the battles being fought in whatever form dictated by the leader. Some people will probably die, either in battle or in "mysterious circumstances". Finally, the revolution concludes, with either the power group still in power and rather miffed about the whole thing or with the revolutionary group in power, with its leader at the helm.

   Assuming that the revolutionaries win, then things can go several ways. In most cases, the revolutionary group picks up where the old power group left off, the only change resulting being a change in the nameplate and national anthem. A few statues will probably be built in the leader's honor. The cycle will start again, with a new revolutionary group forming to fight for their "freedom".

   Another possibility is that the revolutionary group turns out to be worse than those it deposed. The leader turns out to be a complete maniac, and proceeds to use his power to commit genocide on anyone who he feels threatens him, i.e. everyone. He'll paint his ass purple, form a cult of personality around himself, and use fear and atrocity to maintain his throne. Secret police and death squads will be formed, giving the psycho-leader his own personal honor guard of government paid monsters. After years of horror and inhuman oppression, assuming the leader isn't assassinated by one of his advisers, this regime will collapse under the weight of his psychosis. Everything descends down into chaos, with even more people dying, until someone, probably another dictator, takes control.

   And sometimes, through some wonderful stroke of luck, the revolution will actually succeed without destroying itself in the process. The leader will not turn out to be a psycho or a political animal. The group now in power actually makes good on some of its promises. Things are looking pretty good, a constitution is written up guaranteeing lots of nice freedoms and fail safes to prevent another dictator from taking power. Don't worry though, it'll fall apart eventually.

   See, like it or not, the revolution will be compromised. Give it time. The revolution will survive for only as long as the leader lives. Once he dies, someone new takes over, someone with a different vision of what things should be. Or some other group moves in and latches onto the revolution like a parasite, manipulating it to serve their purposes. They'll kill the dream and turn it into food, fuel to get them to the next source of sustenance.

   Worst of all, the revolution may commit suicide. The people, once so full of passion, will turn lazy and cowardly. They'll sell their freedoms for false safety and cheap entertainment. They'll become devolved and deformed, depressed media addicts who cannot fathom where it all want wrong. The revolution will be remembered only in history books, woodenly ironic pop culture, and in the tear filled eyes of the true believers, now old and beaten, buying the latest assembly line fad for their children.

   That is what all previous revolutions have turned into. They either die young and unfulfilled, or they die slowly and whore themselves out. Those that destroy themselves go unlamented, as they probably wouldn't have done a good job in the long run anyway. But those that live to see themselves become side show attractions, those are truly sad. To have your revolution succeed is to watch it die at the hands of the people you started it for.

[President Television]

Good piece.

It's been occurring to me lately that a lot of movements, political, artistic, etc. seem to be at their best when they're new. Do you agree with this notion? If so, do you think any good could come of making revolutions a frequent occasion?
It also occurs to me that if any new revolution is to happen in America, it will probably come from the Teabaggers. This disturbs me, because I'm seeing a lot of parallels between them and the early Nazi party(excuse my Godwinning).

[The Wizard]

It's been occurring to me lately that a lot of movements, political, artistic, etc. seem to be at their best when they're new. Do you agree with this notion?

Yup, I agree that most movements tend to be at their best early on. In the last several decades, what with the rise of pop culture and the world media, a movement have to deal with a annoying decision. If they want to actually cause change, they'll probably have to attract media attention, but if they want to stay true to their ideals and not end up as pop culture, they'll probably have to avoid media attention.

If so, do you think any good could come of making revolutions a frequent occasion?

Not really, at least not if they follow the pattern I described. A lot of revolutions require immense effort and oftentimes bloodshed to function, and more often than not, it all turns out to have been for nothing. Even if they do work, the results are usually relatively short lived.

It also occurs to me that if any new revolution is to happen in America, it will probably come from the Teabaggers.

I'm afraid of that as well. If you're right and they do turn into a real revolution, then I imagine it'll be either really funny in a pathetic sort of way, or just plain horrifying. As for the Nazi party parallel's, I can see what you mean. They both have been born from similar demographics, and have similar leadership.

[President Television]

Not really, at least not if they follow the pattern I described. A lot of revolutions require immense effort and oftentimes bloodshed to function, and more often than not, it all turns out to have been for nothing. Even if they do work, the results are usually relatively short lived.

I didn't really think so either. I was just curious about your opinion. If the majority of revolutions have no positive effect, there's no reason to have another revolution immediately following a successful one.

I'm afraid of that as well. If you're right and they do turn into a real revolution, then I imagine it'll be either really funny in a pathetic sort of way, or just plain horrifying. As for the Nazi party parallel's, I can see what you mean. They both have been born from similar demographics, and have similar leadership.

This is a shame, because to me it feels like America's slipping- like it's always been slipping. There have been some victories, like the Civil Rights movement, but these more often than not were small revolutions in their own right. I've been thinking that maybe America could use another revolution(it has, after all, been over 200 years), but there's no way that it would turn out well in the present political climate. The only people who care enough to make a change are blinded by their bastard ideology.
I suppose that when it comes to politics, frustration is a general rule.

[The Wizard]

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.

[The Wizard]

Anyone out there? 

[President Television]

Anyone out there?  

I'm out there.  

EDIT: I've seen it suggested on this site that art is the real way that social change is instigated, rather than politics. Is that something along the lines of what you're thinking?
Or is it more along the lines of linguistics, tying in with your plan to save the world with language?

[The Wizard]

I'm out there. 

Sorry. Appreciate that you've responded to this. Was just hoping for more that one person is all.

EDIT: I've seen it suggested on this site that art is the real way that social change is instigated, rather than politics. Is that something along the lines of what you're thinking?
Or is it more along the lines of linguistics, tying in with your plan to save the world with language?

Actually a little of both. Personally I think that changing the culture is the way to bring about real change. So, both language and art are included. My idea is to subvert and then replace cultural traits.

[Requia ☣]

The people running the show now control the vast vast majority of the 'art' that people see, good luck with that.

[President Television]

The people running the show now control the vast vast majority of the 'art' that people see, good luck with that.

Ah, but are the people in power opposed to compassion, foresight, and critical thought?

Oh, wait. 

[The Wizard]

The people running the show now control the vast vast majority of the 'art' that people see, good luck with that.

This is pretty much what the subversion part of my idea is based upon

[LMNO]

Not to sound too cynical, but haven't the majority of public artworks always been under control of the Powers That Be?  Whether it be kings commissioning composers, or the Catholic church hiring painters and sculptures, or record companies pushing out pop, or movie studios deciding which films to fund, most of what we consider to be "popular artwork" has been under the control of some sort of Authority.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So cute when they're still young and idealistic

[The Wizard]

Not to sound too cynical, but haven't the majority of public artworks always  been under control of the Powers That Be?  Whether it be kings commissioning composers, or the Catholic church hiring painters and sculptures, or record companies pushing out pop, or movie studios deciding which films to fund, most of what we consider to be "popular artwork" has been under the control of some sort of Authority.

The idea isn't about art, it's about culture. I used art as an example of culture, but that isn't all I'm going to work with. My idea, put simply, is that maybe the best way to induce change is to change the culture rather than the politics or by deposing whoever is in charge.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Not to sound too cynical, but haven't the majority of public artworks always  been under control of the Powers That Be?  Whether it be kings commissioning composers, or the Catholic church hiring painters and sculptures, or record companies pushing out pop, or movie studios deciding which films to fund, most of what we consider to be "popular artwork" has been under the control of some sort of Authority.

The idea isn't about art, it's about culture. I used art as an example of culture, but that isn't all I'm going to work with. My idea, put simply, is that maybe the best way to induce change is to change the culture rather than the politics or by deposing whoever is in charge.

Culturejamming? Its a lot of fun, but I'm not sure it works on any sort of large scale. I think the Yes Men with their little prank on Dow Chemical over the Bhopal disaster. Sure it was a news splash, it was embarrassing for Dow, but it resulted in no chage to the status quo. Bhopal is still a mess and Dow isn't paying a dime. In fact, India is footing the bill for aid to the area.

Culture jamming when Hikem Bey and others started pushing it was gonna change culture... but its 30, 40 years later and I can't think of a single incident that really changed things. Even the iconic flower girls putting dasies in the gun barrels of the National Guard resulted in a couple guys leaving the ranks and some nice nostalgic pictures to remember the Yippies by. 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.