For those readers who have ventured to a point in time of seriously contemplating that there may be no other way for making constructive changes along a better pattern of government than by engaging in a Revolution, since the prevailing government is a practice that deliberately engages in tactics to circumvent the collective ability of the public to voice, vote on and then construct laws due to the Will of the People; it is of value for you to take stock of a short review with respect to reading about the topic of Revolution as a subject of discussion from an historical perspective, though the following is an abbreviated account and there are other perspectives to be found from different sources for those interested, since they do not want to make past mistakes of former Revolutionaries. Besides, potential followers will want to know whether or not you are particularly versed in the topic. In other words, they don't want to support some idiot, though the fact that many supported Trump (and Hillary) constitutes the presence of an ignorance (but not necessarily stupidity)— amongst the public is deeply embedded... though the "re-education" efforts of some New Government idealists eschews the responsibility of talking directly to the public, and is otherwise not achieving what they hope to. Giving someone a phamplet of one's beliefs written in a language (with words) that may not be the customary vocabulary of someone, does little to provide a person with some purported "truth" or that they will run open-armed to your Cause:
In social and political science, a major, sudden, and hence typically violent alteration in government and in related associations and structures. The term is used by analogy in such expressions as the Industrial Revolution, where it refers to a radical and profound change in economic relationships and technological conditions.
Though the idea of revolution was originally related to the Aristotelian notion of cyclical alterations in the forms of government, it now implies a fundamental departure from any previous historical pattern. A revolution constitutes a challenge to the established political order and the eventual establishment of a new order radically different from the preceding one. The great revolutions of European history, especially the English, French, and Russian revolutions, changed not only the system of government but also the economic system, the social structure, and the cultural values of those societies.
Historically, the concept of revolution was seen as a very destructive force, from ancient Greece right through to the European Middle Ages. The ancient Greeks saw revolution as a possibility only after the decay of the fundamental moral and religious tenets of society. Plato believed that a constant, firmly entrenched code of beliefs could prevent revolution. Aristotle elaborated on this concept, concluding that if a culture's basic value system is tenuous, the society will be vulnerable to revolution. Any radical alteration in basic values or beliefs provides the ground for a revolutionary upheaval.
During the Middle Ages, the maintenance of the established beliefs and forms of government remained the priority. Much attention was given to finding means of combating revolution and stifling changes in society. Religious authority was so strong and its belief in the maintenance of order so fundamental that the church directed people to accept the inequities of power, instead of upsetting the stability of society.
Only after the emergence of secular humanism during the Renaissance did this concept of revolution, as a cause of the desecration of society, change to embrace a more modern perspective. The 16th-century Italian writer Niccolò Machiavelli recognized the importance of creating a state that could endure the threat of revolution; but, at the same time, his detailed analysis of power led to a new belief in the necessity of changes in the structure of government on certain occasions. This new acceptance of change placed Machiavelli at the forefront of modern revolutionary thought, even though he never used the word revolution in his texts, and he was primarily concerned with the creation of a truly stable state.
The 17th-century English writer John Milton was an early believer in revolution's inherent ability to help a society realize its potential. He also saw revolution as the right of society to defend itself against abusive tyrants, creating a new order that reflected the needs of the people. To Milton, revolution was the means of accomplishing freedom. Later, in the 18th century, the French and American revolutions were attempts to secure freedom from oppressive leadership. Modern revolutions have frequently incorporated utopian ideals as a basis for change.
Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, believed in revolution as a force for the advancement of mankind. Kant believed that revolution was a “natural” step in the realization of a higher ethical foundation for society. This idea helped serve as a basis for the American and French revolutions.
The 19th-century German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel was a crucial catalyst in the formation of 20th-century revolutionary thought. He saw revolutions as the fulfillment of human destiny, and he saw revolutionary leaders as those necessary to instigate and implement reforms. Hegel's theories served as the foundation for the most influential revolutionary thinker, Karl Marx. Marx used Hegel's abstractions as the basis for a plan of class struggle, centred on a fight for the control of the economic processes of society. Marx believed in progressive stages of human history, culminating in the working-class overthrow of the property-owning class. For society to advance, the working class, or proletariat, must take over the means of production. Marx viewed this eventuality as the conclusion of the human struggle for freedom and a classless society, thus eliminating the need for further political change. Communist revolutions led by Marxists took place in Russia, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba, among other countries, in the 20th century.
One modern historian, Crane Brinton, analyzed the tendencies of a society prior to a major revolution. He saw a prerevolutionary society as having a combination of social and political tensions, caused by a gradual breakdown of the values of a society. This leads to a fracture of political authority, as the governing body must rely upon an increasingly desperate use of force to remain in power. Commensurate with this is the emergence of reform elements that serve to emphasize the corruption of the political authority. As the existing political order begins to lose its grasp on authority, momentum builds among the diverse forces of the opposition. As the government becomes more precarious, the splinter groups that form the threat to the existing order band together to topple the authority.
Brinton also observed the different stages of a major revolution. After the government is overthrown, there is usually a period of optimistic idealism, and the revolutionaries engage in much perfectionist rhetoric. But this phase does not last very long. The practical tasks of governing have to be faced, and a split develops between moderates and radicals. It ends in the defeat of the moderates, the rise of extremists, and the concentration of all power in their hands. For one faction to prevail and maintain its authority, the use of force is almost inevitable. The goals of the revolution fade, as a totalitarian regime takes command. Some of the basic tenets of the original revolutionary movement, however, are eventually incorporated in the end. The French and Russian revolutions followed this course of development, as did the Isla-mic revolution in Iran in the late 20th century.
A strictly political revolution, independent of social transformation, does not possess the same pattern of prerevolutionary and postrevolutionary events. It may be merely a change in political authority (as in many coups d'état) or a somewhat broader transformation of the structures of power (as in the American and Mexican revolutions).
Source: "Revolution." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Trump is out of his depth in trying to set up an administration to replace one that is already in place. Since he doesn't run his companies in a similar manner as the government is layed out, it is difficult for an outsider to manage, muchless embrace, a governing philosophy that is different than that which one has practiced for many years. However, this is not to suggest one form of mangerial technique is either superior or inferior. They are simply different models of approaching different sets of criteria. And it is of need that we question whether or not that which has become institutionalized by the government, is actually needed... or is only thought to be needed and added on by a manufactuted accretion because several influential people think it was/is needed, since it reflects their mentality, though their perspective may be faulty in terms of what is needed for a New Government (a Cenocracy).
Yet, if a Revolution does take hold, will the general public accept the leadership which will eventually emerge if it hasn't already been visible during the protest process? And what about those who now occupy high government posts? Will they be retained... that is, if they don't decide to vacate their positions because they have no faith in those who are the Revolution's leaders? Since a government runs failrly smoothly because of the attitude of those in given government positions, what if the attitude of confidence turns to fear, apprehension, confusion or even disgust and rebelliousness?
What if everyone who holds a top position in government decides to quit on Trump? What if the entire military decides not to support him, or those who are the leadership of a revolution? What happens if every police officer, or every State Legislature walks off the job because they don't like the emerging Revolutionary leadership? How will government services be restored so as not to create a wide-spread counter- Revolution to the Revolutionists? What if the Nation becomes so divided there is no majority, and all minorities don't have enough support to wrest dominant control? What if the entire Nation riots against itself?
It is rather naive of all of us to think that the public and/or those in various government positions don't have strong political opinions and will not go along with a new administration. But instead of quitting, an entire government deparment or agency effects a type of functional attitude that makes a fledgling administration act or appear incompetent? What if everyone in the Stock Market decides not to play so long as a given administration is in office?
In other words, are those who come to take charge of a government fully prepared to take over every single government position if need be? Why do we assume that the government will simply make the necessary adjustment to a new leadership and function relatively smoothly? And what if other countries decide to complicate matters as well? Will a new government elite simply react to whatever situation comes along, whereby it too will effect a patchwork quilt of policies like th e current government has created, yet doesn't realize that a quilt is more of a symbol, an art form, than it is to be used for any pro-active service? In other words, the metaphor of the government being a quilt... and noting that quilts are used most often for show, for heirlooms, and placed in hope chests... describes a situation in which the patchwork development of government policies is creating an overall social scene of chaos... and not some portrait to be publicly shown and receive a blue ribbon for at a State Fair exhibition.
Do those who contemplate a Revolution think far into the future so that they devise a plan of organization with a variability of alternatives involving a flexibility? And if a new government group is confronted by a situation in which former (experienced) individuals do not want to be part of an administration because they do not want to be part of a potentially bad regime and thus be historically remembered for such a participation... what then?
Granted there are many variables we can prepare for, but we are not all-knowing. We can not provide ready-made alternatives for every contingency. However, in preparation for conducting a Revolution to promote the adopted development of a New Government, it is necessary that a Manifesto, a philosophy, emerges along with a leadership. While the leadership can change as the Revolution moves forward, the end result must be of those who are best at administering a philosophy which encompasses many of the issues the public wants to "ad-dress itself". In other words, the Revolution must embrace the value of letting (and expecting) the people (to) grow up and "dress themselves". Stated alternatively, the public wants a government that truly permits them to have a government that is Of, By, and For All the people and is not run as a vicarious proportionment.
We can not conduct a Revolution that simply replaces one leadership with another that either maintains the current functioning, makes it worse, or uses brutality to enforce ideas that are out of step with a value to improve society and humanity. We can not incorporate a philosophy which embraces a "no currency" model which would create havoc. If you are going to introduce a change in government, like a scenario reflecting the activity of replacing the horse and carriage with automobiles; there must be a means that permits those who embrace the old ways to transition into the new reality. In other words, there are millions of people who embrace the current form of government (though they may argue against one or another policy), and actually believe that it Represents a Democracy... even though this is an illusion. Their day-to-day social activities are the result of an adopted philosophy that incorporates the illusion of a Democracy as if it were real. It is just as real to them as any child's imaginary playmate is. The so-called "Democracy" in existence is an imaginary playmate. It doesn't exist. It is a myth, an illusion, an imaginary playmate.
It is imperative for those contemplating a Revolution to be cognizant of the fact that they are not only dealing with a population that believes in an imaginary playmate called Democracy, but so do millions upon millions of others outside one's National borders. However, some prefer to have an imaginary playmate called Anarchy, Communism, Libertarianism, Socialism or a Theology in which there exists the playmate called God. It is rather stupid to try to teach a child to disbelieve in an imaginary playmate while at the same time encourage them to participate in activities involving an Easter bunny, tooth fairy, monsters, goblins, witches, and Santa Clause. Or, believe in the presence of one's ancestors watching over oneself... All of which becomes more real by creating a presence called "Big Brother", and variously interpreted as good or malevolent creature. And nor can we employ the notion that the people will grow out of such preoccupations, like those psychologists who describe imaginary playmates as a commonality that most children grow out of. How do Revoultionists who want to create a better society, produce a government that will help the public to grow out of its illusions? What stresses might ensue to break the cycle of psychological addictions which are transitioned from childhood imaginary playmates into the imaginative playmate called Democracy? And is variously described as being good or bad.
If the brain of adults retain some semblance of childhood notions involving an imaginary playmate (friend), how do we institute a New Government that is a perspective embodying a consciousness without such playmates, how do we help the brains of millions to evolve beyond current levels and types of primivity? Can we institute a government which directs the entire population along a course of brain matuation? How do we get millions of facing the fact that their practice of so-called Democracy is a product of propagandized imagination? And just because we transfer the mental image of an imaginary playmate (or evil twin) into a functional representation such as guardian security services or potential terrorists; this does not mean that we do not have a brain that has had a substantial change in its wiring or programming. Imaginary friends that become fashioned into real objects or persons projected onto our daily lives, does not mean we do not have an active primitive brain. Such items still reflect a brain trying to convince itself that its imagination describes real instances.
Government structures reflect the construction of imagination. If you get a number of people to believe in witches or a "Red" (bad Communism) presence, someone has to be found guilty in order to vallidate the imagined idea. Government policy is often similarly developed and applied... like during the seige of the Branch Davidian complex in Texas in which a tank was used to kill children... or the Twin Towers were destroyed in order to prove the presence of a made-up element that was eventually forced into development because of various government instigations that wanted to author a means to provide an excuse ("reason") to conduct various ulterior motivations.
Because the present design of the government is the representation of different playmates (and playmate scenarios) projected onto reality by way of a government controlled design that is out-of-step with a maturing public; we can expect more protest leading towards a Revolution. And once again, we are confronted with those questions involving the need for a manifesto, leadership and at least some government design that reflects an improved model over the present one. This includes consideration for adopting a process by which a New Constitution and Bill of Rights can be discussed and voted on by the entire nation without the usage of a voting system that undermines the collective Will of the People.
Not only is it clear that the people want a New formula of goverance, but they also want to be presented with a viable option. Hillary represents a continuance of a system that is philosophically defunct, and Trump reflects a poor model with which to replace the old system... expecially since he simply illustrates a different flavor of the typical four year refurbishments that have taken place in the past. And those calling for a "coming together as a nation" reconciliation, wants everyone to effect a "play nice" attitude even though government policies will effect a model of behavior in which the public gets screwed again. It is incredible to realize how naive so many people are as to the current level of poverty and suffering is occurring in the Nation and around the world.
If your are ready for a Revolution in terms of protesting, rioting and causing destruction, are you likewise ready for a Revolution in terms of setting up a New Government? Do you have enough people to fill top positions of government and they will not adopt a politician's personality and behavior which involves the usage of make-believe commentary? What if those in the Pentagon decide they don't want to abide by the Will of the People and stage a coup in order to return the government to the functionality of the old order; since it provided them with a means to get the illusion of legitmacy it wants to carry out military activities? Or what if the Nation can't come together and accept any offered government alternative? What will you as a Revolutionary leader do? Will you introduce your own methods of suppressing the Will of the People just as the current government does? Will your kill all corporate leaders that refuse to go along with your views of commerce? Will you gather up all those you don't like and force them into gas chambers? Will you adopt a policy which enables security services to use severe interrogation methods in order to extract information from a perceived enemy... and then use this as a justification for killing all prisoners who are relabled as those conducting treason against the public through one or another criminal activity?
Will you foment conditions for a Revolution by encouraging Anarchists, Communists, Democrats, Libertarians and Socialists to Attack the State, and then turn around so as to eliminate them after they did the dirty work for your desire to effect governing control by way of a staged Revolution? And what if someone's wrath turns towards you? What if you get shot, clubbed, burn't, or maimed? What if the government becomes aware of your pro-Revolution interests and decides to confiscate all your bank holdings, personal transportation as well as incarcerate you? Will there be anyone to help you or will they be scared? You must look carefully at your friends and present allies because they could well be bought off. They might sell you out if offered relief for one or more debts, unless receiving free college tuition is that which they most want.
Are you ready for a Revolution or only think you are... and instead choose to protest against other protestors whose own ideas for conducting a Revolution cause them to make the same errors in which nothing actually occurs between the two groups— that will result in having a better form of government? When we have different people arguing about the same things but using different words and descriptions, the inequities of govenrment activity nonetheless can not be tolerated. And like a tug of war, one side will eventually come to dominate, though the direction in which the tugging takes place, may be quite different than that which initially occurred. It is naive to think that a tug-of-war conflict remains in one position. Revolutions, with respect to observed and practiced views, is cyclically charged. Revolutions typically have pre-Revolution elements from which a Revolution eventually emerges. Because of this, it is necessary for Revolutionists to at least develop the beginning stages of a government design as a preliminary instruction manual.
The historian Crane Brinton observed the different stages of a major revolution (as thus noted in historical contexts):
The goals of the revolution fade, as a totalitarian regime takes command. Some of the basic tenets of the original revolutionary movement, however, are eventually incorporated in the end.
The French and Russian revolutions followed this course of development, as did the Isla-mic revolution in Iran in the late 20th century.
While it is much easier to maintain relative social stability after a revolution with a fledgling government having to deal with a small population whose dependence on technology is mimimal and most basic services as well as needs are not unduly disrupted; this is not the case with a nation whose population is large, highly dependent on government services, and has an extensive reliance on technology that functions in accord with the attitudes of those whose variability can be comforted by a stable government... unless the large population is fully informed of needed changes and willing to make temporary sacrifices meant to permit the development of a new system... that must mature very quickly because the patience of the public is not unlimited.
A philosophy of not only what a Revolution entails but what it represents in terms of progress and how such is to be incorporated to improve the overall situation (but in any event not make situations worse); needs to be developed and presented to the public who must assist in the application of improvements... however crude the governing tools may at first be fashioned... And, it is necessary to label as well as point out an acknowledgment of achieved benefits as well as faults and wrongs that are being addressed. Attempting to play ignorant about a bad situation is tantamount to lying to a public that will percieve the government as being incompetent. Progess must be made and assitance asked for if the government runs into a wall.
While changing a government adminstration every so often effects a type of "moving target" philsophy that can be perceived as change so as to reduce the chances for creating a Revolutionary environment; former governments practicing prolonged aristocratic methods that do not appreciably change social conditions present a stable target to protest against. By acknowledging the two situations side-by-side, we see an increase of social unrest which does not diminish its "social unrest provocations" between "changing of the guard" which lead to public attitudes of sustained bitterness. For example, though the American government changes political leadership by way of elections to give the impression of change, the government has retained the same old functionality which continues to create conditions of poverty— in the prevailing economic standard-of-living structure... and injustice. By persisting in the same structure, despite the changes in political leadership... they practice their craft in the same manner as their predecessors. In other words, they think in the same way as former government leaders when viewed as a contextual element.
A politician of 200 years ago might readily be seen as someone out of touch with the reality of today, just as they were perceived to be wrong in their own time. While the views of a politician of today might appear to be more in step with the public of a former age, they are not necessarily in step with the conditions of today. Hence, the politician of the past in their context was wrong just ast are many politicians in their own present contexts... though they think themselves to be correct because they are thinking in terms of an algorhytm that is expected and required within the context of prevailing government practices that many in the public recognize as being faulty.
While some people want to maintain the familiarity of a given sociology and governance, many of us don't want to perpetuate the history of some sociological path that has been shown to be full of potholes. While many Sociologists and Political "Scientists" can recite historical conditions with which to illustrate a point used in the construction of their own ideas that they may think represent a better formula of governance if it were to be applied; many people do not want to use their lives to participate in recreating a context of old with new garments. Whereas a person may be right about a given situation, the so-called rightness of their view would not provide a substantial improvement for a growing population living in a global environment with diminishing resources. All historical contexts represent stories about moments in time where there were smaller populations and more resources... or at least less pollutions.
It is wholly naive to look at the past in which some measure of a sociological idea was played out (though many variations were indeed faulty such as in the case of previously attempted Communisms and Socialisms by those with narrowly focused personal motives); and then think that by some simple dichotomy the same basic idea can be used to improve social conditions— when such conditions are taking place in a different context and clearly constitute an overall changed dynamic because of population growth, diminished resources and an increased deterioration of the global environment.
One last historical example should be given with respect to those who think they are engaging in a Revolution, and upon achieving control, find themselves in over their head:
An illustration about Revolutionists and their lack of ability to function as viable leadership can be found in the following excerpt from pages 414 - 415, of the chapter "Beginnings of Third World Resistance— to 1914", from the book "Global Rift" by L.S. Stavarianos (1913 – March 23, 2004) ©1981
...During the following decade of bloody (Mexican) civil war, three principal groups emerged. In the South were the agrarian revolutionaries led by Emiliano Zapata... a colorful revolutionary figure...
...In the North was Francisco (Pancho) Villa, once a bandit and then a rebel chief with a Robin Hood reputation of taking from the hacendados and giving to the poor...
...The third revolutionary group consisted of the Constitutionalists. They were a coalition of two factions: the liberals, led by Venustiana Caranza; and the radicals, led by Alvarao Obregón...
...The limitations of the two men (Villa and Zapata) were strikingly manifested when they occupied Mexico City but did not know what to do with their valuable prize. They made no moves to dismantle the old administrative apparatus or to deal with the controlling economic interests, both foreign and domestic. Instead they vacillated, and finally they abandoned the capital and returned to their respective strongholds. Villa's comment on departing revealed why the Mexican Revolution ended as it did— why, in fact, it was not a revolution at all: "This ranch is too big for us, it's better back home...."