Revolution was for those who owned capital in one form or another
My words: "revolution" WAS the revolution of the capitalist class, and in its CONTEXT back then, it was "progressive" -- it removed "Leibeigenschaft" (serfdom), removed religious dogmatism in the sense that we aren't forced to "believe", nor belong to any congregation anymore (instead, we are victims of the mass media), it removed the state laws of "apartheid" between feudal and ordinary people, it fought superstition and witch-hunting (it took a while till women acquired equal rights, though), it freed science from old beliefs once and for all (till "science" became another dogma)........
We need to understand that this revolution wasn't for everybody and every country, it was for those who owned capital (in one form or another), and for countries who set themselves up as "developed". Simply put: it did NOT do away with dominance and exploitation of humans and nature, it did not away with hierarchies (the hierarchies reflect in our very language, in what is a concept!)
While freedom, equality, and brotherhood seemed to dawn at the horizon at first -- at the very first, only -- it now becomes apparent like never before that this is only for the capitalist class, who sweet-talks the governors of "Third World Countries" so that they believe they BELONG to the powerful ones -- in reality, they only belong to the powers in the world as long as they allow their countries being exploited......
What is revolution (how we mean it, in a colloquial sense), then? What would it mean now?
To be incorruptible as a governor of a country? One important step, yes. The trouble with the "democratic" political system: a party is forced to "sell" their doings as successes (like the Greens in Germany...) so that they will be re-elected. If the opposition is capitalist-friendly, somebody like Chavez will be in a real jam. What would be needed is that such leaders admit their relative powerlessness in regards to the big capitalist nations, the G8, G20 or whatever "G". An understanding what is really going on!!!
If the people are ignorant, they will turn away from such revelations. What: he cannot do anything? Let's vote for the other, then! They prefer false hopes to truth......most of them......
Leaders of 'Third world' countries should get together and analyze the situation truthfully, give up any false pretense (and false egomania of their own selves!!), educate themselves, and in solidarity hold counsel among themselves, asking: what can we do? And how can we communicate it to our people?
A gigantic mass education/study programme........(Plato's demand that philosophers govern?
Here, in the "developed" countries, we need to ask ourselves: how do we really want to live? Are there bits and pieces of economic enterprises which are neither capitalist nor "socialist"?
Example: there is a German organic farmer in Canada, 2 hours outside Toronto, who makes a deal with his customers: they pay one or more, or a half share in organic produce supply in spring, he buys the seeds, and for the next 6 months, they get their share of produce every week.
Can't remember more details, I only remember that I couldn't carry one week's supply all at once, and it cost only 10 dollars! Advantage: no waste, no insecurity if it will sell, no insecurity if the weather is bad -- everybody gets their fair share. It worked very very well! And in summer, he did concerts in the barn......
I have a confidence in human inventiveness and creativity (from Focusing): once we set out to think about something, really new ideas can come. But if we tell ourselves that the system we have is the only one possible (see: Hart/Nery, "The Empire"), then we wouldn't even try to think in other directions!
However: I personally think that in all probability the case is lost. I think we are going towards annihilation of what is human, and that cockroaches are equipped best to survive, as cockroaches. But not humans, as humans.
What do our readers think?