I concluded Part I with a question: ‘Does History justify revolutions?’ This is an ancient debate. Consider if you will, Gentle Reader, that it is well illustrated by Luther’s break from the Roman Church versus Erasmus’ plea for patient and orderly reform; or consider the Russian Revolution in 1917 which was fed by outworn and inflexible institutions (to be replaced by other inflexible institutions). Consider that the effects of the revolutions would have occurred via evolutionary processes not revolutionary processes. The United States would have become the dominant factor in the English-speaking world without her revolution. The French Revolution replaced the landowning aristocracy with the money-controlling business class as the ruling power – AND – a similar result occurred in nineteenth-century England without bloodshed and without disturbing the peace.
One of the things that revolutions do is redistribute wealth. Historically, wealth is an order and procedure of production and exchange rather than an accumulation of goods (which are mostly perishable) and is a trust in men and institutions rather than in the intrinsic value of paper money or checks; violent revolutions do not so much as redistribute this old type of wealth as destroy it.
With certain revolutions there may be a re-division of the land, but the natural inequality of men soon re-creates an inequality of possessions and privileges, and raises to power a new minority with essentially the same instincts as in the old.
Given this, Gentle Reader, consider another ancient take on revolutions. The only ‘real’ revolution is in the enlightenment of the mind and the improvement of character (these can occur within three dimensions – the Individual, the Relational and/or the Organizational). Consider then that the ‘true’ (real?) revolutionists are philosophers, mystics and saints. Consider then that most of us have the potential to become one of these revolutionists for we have the potential and capacity to both enlighten our minds and improve our characters (Confucius and Plato believed that only a select few could achieve either; on the other hand Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad believed that we all are capable of achieving both).
History is our teacher and confirms all of the great thinkers to be correct – a paradox to be sure, perhaps a great irony, or perhaps just a bad joke that is being played on us human beings.
Is revolution necessary and does history justify revolution? The answer is ‘yes’ when it comes to the revolution that involves the enlightenment of the mind and the improvement of character. The answer is ‘perhaps not’ when it involves violence. If enough of us choose the former then perhaps we humans can avoid the latter. Our teacher, history, does provide us lessons for both options. Are we, the students, ready?
Searcher-Seeker 