The revolution is a proof of concept.

One of the most fascinating ideas underlying Austrian Economics (I believe it was Hayek) is the idea of spontaneous order. In a complex system, a spontaneous order will arise based on the inherent nature of the system. The R3VOLUTION is spontaneous order based on our desire to be free. Yet another validation of Ron Paul's entire philosophy.

(Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm barely an armchair Austrian Economist.)

You are very right about this. I've discussed this some before, too (see my post "Unbelievable..." here: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/9390).

The ideas of freedom, transparency, decentralization, and cooperation are beginning to be used with revolutionary results in many areas of society. While the ideas have been around a long time, I think the internet is proving its practical merit. The internet itself is the quintessential example of decentralization. You could not create something like the internet from the top-down--it would not be the internet. In fact, in some sense, there is really no such thing as the internet. What is it? Where is it? Is it the computers? The servers? The wires? The backbones? The electricity? The protocols? The data? The messages? The people? All of it? None of it? Which of those could you take away and still have the internet?

And the internet we know today is not the internet of ten or even five years ago. It used to be that companies, or organizations, or media outlets would hire teams of people, construct websites, and publish them for all the world to consume. Or individuals would kludge together a tacky blinking website with pictures of their cats. Today, a new RonPaulFillInTheBlank.com is set up every day of the week. You give me a good idea for a website and I can have it accessible to the world before your next trip to the restroom. The websites of yore were just newspapers on a screen. Today, they are buzzing bazaars of information exchange. Now, the users are the participants and creators not the customers and consumers.

Years ago, before the web evolved into Version 2.0, people writing software saw the opportunity for feedback, input, and collaboration and began to invite their fellow software developers to work on their projects. This gave birth to what we now call the Free, Open Source Software movement (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software). It is a model in which software is developed by an open community of individuals all contributing their time and talent to create something wonderful to share with the world. If this sounds like a bunch of Kumbaya-singing, hippy-hugging hogwash to you, I'd like to remind you that the computer serving this page to you right now, and the vast majority of servers on the internet, and the majority of high-performance super computing clusters in the world are driven by some of this profoundly powerful software. It is also not some communist wet dream either. It is a healthy free market system. People have developed sound business plans around it and are running thriving companies.

This decentralized, bottom-up approach has been contrasted with the centralized, top-down approach in the book The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar). It is the loose cooperation of many independent players versus the organization, management, and dictation from the central players. It is the upcoming popular rise of Linux and free (as in freedom, and sometimes as in beer), open source software over the coercive, monopolistic Microsoft behemoth. It is the practicality of peer-to-peer and internet distribution over the nonsense of the RIAAs and MPAAs. It is the pragmatism and success of the free markets over the chaos of managed economies. It is the liberty dollar over the fiat central banks. It is the success and unstoppable drive of the grassroots campaign over the posturing and posing of the centralized campaigns. It is the waxing relevancy and authority of the internet over the waning propaganda and manipulation of the old media. It is newfound personal routes to spirituality over the centuries of Vatican and Bible monopoly and control. It is the historically brand new message of government of, for, and by the people to secure individual liberty over the arcane notions of tyranny, dictatorship, oligarchy, and fascism to control, extort, oppress, and enslave. It is the sovereignty of the individual over the sovereignty of the state.

In some sense, the form is the content. But this is tricky, because as I argued in my post referenced above, "It's the message, stupid." There is a complex interplay and feedback between the form and the message. (A strange-loopiness, if you will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop.) The old media says, "Hey look at what they're doing with the internet!" We say, "It has nothing to do with the internet! We're excited about the message! Talk about the message!" But at the same time, it is about the internet. We're behaving how we would like the country and the economy to behave: free, transparent, decentralized, and cooperative.

There is self-similarity at so many different levels. Let's take a familiar example: the Daily Paul. What is it? Take away all the users and what are you left with? Is this a shot at Mike Nystrom: "You're nothing without us!" Absolutely not. We're also nothing without him. Without the structure, we have no way to share our thoughts. Without the thoughts to share, the structure is useless. But what's special about Mike Nystrom--couldn't anybody have set up this site? Yes. But, what's special about us--couldn't others carry on about freedom, peace, and properity? Yes. What's special is the universal truth of freedom, prosperity, and peace.

Ron Paul is the webmaster of a user-driven, social network / forum / blog site. He just wants to prevent flame-wars. Otherwise, people are free to post whatever they'd like, for better or worse. Wonderful things come of the natural organization that springs up. People self-organize around common goals. There are warts and things get hairy at times, but it's a self-correcting, self-monitoring, self-policing system. And as much as I dearly love the good doctor, he is interchangeable. Another person could take his place as president, just as other people could take our place as citizens. What isn't interchangeable are the truths of "freedom, prosperity, and peace." The founders knew this and wrote the constitution so that when people come and go in government and in the citizenry, the freedom, prosperity, and peace would live on forever.

Back to the analogy: the other candidates are editors of an old media website. They will tell you what you will read, listen to, and watch. They will tell you what options will be available in their polls. You will consume. You will not participate. You will pay for the privilege of it all. (The same interchangeability is true here. There will always be more Rudys, Huckabees, Hillarys, NeoCons, Socialists, and thick-sculled, ignorant citizens.)

And while here in the western world these ideas are relatively new, these principles have been around for millennia in the far east and were expressed beautifully in the timeless words of works like the Tao te Ching. I don't know if Dr. Paul has ever read any of these works, but I think his striking resemblance to the Master they describe speaks to their timelessness and truth: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/9487

www.aChangeIsGonnaCome.info

The Evolution of Revolutionary Theory

“A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Across the globe, revolutions have taken place for thousands of years. Not all revolutions are based on physical change however. Many revolutions are cultural and, more importantly, ideological. In Jack Goldstone’s book, Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies, he effectively synthesizes an assortment of essays that discuss how and why revolutionary theory has evolved over time.

In the introduction, Goldstone identifies three commonly held notions of why revolutions occur. One perspective revolves around the concept that “misery breeds revolt.” Basically, this maxim means that when the oppression of the masses reaches an intolerable level, the people will eventually revolt. Additionally, revolutions tend to emerge after a sizeable number of problems have weakened the state. Furthermore, revolutions come into fruition when radical ideals proliferate among the society. These conceptions are generally recognized by past generations of historians who, in the last century, have attempted to define the key characteristics of revolutionary origins, processes, and outcomes.

Goldstone identifies four distinct generations of revolutionary scholars: the natural histories of the 1920s and 1930s, the general theories of political violence of the 1960s and early 1970s, the structural theories of the late 1970s and 1980s, and an emerging generation who focuses on the histories of agency, ideology, and the revolutionary process. Each generation developed their own unique interpretations of revolutions in regards to the time period that they were at in their own respective lives. In response to these interpretations, Goldstone comprehensively constructs his own conclusions about how revolutionary theories have adapted over time.
The first generation of revolutionary scholars appeared in the 1920s and 1930s. They concentrated on the natural history of revolutions by identifying similar patterns of events in the most influential revolutions of the West.

Goldstone points out that a number of their opinions have remained valid and are considered by many as “law-like empirical generalizations.” During this generation, they developed ten main proposals that all revolutions had in common. They address the fact that prior to a revolution, the majority of intellectuals stop supporting the regime because they have failed to provide important social services. Charles Tilly suggests that revolution is more probable when high-ranking groups impose claims on the government and they are unable to meet or fulfill these claims. They contend that, “Just prior to the fall of the old regime, the state attempts to meet criticism by undertaking major reforms.” Unfortunately, these last-minute reforms hurt the old regimes more than they actually helped because they display how the regime recognizes the flaws in their system. These scholars reasoned that old regimes began to fall once a serious political crisis stemmed from the government’s inability to deal with a problem. This often happens once a state becomes bankrupt or the military weakens in strength. Overall, the scholars of this era constructed a strong foundation for the next generations to build upon in the future.

During the political and cultural violence of the 1960s and 70s, a second generation of scholars approached the issue of why some revolutions occurred differently than others. Although the natural historians emphasized the patterns of revolutions, general theory historians contemplated the exact reasons how revolutions came about, and furthermore, what the main causes of opposition were to the old regimes. Two scholars among many, J.C. Davies and T.R. Gurr, believed in utilizing a psychological approach to the question. They argued that the masses could survive oppression and misery more easily since they were already used to experiencing arduous and tough times. Furthermore, N.J. Smelser and C. Johnson developed another general-theory approach, which overlooked the exact reasons for popular discontent. Instead, they asked historians to focus on how and why social institutions manipulated revolutions for their own political means. Samuel P. Huntington combined aspects from both theories. He argued that modernization brought about an institutional imbalance which was not easily controlled by the state. As the level of economic stability and education progressed, men and women wanted to take a larger role in their nation’s politics. Unfortunately, the government ultimately failed to fulfill this desire. Tilly took this viewpoint one step further by emphasizing resource or “collective mobilization” as a chief reason for revolution. He argued that discontent alone did not cause revolutions, since the majority of those unhappy lacked the ability to organize support and resources effectively.

Two examples of this generation’s knowledge seem true in regards to the Chinese peasants’ revolutions that occurred during the turn of the 20th century. Although the peasants were unhappy about their living conditions, and furthermore, wished for social mobility, the majority had lived with the notion that it was ttheir lot in life to suffer, therefore many peasants did nothing to enact change. Furthermore, the peasants who did wish for change were unable to do anything about it because they lacked the necessary organization skills to mobilize manpower and resources. After this generation of scholars identified the causes and reasons for why revolutions occurred, men and women throughout the 1970s and 80s turned their focus onto the structure of relationships between various states and agrarian societies. These scholars are properly known as structural historians.

Structural historians argue that revolutions take shape and occur differently in all nations. Furthermore, states that vary in structure are susceptible to their own kinds of revolutions. These scholars contend, “Revolutions begin from some combination of state weakness, conflicts between states and elites, and popular uprisings.” In regards to the relationships between the regime and elites, they contend that states are in constant competition with other states for territory, the strength of their military, and for trade; those which have unproductive economies, in relation to other comparable states, are more likely to experience some type of political crisis. Furthermore, the ability of the state to effectively deal with these crises depends on the amount of influence elites have on the society. In addition to this fact, the loyalty of the army is also critical to understand. If the army is loyal to the state, they have a much higher chance of dealing with the crisis. On the other hand, if the army is loyal to the elites, their chances greatly weaken. Overall, states that are structurally more likely to inner confrontations between the states and elites are most susceptible to revolution. Furthermore, revolutions cannot occur only because of this internal conflict.

Extensive popular uprisings of the peasant and proletariat classes must also be apparent for revolutions to take place. Elites are then able to side with these classes to overthrow the old regime. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels contend that, “When the class struggle nears the decisive hour… a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands.” Furthermore, Eric Wolfe emphasizes that all six of the major political revolutions, which have occurred during the last century, have succeeded by incorporating the support of the peasant classes. Overall, when popular uprisings of the peasant and proletariat classes overlap with internal conflicts between the state and the elites, a revolution is destined to occur. A new generation of scholars contends that it is equally important to consider what exactly happens as revolutionary conflicts arise and expand in complexity and size.

A fourth generation of revolutionary scholars focused on the origins, processes, and outcomes of revolutionary time periods. They discuss how the ideas of “agency” and “path dependency” play critical roles in whether or not revolutions are successful. Moreover, these scholars define “agency” by stating, “The decisions of key actors (“intellectual elites” or “agents”) make a difference in whether a revolution will be successfully and how it evolves.” “Path dependency” involves events or actions that might take place during the revolution that change or affect the ending outcome. The origins of the revolution depend on the combination of a particular state crisis, internal conflict between the state and elites, and prevalent grievances held by the masses. This process of the revolution ultimately determines the overall outcome. Furthermore, this generation of scholars argues that ideology reform plays a central part in revolutions. According to Goldstone, “Ideologies form a crucial bridge from grievances to actions. When elites seek to mobilize popular support, they need an ideological framework that will appeal to peasant and urban workers.”

Examples of this can be seen in the Russian and Chinese revolutions when Vladimir Lenin adapted Communism to form Leninism and Mao Zedong formed Maoism to appeal to the Chinese masses. This adaptation of ideologies must take shape before a revolution can happen. In addition, this ideological revolution influences the future state more than any other, and consequently, identifies the final stages of the revolutionary process. These scholars effectively encompassed the ideals of past generations with their own respective viewpoints to make a new analyst of revolutionary theory. They conclude that future historians must successfully examine the origins and outcomes of modern-day revolutions in order for our society to progress in the right direction.

All four generations of revolutionary scholars emphasize a different aspect about the complex reasons of how and why a revolution takes place. The natural history generation of scholars brought forth a new perspective on revolutions by researching and incorporating various processes or patterns that similarly took place in revolutions across the world prior to the 1930s. Additionally, the general-theory generation added on to this foundation by deriving the main reasons or sources that cause a revolution to happen. Structural historians argued that not all states were alike, and furthermore, each contained their own unique and distinct characteristics that made them more or less vulnerable to certain kinds of revolutions. Finally, the last generation integrated all three of the previous generations’ theories to construct their own conclusions on the origins, processes, and outcomes of modern-day, as well as future, revolutions. Without a doubt, generations of scholars will continue to develop new and original theories about revolutionary theory. Once this happens, our society can make its own interpretation about the true meaning and nature of revolutionary theory. Hopefully, by comparing these scholars’ viewpoints to similar aspects of our world’s current situation, this new interpretation can guide our society into the future. Not by forcing a physical change, but by teaching that change is not an unnecessary hindrance; and in actuality, revolution is a well-thought-out necessity, which humanity has utilized to adapt for the better, since the beginning of history.

~~~~
"I would gladly take a bullet for Ron Paul if he was in danger. Gladly. Would you?"