Was bedeutet der Begriff „politische Revolution“ eigentlich?
Als Revolution bezeichnet man ja meist einen mehr oder weniger abrupten und mehr oder weniger gewalttätigen Bruch mit dem bisherigen gesellschaftlichen, staatlichen System.
Either because the existing system did not provide the revolutionaries with a legal means to achieve the desired changes within the current order, or because the path seemed too lengthy to them.
Bei den Motiven kann man wohl generell unterscheiden zwischen dem Motiv der unmittelbaren oder mittelbaren Betroffenheit der eigenen Interessen. Und dem Motiv der Betroffenheit durch die eigenen Werte. Also wenn ein System andere nicht so behandelt wie man es aus Werte-Sicht tolerierbar findet. Das kann auch der Fall sein, wenn diese zu viele Freiheiten haben, zum Beispiel nicht jeden Sonntag in die Kirche gehen zu müssen.
Most of the time, in a society, people will not completely agree on how things should be done. This raises the question of how decisions are made on how things should run. In representative democracies, the eligible population chooses individuals who are constitutionally bound to make these decisions. This usually happens within the framework of political parties and coalitions through majority decisions, except for constitutional amendments which often require a two-thirds majority or something of that magnitude. Some countries also have citizen initiatives, which are instruments of direct democracy. Additionally, some constitutional rules cannot be changed within the constitutional framework. However, for example, the German constitution explicitly allows the German people to draft a new constitution that simply replaces the old one legally. At least, that’s how I interpret this rule.
Das könnte man dann je nach Abruptheit und Umfang der Neuerungen schon als Revolution betrachten. Ich würde von einer politischen Revolution aber erst dann sprechen, wenn man einen Weg gewählt hat, der außerhalb des bestehenden Rechtssystems lag. Also wenn es solch eine Option einer Entscheidung für eine komplett neue Verfassung in der bestehenden zumindest nicht gab.
The question of whether a revolution is peaceful or violent primarily depends on whether those who want to maintain the existing order resist with violence. Unless the revolutionaries have agreed beforehand to abandon everything as soon as even one person is willing to defend the old order with force, which is rarely the case, the revolution will likely not be peaceful. Most often, the reason for a peaceful revolution is that there were not enough people who wanted to keep the old order, and the remaining ones did not want to engage in a hopeless fight.
It is therefore, as is almost always the case when one wants to achieve something, important to have a sufficient number of people with a sufficient amount on one’s side. This can be achieved either by convincing others that one’s cause is also sufficiently in their interest, or by making them believe it. This technique is often referred to as a cultural hegemony project, according to Gramsci. It involves persuading others to mistakenly assume that what one considers important and right is also in their best interest.
Such deception becomes increasingly difficult to maintain over time. Therefore, if one wishes to employ such deception and can reconcile it with their conscience, they should ensure that these deceived allies are only needed for a specific period and goal. Afterwards, if necessary, one should be able to uphold these goals against these former allies in conjunction with the existing opposition to these goals.
Also man sollte durch solch eine Täuschung schon seine Position nachhaltig soweit verbessern, dass auch solch ein zu erwartender Oppositionszuwachs daran nichts ändert.
Deception can sometimes be morally justified. If one can play two or more historically powerful groups against each other through short-term deception in order to catch up to them and maintain a fair balance even after the deception is revealed, it can be recommended from a fair perspective. However, the harm inflicted on these two groups must be proportional to the goal in order for the means to be considered fair.
Ein anderer Punkt betrifft die Bezeichnung für diejenigen, die eine Revolution wollen und diejenigen die nicht.
Some like to label those who want to maintain the existing system as conservative and those who want to change it as progressive. However, I find that to be too superficial. There is the saying „If the round has to fit into or through the square“. It is precisely about the fact that if you want to preserve the object that is currently round, you have to shape it in a way that fits into or through the square. Well, it’s a bit different in football. 🙂 So here we already have two groups of conservatives. The object conservatives and the form conservatives. So those who want to preserve the object and those who want to preserve the round shape. And there is a progressive group. The form progressives. They want to change the shape for various reasons. Some of them also have motives that are already known to object conservatives. Because the object conservative must also be cautious within certain limits, as every change in condition also means new dangers, but not too much of a form progressive. Since he will already have the form conservatives and those form progressives against him, who thought the object was not round enough or now becomes too unruly and will counteract, he should better try to win over those form progressives as allies who are square for other reasons. But only until the sufficient moment. Then any further change is initially a risk that needs to be weighed against the „risk of leaving it as it is“. But up to this point, any ally from almost any intention should be welcome. Because there are still those who want to see the object destroyed. They will act and agitate on the side of the form conservatives.
Progressives generally want to preserve something, but they prefer it in a state that they consider better. They are also inherently object-conservative. They should collaborate with the cautious individuals who prioritize high security in maintaining the objects they want to preserve at a minimum level, rather than taking a chance on a better state with more risk, against those who destroy objects or are overly conscious of the state level.
In short, desiring enough with a lot of security is conservative to me.
Progressiv ist es, den Wunsch nach mehr zu haben, auch wenn dies mit einem höheren Risiko verbunden ist.
Vor allem Progressive neigen dazu sich von denjenigen die die Objekte, die die Progressiven mutig verbessern wollen, stattdessen zerstören oder „klein“ halten wollen, zum Übermut verleiten zu lassen und sie bieten denjenigen die Möglichkeit sich als vorsichtige Konservative tarnen zu können.
In relation to the revolution, this means that one must differentiate between revolutions for enough and for more. And when it comes to more, one must further distinguish between fair and greedy.
If oligarchs or tyrants come to power, it is a greedy revolution.
Und Fair-Mehr-Revolutionäre lassen sich wohl leichter von Gierigen und vom Außen unterwandern als Genug-Revolutionäre. Letzt genannte sind eben vorsichtiger. Kann aber natürlich sein, dass man sie zu zu großer Vorsicht verleitet und somit nötige Revolutionen ausbleiben. Und damit auch dazu, dass das Genug nicht zu halten oder erreichen ist.
Well, „To …“ in this sense, is always bad.
Conservatives and progressives, who have the same goal of preservation, not only struggle with each other but also ensure that they are not overwhelmed or manipulated by those without this preservation goal.