Why somebody resisted revolutions?
Here we should ask, why somebody would resist revolution in every society? The revolution is the violent method to change society and people who want to resist it are arguments their way to think, that society needs a calm advantage. The violence would support the power in the country, and that is a good argument for people, who want to reduce the freedom of speech.
And the otherwise the question is that, who makes decisions of the material, what can be published and what is banned? And who would select things, what are printed in the school books? Those persons have the power to decide, what kind of thoughts people would think and what models the children get. People who resist revolution argue against fast changes. They call this slow advancing the natural advantage, which means that society is like a flowing river, which would travel across time.
That thing, what we are calling as"flowing society" would make it's route peacefully and calm over the state, and the attempts to change that thing fast causes violence. Those people think that changes in society must happen by using their weight, and the changes are inevitable, but they must have time to happen in a peaceful process.
Those people are saying that fast movements in the track of society are causing more resistance than peaceful and sharply investigated change. But the change would always be in front of us. There is nothing stable in the world than change. And when we are thinking about the change, there is always something, which makes the first action.
And if the people would think that censorship is the cure for that thing, they must realize that if there are many things dammed behind the iron doors, that means that the pressure for change is also dammed. That thing means that when the dams are opened that would cause violent effects. That's why those changes must flow freely.
Democracy is the right to know things, and that makes that thing a more complicated thing than we ever thought. The thing is that democracy is one itself an ideology. But it is the thing that offers the base of many ideologies. And the worst case in the democracy is that, what if people don't know how they are voting. Or what kind of people they are elected to parliament?
If we want to misuse something democracy is the perfect tool for that kind of thing. The populism can give tools, which allows marketing own ideology on the internet by using things like alcohol taxes and VAT for selling own ideas to normal people. There is one little thing, that is ever mentioned when we are talking about democracy. In the publicity is not a sharp description of the populism, and that thing is the good word to crush political resistance of own ideology.
And philosopher Rousseau said once that people must be taught to think the right way. Or did he say that "people must learn to think the right way"? The first version means that the government tells people, how they should think and vote. The second version is that people would self learn, what is best for them. And the problem in both of those models is that who will say, what is the right way to think?
People would get their knowledge from the sources, what they are allowed to use. That means that the selectors of material would always affect the opinions of the people. This would cause question, who decides the books and homepages, what are published, and what are banned from the Internet, bookstores, and libraries. One of the worst cases that can happen to state is that it is lead by the popular dictator, who would crush minorities for taking popularity.
And the otherwise the question is that, who makes decisions of the material, what can be published and what is banned? And who would select things, what are printed in the school books? Those persons have the power to decide, what kind of thoughts people would think and what models the children get. People who resist revolution argue against fast changes. They call this slow advancing the natural advantage, which means that society is like a flowing river, which would travel across time.
That thing, what we are calling as"flowing society" would make it's route peacefully and calm over the state, and the attempts to change that thing fast causes violence. Those people think that changes in society must happen by using their weight, and the changes are inevitable, but they must have time to happen in a peaceful process.
Those people are saying that fast movements in the track of society are causing more resistance than peaceful and sharply investigated change. But the change would always be in front of us. There is nothing stable in the world than change. And when we are thinking about the change, there is always something, which makes the first action.
And if the people would think that censorship is the cure for that thing, they must realize that if there are many things dammed behind the iron doors, that means that the pressure for change is also dammed. That thing means that when the dams are opened that would cause violent effects. That's why those changes must flow freely.
Democracy is the right to know things, and that makes that thing a more complicated thing than we ever thought. The thing is that democracy is one itself an ideology. But it is the thing that offers the base of many ideologies. And the worst case in the democracy is that, what if people don't know how they are voting. Or what kind of people they are elected to parliament?
If we want to misuse something democracy is the perfect tool for that kind of thing. The populism can give tools, which allows marketing own ideology on the internet by using things like alcohol taxes and VAT for selling own ideas to normal people. There is one little thing, that is ever mentioned when we are talking about democracy. In the publicity is not a sharp description of the populism, and that thing is the good word to crush political resistance of own ideology.
And philosopher Rousseau said once that people must be taught to think the right way. Or did he say that "people must learn to think the right way"? The first version means that the government tells people, how they should think and vote. The second version is that people would self learn, what is best for them. And the problem in both of those models is that who will say, what is the right way to think?
People would get their knowledge from the sources, what they are allowed to use. That means that the selectors of material would always affect the opinions of the people. This would cause question, who decides the books and homepages, what are published, and what are banned from the Internet, bookstores, and libraries. One of the worst cases that can happen to state is that it is lead by the popular dictator, who would crush minorities for taking popularity.
Comments
Post a Comment