TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What's more beneficial: Revolution or Evolution?

All of us had seen the so called Egyptian revolution on our TV channels, whom Karl Marx would, without wasting a fraction of second, recall as ideological state apparatuses trying to perpetuate the ruling class's point of view. But how many of us actually had thought over the need for revolution? Revolution, Revolution and Revolution is always talked about but the reason, the real one, is never debated. The Egyptian revolution geared by social media hypes ended up not different than a social media debate which pretty much clarifies the wrongly perpetuated need for a revolution. Turn the page, and think over evolution. Isn't evolution what we need? Is this the age of revolution or evolution? It's not 1789, it's modernly-trimmed society of 2013. do they need revolution? will they accept revolution? With media at hands, as Marx calls it, won't the ruling class turn the revolution toward its hidden goals?

  • thumb
    Sep 27 2013: Revolution is evolution, greatly accelerated. We might think of it as a genetic mutation. When changes come to societies, they are almost always revolutionary. They may not cause a war, but they often create stress, and it is the adaptation to these stressors that is evolutionary. When, for example, in the United States, Major League Baseball finally integrated the game with Jackie Robinson in 1947, and when President Harry Truman issued the Executive Order to racially integrate the US Armed Forces the following year, some believed this was too much, too fast. Were these executive decisions, and numerous other rulings by judges, allowed to have been made by popular vote, they would likely have taken decades longer to have occurred, if ever at all. And yet within the lifetimes of many who played with Robinson or first served in an integrated US military, the populace evolved to the point of electing a black president.

    Revolution has traditionally been viewed as the defenestration of an oppressor, but oppression comes in many forms. Sometimes it is the tyranny of an elite over the masses, while more often than not, it seems to be the despotism of the majority over the minority in society—a condition that leads to stagnation in a status quo paralysis, where evolution is stunted. For a society to evolve, it must be open to change, an attitude that only flourishes where there is exposure to new ideas, as is the case in pluralistic and cosmopolitan cultures. The more reclusive and withdrawn a society is, the more it will remain frozen in time. The world is full of examples of societies and groups that remain closed and refuse to evolve.
    • Da Way

      • 0
      Sep 28 2013: I agree the main difference in rate.

      To answer the question, you also have to define 'beneficial', and to do that, you have to pre-define the goal.
      E.g. A majority group may successfully overthrow a minority group, but it turns out later the minority had it right. It's beneficial for the majority group in the short run as they achieved their goal, but in the long run, later generations may suffer.
      This is where the slower rate has the advantage, you have time to observe the effects as you go along.

      However, to drive an idea to be popularised over time it takes a lot of energy. Revolution may be more practical to achieve if that's a limiting factor.

      So when considering the rate of making a change in society one needs to weigh up the risks and benefits of each or reach a compramise.
      • Sep 29 2013: Pol Pot
        Cultural Revolution
        The Terror.
        • thumb
          Sep 30 2013: wounded knee
          me lai
          'civil' war
          We are at the top of 'domination and control'.
          We define and embody it.

          "Enlightenment isn't about imaging figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious". Jung
      • Sep 30 2013: Point being, Craig? That America does bad things, too? So what? What does that prove? All it proves to me is that agitating for "revolution" is usually a very bad idea. It results in killing a lot of people who were just minding their own business and not hurting anyone. However, leftists, right-wingers, and all other forms of political dogmatics, of course, pretend that it's okay to commit mass murder for the sake of "the cause".

        I do know that the vast majority of "revolutions" in history have been betrayed and led to oppressive governments. Of course, there are fools who try to claim that Pol Pot wasn't oppressive, that Stalin wasn't oppressive, that Franco wasn't oppressive, that Mussolini wasn't oppressive, etc. I'd rather live in the evil old USA than live under Pol Pot, Stalin, Franco, or Mussolini.

        PS: For the stupid: I didn't include Hitler because he came to power through technically legal, if underhanded, means. He wasn't even able to pull off a coup, much less a revolution. He had to come to power through backroom deals followed up by massive machine politicking a-la Chicago or LaGuardia's New York.
        • thumb
          Sep 30 2013: The collapse of communism in the former Soviet Bloc provides an interesting study of bloodless revolution, with the notable exception of Romania’s Ceaușescu regime. Beginning with Poland, followed soon thereafter by Hungary, the GDR (East Germany), Bulgaria and finally, the “Velvet Revolution” of Czechoslovakia, these states all overthrew their communist governments within a few short months during 1989, ending more than 40 years of Communist Party subjugation. Unlike his predecessors, Gorbachev chose not to roll the tanks, and the Iron Curtain fell. The revolution remained bloodless because both sides held their passions in check and refrained from using force—something that is nearly impossible for people to do, particularly the party in power.
  • thumb

    . . 100+

    • +3
    Oct 16 2013: An outstanding project and question from Talha Naeem.

    EVOLUTION which is = continuous relentless internal REVOLUTION inside our own self.
  • thumb
    Oct 13 2013: I think that evolution comes before revolution. In this era of globalisation facilitated in great part by the internet it is easier for us "the people" irrespective of national borders, culture or creed to communicate, share ideas, philosophy, knowledge, aspiration etc., in a way which was not possible even 30-years ago. What we saw and continue to see in what has been labelled by the press as "The Arab Spring" I don't think would have been possible if the people of Egypt hadn't been communicating with the outside world facilitated by the internet. While I accept that I might be utterly misguided and overly simplistic in my assumptions - I think the internet is a huge democratizing force for good which many of our world's governments are terrified of, hence the spying by various government agencies in the name of national security. We the people are evolving as we recognise that under our skins we are all the same - we all need, food, water, shelter, love, the opportunity to be educated, so that we can grow in spirit and in mind and add to the well-being of our communities, we need the freedom to exercise the freedom of expression - deny the people these fundamental rights - and evolution becomes the blood revolution.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: OK, Colleen. And if we could dream with encouraging people to unite the powers (large or small ones) of everyone, and do it sincerely and deeply, united into a wave of positive evolution, -with the same ease that sometimes people encourages to revolution, I think the world would be much morebetter.
    Is this utopia? I do not know, only a dream, perhaps.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: OK Sean. I am with you and your dream, and based on comments I read here on TED, there are lots of people to support our dream:>)

      We will start an evolution/revolution/devolution with other encouraged, sincere, united people....everything starts with a dream my friend.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: Great, Colleen! .... : Devolution, yes, that lacked! You have expressed the concept perfectly and completely.
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2013: Dear Sean,
          I must give credit where credit is due! "Devolution" was introduced by Keith Henline in another comment in this conversation:>)
  • Oct 6 2013: Every revolution has counter revolution but evolution has more evolution
    It means evolution is beneficial
  • Oct 3 2013: Revolution is a symptom of social evolution. Society will go through evolutionary changes over time. You normally don't have a revolution without some sort of internal change or social evolution.

    Evolution is obviously more valuable. The goal of revolution is change. If you can avoid a revolution and simply evolve you avoid the negative aspects of a large-scale revolution.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: I agree Henry, that revolution may be part of the process of human evolution, and my preference is peaceful revolution/evolution:>)
  • Sep 24 2013: I would say it is more of a pendulumn swing that is either getting more or less arc. There will always be those that are in power, no matter what is said or done. Those in power, will allways take care of their own first, even if they are seen to give care or thought to those less fortunate. I do not see us evolving by much, but then that is not necessary is it. Evolution takes time, a great deal of it, that is what is generally allows the neysayers that it isn't correct, and allows them to put forth intelligent design. Evolution of thought is definately more important, without it we are doomed to repeat mistakes with different players.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2013: Evolution takes time, no doubt, and so do revolutions. The 'neysayers' are irrelevant as they will predict revolution and evolution against them as incorrect, deviant and probably stupid.
  • Sep 23 2013: Whether it is revolution or evolution if the people do not change then either is a waste of time. The reason revolution is more successful is it is easier to kill the people who do not agree with you than it is to change there mind.
    That seems a bit callused but it is a fact. It should not be that way, I wish it were not that way however the reality is harsh. According to most religions God does not believe in evolution God believes in revolution, kill them all and start over. I would like to see education win just once in my life before I die, fat chance in that happening. We never learn, we are the dumbest, meanest, cruelest animal on the planet and the sooner we kill ourselves off, the faster the planet will return to the garden of Eden it was before we got here.
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2013: Keith,

      What ya smokin dude??? Which 'god' told you she believes in revolution.... Me thinks your barkin up the wrong god and the wrong tree....

      Remember, self fulfilling prophecy??? Pay attention ...
      • Sep 25 2013: Well Craig I have been to Oregon, beautiful state, right next to Washington where I was born, about 75% claim to be Christian here in the USA and as I recall the Christian God wiped out entire empires and in the case of Noah he wiped out every species on earth and started over again. Or did they change that part in the bible, again. Revelations is full of massive death and destruction but that's what Christians have to look forward to..
        Most religions core belief is we are right and everybody else is going to Hell. You can call it revolution, you can call it evolution or you can call it by any name you want but until we wake up and take responsibility for our own actions, nothings going to change. I haven't smoked in 33 years but maybe I should start again. What do you think?
  • thumb
    Sep 23 2013: A well directed evolution and whose fruits are well used, can be a very strong and effective revolution.
    And I think much more durable, enjoyable and of course, fearless ...
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: Sean,
      I agree that a well directed evolution can be a strong and effective revolution and much more enjoyable:>)
  • thumb
    Oct 15 2013: I think you're asking revolution or reform... Things rarely improve after a revolution, they do after a reform...
  • Oct 14 2013: it's quite simple ..to make a revolution we need at first evolution and this one involves all aspects of life essentially mentality.We should have such level of maturity and civilazation to do a revolution. As a Tunisian I lived all these stages from maturity to revolution.Before maturity the majority of tunisian people were satisfied because they thought that all development happening in the country had been thanks to the president Ben Ali,so he took advantage of this confidence granted by the people and he began with his wife's family to steal the wealth of the country.Consequently,the economic situation was badly affected by this and gradually people changed their mind. Thanks to media and social networks, tunisians knew what happened exactely in the country.When the corruption, the injustice and the poverty invade all the country and the unemployment rate achieved a high level,all tunisians said the famous french word '' Dégage'' to the regime ,many people were killed in the revolution but finally the previous president Ben Ali left the country with his family and finish 23 years of dictatorship.Now after elections, we speak about another king of maturity's lack because many people want asks the government to find solutions for the damage of 23 years of dictatorship and improve living conditions as soon as possible when we should normally have patience and work in order to change the situation of the country.
  • thumb
    Oct 13 2013: From a completely different angle altogether, the kind of revolution that we want is that which completely challenge the status quo and come up with new things to change our world. I understand the topic is about "a fighting revolution that forces things to happen," but the one I am referring to here is that which by virtue those in power would see it as a necessity because it makes sense and it is necessary for the country to move on. For instance, if I come up with a system of helping the country to be efficient in serving its citizens and those in power see it as necessary, that is revolution at its purest form, without any brutal force or intimidation but only stating the facts and the necessity for such system or any other activity that would convince people without forcing them to resort to violence.

    To me this is the revolution we should be striving for in this age, not by force but by our creativity in meeting and combating what causes violence.
  • thumb
    Oct 12 2013: My subjective opinion is that we need REVOLUTION, and revolution is pure energy of negative electricity in society, that expresses in extremly ways. And it has to be extreme. Why? Because it is the only way that can make revolution visible, and also the way that revolution can be taken serious. If you try to get your legitimate rights on piecefully way, the top layers wouldn't take you serious.
    One example: few mounts ago, a pretty big agricultural community from one part of mine country wasn't satisfied by rights and prices of their products, and they did wrote to president. President doesn't give to much affection on that question, so they did go out on roads and blocked them, so their legitimate rights were immediately solved. :) And as Dirkem said "revolution is state of mind of folks, it's not about how many people are trying something. It's about change inside your awareness, and awareness of whole nation. That awareness makes revolution.
    • thumb
      Oct 13 2013: But what about the view that Marx held: Bourgeoisie keeps on revolutionizing ideological state apparatuses in order to perpetuate the view that they are pro-people, pro-change though deep inside they are the one against whom the change/revolution was initially geared against.
      Almost the similar thing happened in my country where people rebelled and their demands were accepted, making them feel that the government, state is working for them and is pro-people but shortly they realized that the thing they thought were pro-people was actually a gimmick that at that time saved the class against whom revolution was called.
  • Oct 10 2013: I Believe that as something Evolves, Revolution comes trailing behind
  • Oct 9 2013: I think that, perhaps, the question itself is based on a bit of a misattribution and a small oversight. First, Marx never wrote on the ideological state apparatus, that concept came around a century later with Althusser. Here, however, we run into another little problem. While Althusser likely would have been fine with adding media to the top of a list of apparatuses, for him it was never primary (the church was primary, but with the decentralization of religion education became primary). Excepting that, the understanding of the concept expressed in the question is fine. But now to an actual answer. I think that, if we are looking at Marx and purely political evolution, the two terms are essentially synonymous. Just a very basic review of historical materialism and ideology ought to clear that up a bit. For Marx, the history of humanity is that of movement toward freedom, as expressed through various organizations of labor and power. Ideology is (at a simple level, I haven't the space to fully explain it here) the ideas perpetuated by power as a means of control, generally through some process in which the ideas that serve power come to be believed by the masses as in their own interest; it is the ideas which fight against the movement of history. So then, what would political evolution be? If we are to assume that politics are merely contests over power and resources carried out under a predetermined set of rules, it seems that evolution would suggest a redistribution of both (which is perfectly in line with historical materialism). However, this is inherently against the interests of power and the required change is resisted by ideology. Generally, ideology wins out between the two (this is why we see so few revolutions that do not express that values and desires of some ruling class somewhere; contemporary liberal revolutions are generally a great example of this). For true political evolution to occur revolution is necessary and the later is the more beneficial.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: With the vast majority of the world's population desperately wanting a better world, why can't those who govern us deliver? Are we, the masses, stopping them?
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: I think, in a way, we are sometimes hindering the process Joshua. I hear a LOT of people complaining about our leaders, and yet, some of those leaders keep being re-elected. When it is clear that our leaders are not working for the best interests of the people....why are they re-elected? That boggles my mind!
      • Oct 9 2013: It shouldn't Colleen we all adapt to our environment, that is what they do. If you put a sane man in an insane asylum it a very safe bet they will eventually start acting crazy also. Another example is our prison system, the guards over time become just as violent as the inmates. When you are up to ass in alligators it is easy to forget you came in to drain the swamp. The exceptions are rare. Our environment can wear us down and then we do things we otherwise would never in our wildest dreams even considered. Overpopulation seems to bring this on in all animals including us. We need our space to remain sane, otherwise we start bouncing off the walls..
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: Logically, I understand what happens Keith, and I agree that many times people who run for office may have good intent in the beginning, and then they get wrapped up in the system.

          When we see that, as thinking, feeling, intelligent adults, we have the opportunity and choice to NOT re-elect them again.
      • Oct 9 2013: “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”- Joseph Stalin
        Believe me, Joseph Stalin in spirit is alive and well in America.
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: Nice quote. I don't like to be cynical, even about politics - but it's hard not to be.
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2013: The trouble is Colleen, whoever we vote for, the government always gets in. And they, even with the best of intentions, find themselves largely run by "The System" which is a force in itself with its own momentum, going in a certain direction. Maybe politicians would like to change this direction, but somehow "The System's" own momentum steamer-rollers on regardless.
        This "System" (as I think I said before in another conversation) has its own agenda of centralising power and control.
        What then, you might ask, is the role of governments and governance if they are somewhat hapless puppets in The System going in XYZ direction, regardless.
        The answer, I think, is that it requires leaders who are very mature spiritually and psychologically to challenge and reshape The System. Such people are few and far between.
        Meanwhile bottom-up, or middle-outwards initiatives from TED type people seem perhaps the best option to bring about positive change.
        • Oct 9 2013: About a hundred years ago there was a fellow named John D. Rockefeller who when asked who he supported in an election said: "I give $1,000,000 to the Democrats" and then he was asked what if the Democrats lose? to which he replied "I also give $1,000,000 to the Republicans". You see for the cheap price of $2,000,000 John D. Rockefeller bought America and today it is no different with the exception that anyone from any country can purchase America for a relatively cheap price. What was the price to purchase the Supreme Court? It is very obvious someone owns it now, who? Not "you".
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: Joshua and Keith,
          I'm not very good with regurgitating the challenges of the past. I like to be mindfully aware of what happened in the past, because it gives us information on which to build a future....as we evolve.

          I agree Joshua, that TED offers a HUGE opportunity to connect on a global level and move toward positive change:>)
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: Hello Talha:>)
    It appears that revolution may be part of the process of evolution for humans. You mention the example of Egypt.

    We were told in the US that Egypt was a democracy, and we supported the government for many years with billions of dollars in aid. This is what our government wanted us to believe, and this was the information released to the press.

    When I spent time in Egypt, talking with people about their government, I was told about the corruption in their government, and was very surprised. When the revolution began, I was not surprised that the level of discontent had reached a stage where that action probably needed to happen for change to take place.

    I much prefer to see peaceful revolution/evolution in our world, and I'm wondering if we will ever evolve enough to be able to achieve that state of "being".

    Welcome to TED conversations Talha :>)
    • Oct 12 2013: who support the corrupt governemnt, isn't the same governement who pays billions & billions for aid... who controle the same media-who told you what you have mention-to make fool of you & all her citizens .Sir .i know that you know, Poor countries hold 40 per cent of the world's population, but receive only 3 per cent of the world's income from trade. Rich countries makeup 14 per cent of world population and yet get 75 per cent of the profit from trade..where is the Aid you talk about??????is it fair if we said that the US governemnt pays only 0.5555 of what she steals from poor countries???is it right if we said that your governement sells weapon to thos people???they take far more than they give.
      lets talk about syria & obama allegation, do you beleive that America well do what needs to stop what happens there-like what happen in Iraq????
      • thumb
        Oct 13 2013: Zakraoui,
        I do not believe anyone is a "fool" if they/we are not accurately informed. I believe it is common for governments to tell the people what they want them to hear. Governments need to be more transparent.

        The aid I talk about is the U.S. assistance to Egypt, which averaged about $2 billion a year since 1979.


        No, I do not agree with the U.S. taking the same action in Syria as in Iraq. I would like to see the Middle East alliance (the neighbors of Syria) responding to what is happening. I would like to see the UN responding....that is why the UN was formed, and they appear to be useless.
      • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: You stuck in a comfort zone. You need to grow. Change is brought about by leaders not followers. It's easy to rant and over the being a virtual revolutionary... But hey, who planned to improve possibilities of communication??? Even with the Internet you can be considered a voice in the wilderness, the sound of one hand clapping... Who planned to improve language or slang it to make it ambiguous???
    You can be like flowing water bringing new life, forging a path gradually, slow over time, or a raging force causing destruction and immediate change, or stagnant, nothing but a breeding ground infesting pollution to those around you.
  • thumb
    Oct 7 2013: Talha! Revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a planned and deliberate action taken to change the order of existing things or rules. Revolution happens against something. It is Rebellion. But, on the contrary, Evolution is the natural development of something and is a slow but steady process. It is mild by nature. Computer technology has gone through several evolutions.

    Both have their own merits and demerits. If your house is on fire, you wont even think about evolution Talha, or will you ? When An instant 'Turn Around' is required to stop the fire or to run away.

    When there is a thorn in the foot, second thorn is needed to get rid of the first thorn ! - This is Revolution (Instant)
    Once thorn is not there, now Dressing can be think of to get rid of the pain ! - This is Evolution (Slow)

    So, its obvious, as in case of Egypt, revolution was needed to stop the president to get ultimate powers... :)
    • Oct 8 2013: Ah, I see, so you're not going to tell all the professional biologists in the world that punctuated equilibrium must be false and they must abandon it, since punctuated equilibrium doesn't fit your definition of "evolution".
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2013: Hi Bryan :) you have came with very good objectionable example.

        The question asked by Talha was in the prospectus of Human experiences and i think my answer fits well within this. But your example belongs to something that is beyond human experiences. Let me explain this too...

        Yes, Punctuated Equilibrium do not believe in gradual progress and believe in sudden split of species, which is the opposite theory of gradual progression of species (Darwin's evolution theory). Bryan, this kind of conflicts occurs when we mistakenly compares one thing with two different aspects-

        1- One aspect, as the thing is known to us (Within our Human experience).
        2- Second aspect, as they really are by nature in subtle form (Out of Human experience).

        Nature does not behave as it seems to us. Its behavior is totally opposite at subtle level. These Revolution and Evolution concepts are man made definitions and has nothing to do with 'how nature works'.

        You know at Quantum level, a photon do not only behave like a particle but also like a wave. Mystery is still unsolved . Human Experiences is full of dualism in every aspects. We behave, live our life and think in duality. We make theories and concepts with our perception and past experiences. But this is not the way to solve the mystery of Nature. Nature is not bound to follow our theories, this or that.

        Thus, since Evolution and Revolution is the matter of Human Experience. My answer is right in that aspect. :)
        • Oct 9 2013: First, punctuated equilibrium does not believe anything at all, because punctuated equilibrium is a concept, not a person. Second, Darwin's theory is not the end-all and be-all of evolutionary theory. It is no more and no less "in" or "out" of "human experience" than is punctuated equilibrium. Insisting that evolution must be gradual and excluding punctuated equilibrium is nothing but arbitrary and based on entirely irrational criteria. If it is evolution, then it uses all mechanisms of evolution. If it is gradualism, then SAY "GRADUALISM" and stop mis-using the term "evolution".
  • Oct 3 2013: Evolution is the same thing as revolution...or is it?

    Personally, I don't believe that Egypt is a good example of revolution. Although, yes, it was a revolution, it doesn't accurately portray how most revolutions go. With this being said, I would like to make clear that in turn of the "peaceful" revolution, it was really an evolution. Revolutions are much more violent.

    So evolution would be peaceful, while revolution is pretty violent in order to get what they want to achieve

    With this in mind, we obviously want evolution over revolution; achieving the same goal with minimum difficulties.
    • Oct 10 2013: How was it not, as "most revolutions" go? Can you clarify for me?
      • Oct 11 2013: As in the fact that most revolutions take many steps to actually succeed in what they are trying to achieve, most of which are violent.

        For example, French Revolution and American Revolution. Oh, and the Russian Revolution. Although I can't pull of anymore examples of the top of my head, I believe that these three revolutions set the standard on how most revolutions go.
        • Oct 14 2013: These three set the emotional and mythological constructs for revolutions. Many cultures view these as "successful" revolutions. The problem is that revolutions in the last 60 years have not gone that way at all. There are entire books to be written about why and how, but it nonetheless remains the truth. Instead of those three being how we judge revolution, we need to reconsider them as anomalies that no longer represent how revolutions - in the modern era - actually go.
  • Sep 29 2013: I live in Venezuela, and this revolutionary process have been a failure, we really need an economical evolution.
    • Oct 10 2013: Jorge, thank you for making my point about the Venezuelan revolution. Many here think it was and economic revolution as well, they do not see the costs. What I will give Venezuela was that it was a sharp and sudden turn and it did make thing better for many of the people. So, knowing it will never be exactly what you want it to be and will always be dynamic and needing more adjusting, does that mean it was successful or not?

      What would your economic evolution look like? I would love for us to see money completely differently than we currently do. But, I am not holding my breath.
  • Sep 26 2013: I will put my thoughts a different way, You have to have evolution of thought in order to have revolution. Revolution may be more furious, and happen faster, but without the change that evolution of thought brings, there can be no revolution.
  • Sep 25 2013: Revolution is just fast evolution--or is evolution merely slow revolution?
  • Sep 24 2013: The world is scared of revolution. Look for Rob Steward's story behind the making of Revolution... just the mention of the word and millions were dropped from his budget. But come to think of it, it makes perfect sense. Think of all the revolutions in the past, both successful and not. Regardless of the reasons, there was always a turbulent time following a revolution. It is too sudden, too brusque, and so often people do not know how to deal with the aftermath of victory.

    The most unfortunate aspect is of course the glorification of the events on the media. It is an industry that has grown to its current state through sensationalism, and when this happens a large group of bystanders not only twist and pervert the revolution's goals and morals, but to pollute it with their own misunderstanding and un-motivation, fuelled by the popularity rather than the intentions. They may aid in the volume, but only increase the confusion post-revolution. I haven't followed Egypt recently, but from what you say it doesn't seem like it turned out too well! Syria isn't following in the right footsteps either because of external motivations. People need time to evolve their social system...
    • Sep 29 2013: The world is scared of unpredicted change, doesn't matter how fast or slow.
  • Sep 23 2013: I find it interesting you used the date of 1789 which is the year that the Constitution was ratified. I would argue that going from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was evolutionary and not revolutionary.

    I think if the institutions are entrenched, then revolution is necessary. I would also argue that the Egyptian revolution was not like the American but more like the French Revolution where the structure and the planning was lacking. It was a revolution by a mob with little planning for the future.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2013: The year 1789 is when the French Revolution began, which is what I believe Mr. Naeem was referring to.
  • Sep 23 2013: Evolution in what sense, the biological kind? Because its pretty much stagnated since the dawn of civilization, and won't get going again in any real pace until new biotech makes it happen (though it'll probably be the single most controversial thing in living memory and turn quite violent along the way).

    Let me also remind you that violent revolution rarely works out for the better. While there have been exceptions, you typically end up with a new tyrant instead of the old, alongside an additional hit taken to stability which worsens your situation overall.
    The existing ruling class usually doesn't even have to subvert things. A new ruling class of very similar stripes will come out of the woodwork if something happened to the old one.
  • thumb
    Sep 23 2013: You may be interested in this conversation that closed recently: http://www.ted.com/conversations/20079/revolution_or_peaceful_pr.html
  • Oct 22 2013: the point of revolution is evolution...these countries could move nowhere but to worse ... freedom, truth , innovation are needed to evolute ... those values are missing today in most of the communities in the world.
    for the devastations and the disapointement of the media etc ....it s a natural consequence ... people just need to focus more on how to make the revolution achieve its goal .and not to let those years of suffer and the souls of the innocent people go in vain
  • thumb
    Oct 22 2013: Revolutions are a must !! Do not wait for any physical benefits. The real benefits are mentally. Ex. Egypt. they did a great revolution more than anyone can describe, but when you ask "then what" ? people died and thousands got wounded, these are negative things. The real benefit is that the protester that began the revolution are actually still living and dreaming, they did not loss hope for tomorrow, a better future for the next generation. a dream that is still and will always be there A BETTER FUTURE. It doesn't matter if i am really able to achieve it, all that matter is as long as i am breathing i will be dreaming for a better tomorrow. The Egyptian revolution on papers yes i didn't achieve anything of what these protesters strived for but they stated an important message which is " we have hope for a better tomorrow and we will fight for it everyday".
  • Oct 20 2013: Neither evolution is beneficial , Not revolution is beneficial. But ,both are needed for the progress and development of civilization or anything.

    Evolution is subtle,spontanaeous and invisible.Revolution is accelerated reactive evolution.It is more visible,tangible and fast.Evolution is a long and infinite journey without any end.Revolution is a specific and finite travel which has its end.The amazing thing is that the evolution contains both the evolution itself and the revolution.




    |... n time

    The modern day civilization has evolved from the primitive civilization which is the result of the evolution as well as the revolution.

    The modern day ipod or mp3 player has evolved from the primitive phonograph invented by Edison which is the result of the evolution as well as the revolution.