Talha Naeem

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.
    • 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

    . .

    • +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.

        http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/f.a.q.-on-u.s.-aid-to-egypt-where-does-the-money-go-who-decides-how-spent.

        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.

    Mathematically

    Evolution=evolution+revolution

    Graphically

    |eeeeeeeeerrrreeerrrreeeerrrreeee...
    |eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
    |eeeeeeeeerrrreeerrrreeeerrrreeee...
    |... 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.
  • thumb
    Oct 20 2013: I'm unaware of evolutionary events that happened without a revolutionary event pushing it. Really... anybody can tell one evolutionary event that happened without any contextual revolution?
  • Oct 19 2013: Revolution brings up new thing,changes the socila environment
    So here we can say REVOLUTION can bring EVOLUTION

    Both are important
    To bring changes in society
    Where one brings sudden change is called Revolution
    which indicates a collective IDEA ............
  • thumb
    Oct 16 2013: The idea of "evolution" only referencing the biological process as suggested below is far too narrow in its application. When the Church doctrine of the day was challenged by Copernicus it may well have started a "revolution" in the religious community but the concept he offered to the world was an evolutionary perspective on how to perceive the state of the universe.

    The writings of Paulo Friere have often been referenced in the Ted conversations and one of Friere's most often cited ideas was that revolution was a surrender to the practices and thinking of the oppressors because revolution invariably uses violence and conflict - the tools of the oppressors - to wrest power and authority from the oppressors and thereby shows itself to be no better than what it replaced.

    But Ghandi employed evolved thought in his non-violent opposition to tyranny and oppression and succeeded in defeating the most powerful empire of the day, heralding a whole new way of thinking regarding how to bring about real change in governance. Something revolt had not been able to do for ages.

    Personally, I know that my own thinking has evolved tremendously from the narrow minded prejudices and opinions I was presented with by my parents and grandparents generations and that my relationships with those people would have been a lot healthier if I had been able to espouse those new found thoughts in a coherent and rational manner instead of simply rebelling against their ways of thinking. Unfortunately it took many years before I found the words and means of expressing that evolving thought and thereby getting past the conflicts my rebelliousness caused.

    So, yes I am squarely on the side of evolution, especially of thought, and will leave revolution to those things that go around in circles.
  • thumb
    Oct 15 2013: .

    Both are progresses, but:

    (1) Evolution ---- at DNA level.
    (2) Revolution ---- at a level without changing the DNA yet.
  • Oct 14 2013: It appears you're using evolution as a metaphor. Actual evolution is rooted in geobiological systems. It evolves naturally. Revolution is a socio-political issue. It's sparked by perceived inequalities in social constructs. It's a rationalization.

    It seems to me, it's not a question of evolving, it's a question of whether the people in opposition use the instruments of the old regime to affect change, or whether they impose an entirely new socio-politcal framework. I think they're both revolutionary. The former simply requires more time and involves less bloodshed. The latter lacks subtlety, but is very effective in breaking down entrenched oligarchies.

    What's more beneficial? Whichever path finds an equilibrium with the least amount of suffering.
  • thumb
    Oct 13 2013: revolution is useless unless there is a real plan to replace the current system. usually, there is not, or else the replacement system is as bad as the original.

    we need renaissance not revolution - i think of renaissance as changing minds, perceptions and attitudes.

    i think of revolution as destructive and often violent and not really changing anything except the person who sits on the throne.

    To quote John Lennon: "If you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out...in"
  • thumb
    Oct 13 2013: "The base is pure but the cement of edifice is artificial"- this sentence impressed me.

    Society needs the changes, deep roots inside it has to be dug, to make everything clear, and than there would not be chance to "convert" revolution.

    In that way, I do agree with you, that revolution is on evolution faze.
  • thumb
    Oct 13 2013: That view about bourgeoisie,is little tricky. Top layers has information monopoly,and information is something that make them always one step forward. So they are making artificial "revolutions", and placement of wrong information, just to keep folks stay peacefully, so they can control them.

    Is that real revolution? Every era has had some of the rulers who have used some dirty tricks, just to stay longer on top.

    Nowdays, we know about spying of society networks,and we know every step we take is predictable (because information are 'available') and it is hard to realize REAL revolution.

    So, there is difference between their and ours revolution.
    Our revolution needs more time, worn tolerance, repressed anger....but that energy couldn't be stopped by bombs,police, drubbing...nothing :)
    • thumb
      Oct 13 2013: I am not saying they are making 'artificial revolution', actually they are converting the uproar of real revolution into an artificial one. The base is pure but the cement of edifice is artificial.
      Before asking 'is that revolution', we would need to define which revolution are we talking about? Marxists revolution?
      So, the revolution is on evolutionary stages. right?
  • thumb
    Oct 12 2013: the fact that you would include idi amin who has been "deposed " since '78/79, proves your thinking is outdated...

    why not include Nelson Mandela... 'won't the ruling class turn the revolution toward its hidden goals?"

    My forth example for arguments sake would be Robert Mugabe...
    keep in mind that these leaders and the countries had sanctions imposed upon them...

    if you have examples of better leaders, where revolt has truly befitted the PEOPLE of the country, not the COUNTRY ALONE... you should be bold enough to cite them
  • Oct 9 2013: true change is a bottom up process
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: Meaning?
      • Oct 9 2013: which means revolution doesn't work only evolution does.. however there isnt only one ways to evolve.. evolution is successful when you acquire whatever traits it is that ensures the fitness of the species. different people in different places will adapt and must adapt within the parameters of their environment.
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: I agree Keith W, that we evolve when we acquire traits that ensure the fitness of the species, and different people in different places adapt within the parameters of their environment.

          As we evolve, and learn more about what might be possible, I think it stimulates "a fundamental change in political organization and activity or movement designed to affect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation".....which is part of the definition of revolution. I think evolution and revolution are very connected.
      • Oct 9 2013: it depends on how you define "revolution" overthrowing a regime without a contingency plan is futile. And whatever system you want to replace it with must be a system that the general public has faith in so yeah the two are connected if that model is reliable except i dont think it is.. overthrowing a power structure and replacing it has never actually worked historically.. at least hasnt worked efficiently.. nations that have successful transformed have done so very gradually
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: I agree Keith W......it depends on how we define anything, and gradual, well thought out change seems desirable:>)
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: anyone seen Bryan Maloney?
  • Oct 9 2013: I think devolution is a more accurate description.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: I looked up devolution to be sure of the meaning! Looks like it could be part of the process...
      Let's have an evolution/revolution/devolution:>)
      • Oct 9 2013: It has several meanings- "descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state" is an Oxford version I was referring to.
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: Yes, I understand the meaning Keith:>)

          Sometimes, things have to be pulled apart, we have to stir the pot, before they can be put back together again in a more beneficial way. For example, in the last few years, we have uncovered corruption in business, politics, and religion.

          Some folks may think.....what is this world coming to....it's getting worse all the time!!! I see the uncovering of the corruption as part of our revolution/evolution, because much of the corruption we are uncovering has been going on for hundreds of years. So, things may look worse, before they look better:>)
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: Great question! In my opinion, a revolution could involve violence and casualties. It also involves the damage of private and public property. On the other hand, evolution involves a gradual development based on peace and common agreement to reach something. A revolution breaks out any moment and the people behind it, need reforms quickly. I prefer evolution.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: What is born after a revolution? What does an evolution bring? Earthquakes and tsunamis are changes, just like rain and change in wind direction. Day changes into night and then night into day.
    Neither revolution or evolution is desirable if it does not lead to a benefitial change.

    Progress is what we need; we can not long for days when witches are burnt in public just because the 21st-century-life is becoming too boring and certain slogans, jargons or ideas sound nice.
    Progress is change for the better.
  • thumb
    Oct 8 2013: Bryan, I'm sure you never do typo's..... your far to perfect for that...
    And this conversation is over... your not worth the time nor the effort.
    • Oct 9 2013: You chose to intentionally indulge in a that particular childish insult more than once in one message and then make a play on words with it. That is not a typo. Now you lie about having done it.
  • thumb
    Oct 7 2013: Evolution is a progress... going forward changing adapting to becoming better

    Revolution is going in circles perpetuating the same thing over and over...
    aluta continua: the struggles continues to go on and on and on.....and on and on and on

    Egypt was nothing less than a puppet for the USA... Revolution comes about because of irreconcilable differences
    There are/were very few evolutionaries in history... fidel castro, hugo chavez, mohamar ghadaffi...
    Evolutionaries think like parents: protecting, caring and thinking of what is best for their children

    Not revolting to enrich their pockekts, but to protect the people
    • thumb
      Oct 8 2013: Evolutionaries like Castro, Chavez, or Gaddafi? Not revolting to enrich their pockets, but to protect their people?
      In each case, peoples of their countries, had no personal freedoms, were impoverished, depended on the whims of their protectorate. And each amassed personal fortunes and lived at a level that would be envied by Bill Gates. There are published guestimate of >100 Billion for the Ghadaffi family.
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2013: so you assume the rest of the world leaders are either broke or they share the wealth equally amongst the people
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2013: You only listed four...four of the worse.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: four of the worst what???
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2013: I am sorry, I wasn't clear... the four most oppressive dictators who stole all the wealth from their respective countries. You didn't list Idi Amin another great evolutionary in your rational.
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2013: the fact that you would include idi amin who has been "deposed " since '78/79, proves your thinking is outdated...

        why not include Nelson Mandela... 'won't the ruling class turn the revolution toward its hidden goals?"

        My forth example for arguments sake would be Robert Mugabe...
        keep in mind that these leaders and the countries had sanctions imposed upon them...

        if you have examples of better leaders, where revolt has truly befitted the PEOPLE of the country, not the COUNTRY ALONE... you should be bold enough to cite them
        • thumb
          Oct 12 2013: You have no public profile so I don't know where you are coming from. So... I have seen "evolutionaries" for a long time. You cited some of the most despicable despots of the past century as laudable leaders who did great things for their countries. And what about Mandela...he got religion in his old age and is now revered. It could have gone the other way.
          You asked me for the best "leaders" of today.... Better question, which 'leader" has done the least damage to their constituents.. .
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2013: and yet you have not named a leader???

        people like yourself revere leaders who bow down to the IMPERIALISM at the cost of the PEOPLE.
        leaders who SELL the COUNTRY to be accepted by people like yourself.

        you are the type of person who would incite violence and revolt in a country but not fight the war...

        you would probably be disgruntled that revolt was not swift and peaceful and stand on the sideline criticize the people rebuilding the country than get your hands dirty to assist...
        yet, you would admire Bill Gates who "DONATES" redundant computers to "poor suffering nations"

        for you to be looking for a public profile instead of debating a point proves you argumentative without a point...
    • Oct 8 2013: No, evolution is not "progress". There is nothing "forward" or "better" about evolution. Evolution is change over time that is not constrained by any sort of underlying developmental plan or template. Evolution can have "worse" results. I wish that schools would stop teaching this silly old lie that evolution is about anything getting "better". Evolution is merely unplanned, persistent change
  • Oct 6 2013: More specifically, as if it were a little confused writing.
  • thumb
    Oct 6 2013: Evolution is revolution infused with the possibility of hope and synthesis. Revolution happens when hope is gone and people act by the ethic, 'when you don't have anything, ya got nutting to lose".
    • Oct 8 2013: There is no hope in evolution. There is no hopelessness in evolution. Evolution simply is. One might as well say that a rock has "hope". It's an equally absurd and meaningless statement.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: evolution has wisdom, bryan maloney. Just as nature embodies wisdom. There is hope in reverence and evolution. Revolution although often necessary grows out of hopelessness and baloney. The connection is duly noted.
        • Oct 8 2013: Ah, I see, you resort to childish name-calling, thus exposing the thorough inferiority of your mind. Prove this "wisdom" to evolution. Evolution is merely a natural process, and there is neither "wisdom" nor "foolishness" in such things. They merely are. Of course, since you resort to such childish stupidity, you are probably quite incapable of ever understanding such a concept.
        • Oct 9 2013: Evidently, the TED powers that be see nothing wrong with you indulging in childish insults but hate the fact that I have called you out on your childish insult. I will continue to call you out on your childishness and stooping to personal insults until you are held to the same standard I am held to.
  • Oct 6 2013: Revolution is usualy passionate and impulsive ...sudden and aggressive in nature...it does get the job done ,but what is wrong with it is that it slowly dies down with the emotion or it succumbs easily to a greater emotion or greater revolution...one small eg Communism. It started with a bang...and it made radical changes but looking at it now all i can see are a few wrecks of what it used to be and what it used to mean...see that is what is wrong with impulsive changes.
    On the other hand the thing about 'evolutioun' or 're-formation'or 'refining' as i would like to put it is that it does require something to refine or evolve from .So in refining we are saying that the things that had been in existence were good at a time but not good enough now.For us to refine or innovate something,we must fully understand how the sysytem works presently .Refining something requires immense perseverance.It requires patience which is the yardstick that measures our dedication to the cause.Refinement requires building public opinion and convincing everyone that the change that is about to come is a one demanded by time and nature.Having done all this,refining can begin...and once its done, it can usually never be changed .I would like to state renaissance as an example of evolution in the thoght process of man.It didnot happened in a split-second and it still lives on
  • thumb
    Oct 6 2013: I think those two actions must be taken on different situation. For example, if the social and political corruption are uncontrollable, then revolution might be better, I guess. It's just that, revolution and evolution must be considered deeply before the action is taken.
  • Oct 3 2013: Ever heard of the statements "no pain no gain"? and "the peacful way is the right way"?.....with those in mind i would like to think we are at a time where we need to use the profitable attributes of revolution and evolution, find middle ground and use that to our advantage. we have seen the effects of both and we cannot deny they are both an essential part of change but at the same time have thier faults. Evolution being too slow and revolution being too violent. The middle ground is what we need and i believe this the the time or the "age" for it.
  • Oct 3 2013: Any entity in power in any country should, if we take an idealistic point of view, seek the completion of the will of the group of people it is governing. We have though to accept that this will is changing, adapting to internal an external stimuli that are part of our societies. Hence, as by nature, people change, adapt and evolve, then so should the entity in power. We here face two major problems that we can easily recall by following the news: What if the system set by the entity in power goes stuck in its own regulation? And what if the people governed splits into extremely different group that are , by no means governable under the same state?

    Should it be with the American shutdown or the civil war in Syria, we can illustrate such government dysfunctions and then ask ourselves, as you did, are we better off evolving or going down in the street to take back the power we gave to our rulers. Evolution needs, to me, very favorable conditions in order to succeed. The least of these would be legal ways to evolve and means in order to cope with the failure of these procedures, we can see it as tools to execute the people's will. With these conditions, then Evolution is the golden path. It is generally not the case though, and we accommodates with problems as they occur, solving them the best we can. One day, after this accumulation, things crack. And here begins the revolution.

    Of course Evolution is the most beneficial path to a State's sake. Many of us have seen directly or not the horror of a Revolution, but some times, I think we need to accept that there is no other way, some people even cannot agree to disagree.

    To end I would say that Evolution is the track every government should follow, but that Revolution is a need and a right for the people to own its future, no matter what.
  • Oct 3 2013: I have not read the comments, I am sorry but I need to put this pout there. For the last 60+ years there has not been a revolution that has brought about freedom, peace and democracy. And the reasons are complex, I think there is a book to be written here, but it is clear that modern humans do not tolerate upheaval well. As soon as the existing power structure is removed they want a new one in immediately. Democratic systems do not "evolve" overnight. They take time. But nature abhors a vacuum and into that space walks what remains: power by money and power by religion. Eventually that power buys the military might either by money or by faith and they use that might to determine the outcome of the revolution. It always ends up with either a theocracy or a dictatorship worse than what they revolted over in the first place. Venezuela is touted as the antithesis of this, but in reality it is not as rosy as people think there. People need to evolve and grow up.
  • Sep 29 2013: Revolution, because it is voluntary; almost always, subjected to a process of thought stemming from knowledge. However, it is important to note that not all revolutions are well thought out or justified but the fact of the matter is that it is thought out. Evolution happens, whether we like it or not. It is innate and not something we can change (i.e. the level of our fitness.) Granted both are beneficial but personally, I feel that revolution serves a better purpose to humanity. What use is the evolution of a particular species when the species itself does not make an effort to think for themselves? I think that to fully utilize our evolution (or make it more whole and in the hopes that it will benefit humanity), revolution must happen.
    • Sep 29 2013: The Cultural Revolution was only "voluntary" on the part of Communist Party functionaries. The majority of China got swept along--cooperate or be punished. Are you going to volunteer to start shooting people who don't agree with your little "revolution"?
      • Sep 29 2013: Sure, there are cases where revolution turns out not for the better. What I was trying to get at was that revolution gets people thinking, whether we agree or disagree with the said revolution. This fact in turn generates more thinkers and allows for more ideas and problem-solving to take place. I do not believe there will ever be a utopian society any time soon but as long as man can reason with himself and judge what is right from his opinions and then act upon it, we are getting a whole lot closer to that utopian society than if we were to rely merely on evolution - which will take us nowhere, in terms of enlightenment.
        • Sep 30 2013: Evolution is revolution. Revolution is evolution. They are the same thing at different speeds. "Revolution" does not generate thinkers. The thinkers come around before the "revolution" starts. They start the faster rate of change that is superstitiously called "revolution", but they exist before it begins.
  • Sep 28 2013: Revolution occurs when the evolutionary process is thwarted by obstructing forces. The sudden overwhelming of those obstructing forces is a revolution.
    • Sep 29 2013: There is no difference between revolution and evolution. They are the same thing at different speeds.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: Revolution happens when there is something not right in the present system and many of us is looking for a change and with right support and use of medium it occurs out of nowhere and change the whole system, be it any thing people, money, kingdoms, education, etc it will happen sooner or later. everything that is present in our earth has to go through revolution, be it Ice age or any other. But definately these revolution give other who can make it in extreme situation to evolve himself and start all over again. Revolution is more beneficial, as after evolution we are not sure if it will be successful or not.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2013: Keith, I am very clear the 'christians' got it all wrong, from domination and control to thinking god/heaven is in the clouds...while they trash the earth with seeming impunity and disconnection.

    I side with the indigenous, who understood 'heaven is earth' and always treated her with reverence and respect. Perhaps we share that value...

    Regarding the smoke.... I would say slowly and carefully... as they have upped the potency many times.... so I'm told...

    Washington is a beautiful state too...
    • Oct 8 2013: Because, all Christians are 100% identical and can be painted with a single, very broad, bigoted brush, of course.
    • Oct 9 2013: Please prove that all Christians are 100% identical in their doctrines and practices before you start indulging in broad, bigoted attacks on all Christians as a single group.
  • Sep 25 2013: In fact there is a difference between evolution and revolution. Revolution is a change that is both dramatic and fast, if the change is not dramatic or if takes time then it is not a revolution, in order to make a revolution you need lots of resources available at a single moment, those resources might be economic, human or both, so you cannot make a revolution with a few bucks just as you cannot do it either with a bunch or angry guys, thus if you want a revolution you need a lot of money and/or a lot of people otherwise you are doomed to fail. On the other hand evolution is change that is both small and slow, this means you can fuel an evolution process with small amount of resources.

    A revolution is a blast of energy while evolution is a small but steady flow of energy. In the end the amount of required energy to achieve the desired goal is the same in both processes, however the revolutionary process requires all the energy available simultaneously and immediately, while the evolutionary process only needs a small but continuous supply of energy.

    So to respond to you question, what is more beneficial, it depends on the resources you have.
    • Sep 25 2013: Evolution does not have to be gradual. Gradualism is only one type of evolution. There is also punctuated equilibrium, in which changes tend to be highly concentrated in time, separated by much longer periods with little to no change. The idea that evolution must be gradual has long been abandoned by evolutionary scientists. In general, it is now believed that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can both be involved in evolution. Sometimes it's slow, sometimes it's fast.
      • Sep 26 2013: What I am presenting here are the two extremes, the black and the white, however I am sure there is an infinite number of shades and possibility in between, in the mid point there should be something that may not be classified neither as evolution nor as a revolution because it will be both.
        • Sep 27 2013: Except that evolution is revolution and revolution is evolution. The only difference is where you arbitrarily draw the line. Thus, no need for two terms. Just add "fast" or "slow" to one.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2013: I can't get the accounting part of your evolution and revolution stuff. Read about French Revolution, people didn't had tons of dollar in their bags to bring a revolution.
      • Sep 26 2013: You won't understand a thing if you don't read carefully. Please read carefully before replying, I did say "those resources might be economic, HUMAN or both" but you apparently did not read that part. If you do read something about the french revolution, you will realize that they didn't have tons of money but they did have tons and tons of human resources, actually the whole french people. I never said the only thing needed for a revolution was money as you wrongly imply.
      • Sep 27 2013: The French Revolution was actually led by fairly wealthy people. It was not any sort of spontaneous uprising of the poor. Instead, it was a battle between a middle class that had wealth but little to no political authority vs. a monarchy and noble allies that had political authority but dwindling wealth. To complicate matters, there were members of the nobility who thought it sensible that the "men of means" should be admitted into equal status in government with the old nobility, and they sided with the revolution. The old fairy tale about an "uprising of the poor" came after the French Revolution had already finished.
  • Sep 25 2013: In the long history of revolution, whether by military forces or social groups, almost always come and gone. The revolution led by Karl Marx has left very little markers or ruins for us to see in the current world. Even the disciples of communism are being beaten down by the austerity measures on the Euro type of socialism. Of course, the concept of social equality should never die, but we really can't predict what kind of social system(s) we would EVOLVE INTO by the forces of the human ingenuity and the NATURE. In other words, the force of revolution is just like a burst of bonfire, it just glares in a short time span and disappears, compared with the long history of human social evolution which will go on and on indefinitely as long as the earth environment sustains us; the human species. The "ruling class" is just a couple of performers in the evolution drama played on the world stage in the irresistible long grinding of human history. Remember, just a(or two) thousand years ago, the ruling classes were kings and dukes, instead of the military-industrial complexes of nowadays. And who knows what kind of ruling classes there will be, two thousand years from now?
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2013: Perhaps a more relevant question is which is more likely?

    Given the 'entrenchment' of the rich, our institutions and a serious dumbing down of meaningful discussion never mind evidence of actual actions, I would say revolution is more likely. Personally I anticipate it will be a revolution between generations as the young realize their future has been sold down the river by the last 3 generations....

    Although I will continue to work toward evolution....
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2013: Revolution as it is in the Egypt was needed but after a year with the elected government some actors of the world's political arena has found out that the elected govt contradicts with their intrests. So they got Mubarak out of prison and Morsi in. This is the end of the Revolution, which is something harsh and sudden. Unles revolution proves anything in Egypt, Evolution proves nothing either, which is slow and feeble.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2013: Just turn the page and see it through different perspectives. If it had been the real revolution then it wouldn't have been the way it is, a year is a much of time to topple over things and that gap either shows the weak edifice of revolution, if you continue to argue, or that there had been no real motive behind the revolution at the first place.
  • thumb
    Sep 23 2013: What do you think about "industrial revolution" ?
    • thumb
      Sep 24 2013: I will probably go with Marx on that, at least. There was evolution back in industrial revolution and to know that we have to go down and scrutinize the process that led to the industrial revolution.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2013: Lot of evolutionary changes happen deep down there for long before the final eruption ( revolution) of a volcano as well.