Of Ideology, Compromise, Evolution, Devolution and Revolution

[Northwind]

After a minor dust-up over in Politics and Campaigns regarding a certain health care plan by a certain Presidential hopeful, I began to ruminate on the role of revolutionary vs. evolutionary change, and how ideology and compromise work to further or stifle the two.

Many people are now calling for revolutionary change in the American government. Some call for a revoltion within the system, advocating high levels of activism and above all high voter turnout, while some tohers advocate an actualy, old-fashioned "off with their heads" violent revolt. I will be concerning myself here with the idea of revolution within the system, as I firmly believe that in the modern world, violent revolution tends strongly to create opportunites for tyrrany rather than expunging it.

Does revolution within the system work? I believe that it does not. Any system, be it the weather or a government, tends towards equilibrium, with only slow change. We see this in biological evolution most clearly, but even in government we can recognize the tendency. This is a natural tendency of any system, but we should also remember that our own government was designed to be slow to change. It takes quite a bit of effort to get any sort of legislation through our Congress, and changes to the fundamental structure of our government, The Constitution, are even harder, ofetn taking many years or even decades. The fouding father's did not want a really strong central government (for the most part), and one of the ways they combatted the idea was to make the government ponderous. Certainly change does happen, but under normal conditions it is very slow to manifest. When outside catastropjic events occur, the systme will lurch on one direction or another in response, but will try as quickly as possibly to recover balance. Good examples of this ae The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, and yes, 9/11. The current administration was able to get a lot of neo-con policy in place that would otherwise have proven almost impossible to pass without the outside stressor of the WTC attack, just as FDR was able to push what was viewed as a socialist agenda (I speak in terms of perception), which normally would have been abhorent to the Amwrican public, due to the stress the Depression placed on the system.

Ok, you say, so what? Tell us something we don't know!

Well, how about this: A revolution within the system is a danger not to its intended "victim", but instead to its proponents. When change is forced on the system, the system reacts with a backlash in the opposite direction in an attempt to re-achieve equilibrium.

As an example, let's look at the recent spate of pro-gay rights court decisions and legislation that has taken place in the US (and Canada). It has been widely discussed (with some incredulity) on the forum that before the SCOTUS decision to overturn sodomy laws and the focus on the issue of gay marriage (brought about largely through the current Presidential campaign) the polls showed a slight majority in support of civil unions or gay marriages. But in the past couple of weeks, the trend has reversed itself, and now there is a slight majority saying "no" to gay marriage or civil union (I put the two together because I think in the mind's of most people there is no real difference). Many people here have asked why. The answer lies in the system. At a personal level, the change in people's attitude will be from a myriad of sources. Some will simply feel threatened by "moving too fast", others will find that it bothers them more than they thought it would, as in the case of the man who in no way considers himself racist, but is made uneasy in ways he cannot explain when a black family moves in next door. The individual reasons are largely irrelevant, the true culprit is the system reacting to a change. In this case, the change was relatively minor, and the backlash was mild as well. But imagine the result if, rather than simply allowing people privacy in their homes and giving them partner's rights, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was the right of all people and was not limited to man and woman. That would have been a major change, and the backlash would most likely have been severe enough to allow right-wing elements to push through a Constitutional amendment strictly defining marriage as between man and woman, something they want to do now, but are unlikely to get, because right now, the shock to the system has not been great enough to generate sufficient support for such a move.

What does all this mean and why the hell am I going on about it?

Mostly this is all a warning. Cliches about "shooting high" or "reaching for the stars" aside, any attempt to drive through too great a change will result in severe and possibly catastrophic backlash for those who wish the changes.

For example (and I will name no names and try to keep this totally hypothetical despite certain parallels with current events), let us say that a new President is elected in '04. Let us also say he introduces a sweeping new change in one area of national policy (pick your favorite, the particular area is largely irrelevant). Despite the fact that it benefits a large majority of the population, people will oppose it. Many people opposing it will be people who would benefit from it. The resistance in Congress to such a change would be overwhelming, and would most likely kill the new policy before it ever sees daylight, but let us assume that it gets passed, in a form mostly untouched from its original intent. If we pay attention to history and the study of dynamic systems, we see clearly that their would be enormous backlash involved in such a radical change. The opposition party would use this backlash as an attack opening and what may have originally been a very popular President. Very probably, the backlash would be so sever as to allow the opposition party to regain the White House, and most likely the Congress as well at the next election cycle, at which point the still-young law would probably get repealed, meaning a net effect of zero, or no change at all, and nothing improves.

Please keep these things in mind when listening to any candidate, for any position, of any party. The only way to effect lasting and beneficial change is through evolution, slowly adjusting and perfecting the current system. If you move too far too fast, you end up with nothing. Ideology can serve us well, but it can also blind us to long term effects in a zealous rush to effect change right now. Compromise is the essence of lasting and beneficial change. The inability to compromise is a serious weakness in any leader, and should never be regarded as a strength. If you doubt his, think for a moment about why we on the left so thoroughly revile Bush. When you get right down to it, it is really because of his "my way of the highway" approach, both domestically and in international affairs. That part of his character is more damaging to our country than all of the crap it comes wrapped in. And if we despise this in him, why would we laud it in another? Be wary of anyone who seems to agree with you too much. It could be your delight at finding a kindred view is blinding you to the legions of others who do not share it.

Note: This is not aimed at any particularly candidate or group of supporters. I think it could apply to any of the 9 Democrats and certainly any Republican as well, just as I am certain you could find supporters of any of them who could use this advice. I as that we not discuss specific candidates or policy plans in this thread. Let's keep this to the hypothetical to avoid a flame-fest and keep this a reasonable exchange. Thanks.

[chadm]

1. You're overlooking something

You are assuming that "the system" is inherently nuetral or unbiased. Unfortunately, it has been designed so that, as far as it can swing left or right, it encourages evolution toward a certain desirable direction.

The next logical question might be: "Then who defines what the system is and what purpose does it serve."

Few of us truly know the answer to that...but I believe the forces are much more powerful than the White House or Congress. I'm talking about a world-wide organization, perhaps grounded in FreeMasonry.

The theory I'm getting at is based on Hegel goes something like: First comes a thesis (an idea), and the backlash is an anti-thesis. At the end you have synthesis. It is that synthesis that is desired by the elite ruling class.

Here's a simple explanation: http://www.clickz.com/media/plan_buy/article.php/917191

This gets really interesting when you note that Marx was connected to the same people at the core of American Capitalism. Also Trotsky, the guy who started the supposed grass-roots revolution in Russia was actually funded by bankers in New York.

Those in power can be described in a fuzzy way as those involved, at the highest levels, with Banking. By being at the top of the banking industry, they get to define what money is (the Federal Reserve is run by these bankers...not by Congress). By loaning out money, they essentially make us all slaves to them becuase we will work just to pay them interest...and the money they make is used to buy the fruits of our labor.

These people don't care if GWB (thesis) or Nader (anti-thesis) exists, as long as they are still ruling the world (synthesis) and nobody seems to notice the system they created to do so.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Sorry, it's much more mundane, much less excting than that, link inside

http://theyrule.net/

[chadm]

3. You're right

That's part of it. But who created the laws to allow this to happen?

[chadm]

4. Another way to map the "they rule" stuff

is look at the members of the Counsil on Foriegn Relations (CFR). It was formerly called the Trilateral Commission, which was connected to FreeMasonry.

There are a few thousand CRF members today, a who's who of the ruling class. I don't know whether a list of members is published anywhere...but they include Conservatives and Dems. Doesn't matter what the ideology is...as long as it supports the synthesis. They define the range in which we are allowed to debate.

This is a very dangerous topic to discuss and spread because we're not supposed to see or mention any of this.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. The ideology is simple: increase revenue

I don't know about all the various secret societies and country clubs and classified think tanks, official, unofficial, mythical or real, but I do know that whatever they call themselves, or whatever their trappings, they all share the same aim: consolidate more resources into fewer hands.

And they are doing a damn good job of it!

[chadm]

6. Agreed

They kind of like this Democracy thing too...because the odds of 50% of the population ever seeing beyond the matrix they've created is 0%.

I really don't know how you can decondition people to everything they've learned throughout their lives. It took me at least 5 - 10 years of seeking to see it somewhat clearly. Kind of difficult to peel back all the layers of bullshit from 1st grade through grad school and all the TV in between.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Wow, I was just talking to someone about that same thing!

Someone said they felt "stupid" for not having a more comprehensive view of how US policies have impacted people in the world, he is not stupid at all, - how can you know what you are never given a clue about?

I think the internet has a lot of potential to give people who will take advantage the chance to get a little bit more of an idea about events in the world, how they are perceived, what are the effects on peoples' lives, what do they think about it, but so far, only a tiny fraction of internet users utilize that option, and internet users, even computer owners are just a fraction of people.

Interestingly, poor people, who have had the same conditioning, the same insular and fictionalized indoctrination, are less likely to believe it than the affluent, probably because they live day to day on a much closer and personal way with the reality of US policies...

[ursacorwin]

8. which is exactly why some prefer the other course

which has to do with the recognition that whenever you have a truly entrenched elite, drastic measures are required to achieve conditions under which real change, moderate or otherwise, is possible.

it hardly matters who/what the ruling elite are- or the private games they play and names they use. history is replete with examples of exclusive, homogeneous, elite, protected, and corporate (broad sense) groups that determine the direction of whole empires. in the past, it's been an aristocracy which was more in the open, protected by church and state alike in their 'right' to rule the masses.

our ruling elite have long since learned that the systems created by the revolutionary periods of the recent past can be manipulated, from behind the scenes. my personal take is one relating to the rise of global capitalism, and the new forms of control afforded by technology. it's nothing sinister to say that the major players on the global scene today are most likely financiers, corporate executives and media moguls, and military/intelligence industry leaders- all of whom intermarry and congregate. we talk about these people specifically all the time.

the simple fact for me is that people will need to be forced into the basic critique of our system that has been my base for years: property is an unsustainable concept in a world of billions with modern living standards. either the standards have to change, or the billions have to change (by this i mean die & suffer). currently, i believe our leaders are taking us down the latter path. they understand that certain resources and natural objects must be more and more controlled by fewer and fewer. the environment tells us this every day, if we listen.

i don't have a lot of heart these days when i think about what will come. i remember that the intelligent roman elites understood essentially the same kind of lesson- and ignored it. their historians and philosophers would've had the same kind of objections we have: ignore the problems at hand and a new, more terrible tyranny will emerge. in my opinion, that took the form of an anti-intellectual, oppresive, militaristic feudal xtianity often called the dark ages.

we'll see what we get.

[chadm]

24. Wow

Great post. I totally concur.

[Northwind]

9. Wow, way to utterly miss the point, folks.

It is irrelevant who is in charge, or who is "secretly" running things behind the scenes. Bias is also irrelevant. A dynamic system, ANY dynamic system, behaves as I have outlined. It makes no difference if it is left, right, red, blue, chartreuse or polka-dot. Subjective moral judgments cannot be applied to the system. The point is that stable systems (which our government is, for the most part) resist or outright reject radical change. Period.

No response thus far even addresses that fact.

[chadm]

18. I thought our agreement was implied

My point is that this "stability point", or synthesis, is controlled by people in charge who have an agenda. The system is not nuetral...it is set up to incent certain behaviours and leads to inevitable results.

Combining your theory with Hegal's leads one to understand that:

1) The system rejects radical change/deviation
2) The system was created by someone to serve some end (it is NOT nuetral)

Therefore,

3) Significant change is not possible within the system

and

4) We should look at creating new systems that produce more desirable results.


I don't think you are right in suggesting that "the system" "just is" and it that there can be no moral judgement. There is, in fact, a very real moral judgement to be made as we watch or man-made system slowly destroying this beautiful planet and all the beautiful people on it.

Perhaps it is you who has missed the point.

[HFishbine]

10. But

You suppose that we are the ones trying to bring about a revolution for which we will suffer a backlash. May I posit that the revolution has already happened, successfully launched by the Bush extremists. Perhpas it is they who should prepare to suffer the impending reaction in the opposite direction.

edit: spelling, of course

[tom_paine]

14. Bingo, HFishbine!

But remember the lesson of the Soviet Union. Oppressive regimes can keep humanity cowed and beaten for decades, but eventually the bullshit becomes so deep...

Of course, the Soviets had us to look at as a "beacon of freedom"

(yes, yes I know we are far from perfect and have never been perfectly free, but close enough)

Who will we look to as the Shadow of Totalitarianism casts it's dark hand over us? And is it not possible that other groups in Europe and the rest of the Free World (to which we no longer technically belong) will look upon the Bushevik Strategy (Goebbels v2.0) as a blue print and turn the 21st Century into the Age of Totalitarianism?

But well said, HFishbine. Very well said.

[camero]

15. Clinton was the revolution, Bush is the counter.

Clinton entered his presidency after 16 years of conservative idealogy. The Congress of 1994 was actually a counter to that and it has reached its zenith with BushCo.

The Bushies will make the same mistake of overreach as all the other quests for power precisely because he cannot compromise, which is how Clinton stayed in power for 2 full terms.

Pragmatism can come out of these swings but sometimes they require a large backlash within the system.

Notice that Europe has not swung too far to the left or right since 9/11. Maybe they are the ones we should be looking to for our answers as most of thier change is in non-violent form.

They have the uncanny ability of shutting essential services down for a period of time, thus producing some needed change.

[tom_paine]

16. Think about what you just said

Clinton revolutionary?

Clinton was a centrist.

The "counterevoltion" of 1994, doubly so then, was nothing of the sort, in spite of the Storyline Corproate TV Pravda trotted out. In retrosepct and knowing the Right-Wing Sub-Media, this of course was their storyline, the same one they've been bullshitting for deacades. Poor us, we are the victims. We don't control anything...

And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about in your last line.

You sound uncomfortable. Are you saying things you don't really believe?

(sniff sniff?)

[camero]

17. When the Europeons go on strike , they go on strike.

They can shut down whole cities for days in certain professions.

Yes, Clinton was a Centrist, but only after the failed health care initiative. The first thing he did as pres. was to increase taxes on the wealthy and start AmeriCorps. Both ideas showing that we were all our brother's keepers.

The corporate Dems at the time did not back him on his grander initiatives because it would have been a radical change to the system.

His losses included his failure to ban companies from using replacement workers in a strike. His first budget passed 51-50 with Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

Oh, and cut it with the intellectual uppity would ya. thanks.

[Don_G]

11. 5 Labels For Crap

Do the right thing the first time and no one has to spin anything.

[enki23]

12. right. yet another "fear the backlash" admonishment

if your hypothetical system is a good model for reality(it isn't) the way to get society where you're trying to go is to push it as far as you can in the direction you desire. push the sucker as hard as you can, far exceeding the point where you might actually want it to be. this way, when it's all done dialectically backlashing itself back to it's hypothetical natural equilibrium, it'll be more likely to end up closer to your target.

or we can talk about the real world instead of imaginary pendulums.

[Northwind]

20. Nothing Imaginary here

This is not a "hypothetical" model. It IS reality. I gave real world examples, in case you did not notice.

If you look at dynamic systems, in all aspect of life, biological, political, religious, ANYTHING, they behave this way.

[chadm]

21. You don't fully understand a model...

until you see its flaws. Your stating that "this is not a hypothetical model" is troublesome. Models are intended to explain reality, not BE reality. Knowing what they explain is as important as knowing what they do not.

I've yet to see a model explaining anything that isn't at least somewhat flawed and limited. If you know of one, chances are you just haven't identified the flaws/limitations yet.

Which gets back to my question: how can you believe an evolutionary system is "unbiased"? Evolutionary systems take place in an "environment" with its own rules and forces at play. The political and economic system is a man-made environment. Change the rules of that environment and the direction of the system changes.

Example: today the value of a corporation is measured only by the value it creates for shareholders. If, instead, the SEC enforced a system that measured a corporation's value produced for all stakeholders, you'd have a different "breed" of company develop because the environment has changed. In this way, the environment is not nuetral.

So, while your point is true, it actually makes the point of, for example, a Green or Libertarian...who believes that meaningful change is not possible within "the system" (because of the reasons you've identified) and only through directly attacking and changing the system itself.

Get it?

[Northwind]

27. This is not a model.

I am not posting this as a possible model of how things work, I am posting this as en explanation of dynamic systems perform. The process itself is not debatable.

And I did not say the whole system is unbiased, I said bias is irrelevant.

Attacking and changing the system itself will only result in the installation of yet another system that will have essentially the same behavior.

[chadm]

29. Come on

Bias is irrelevant to what? To you making your point? Is that the goal of this discussion, for you to make an obvious point (that there is backlash) and stop at that?

Yes, the new system will have the same behaviour, but will produce different results (which is the goal we're after, right?). I'm not arguing with your observation, just trying to carry the debate to the next step...while you try to keep it focused on the first step.

WHAT I'M SAYING ISN'T NEGATING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

[Devlzown]

13. Seems to me you're advocating radical revolution.

You don't believe working within the system effects change, therefore what would be the point of joining a political party and supporting a candidate? Violent revolution creates opportunities for tyranny to flourish (if I may paraphrase). Sure, tyranny can be the result of violent revolution, but what if the current system is itself a tyranny? The only logical action in such a state of affairs is constant revolution until the desired result is attained.

[Northwind]

19. Sorry if it sounds that way, that was not the intent.

My point was actually precisely the opposite.

The way to change the system is to introduce small incremental changes and then weather the backlash they produce. The SCOTUS decision re: sodomy laws is a good example. The system's reaction to it was a minor shift in public perception overall, with a step-up in rhetoric by its opponents. Those same opponents will use this shift as an opening to push through their agenda, but by the time they are fully mobilized the system will have stabilized and will resist their efforts.

You take a small step forward, and then you wait for the reaction to settle down. If you push too hard, the reaction becomes violent and you end up with nothing.

Addressing another point, someone made the VERY good point that Clinton was a big change and Bush is the reaction. This is true. Labels like "centrist" are irrelevant and frankly stupid. A centrist is always perceived as a horrible threat by extremists, regardless of whether they are right or left. If you want an example of that closer to home, just look at the demonization of centrists within the Democratic party right now. People here consistently blast Lieberman and to a lesser extant Dean, simply for the crime of being more in the center rather than extremist left-wing ideologues.

[chadm]

22. Wrong again. Completely failed logic.

Is the backlash smaller, larger, or equal in magnitude to the initial "change"?

- If larger: over time things move in the opposite direction...so the drastic swing to the "right" over the past twenty years is directly attributed to any progress that was made on the "left." Silly argument, becuase then the next question is who's backlashing whom and why doesn't it balance out to be equal?

- If nuetral: the natural conclusion is that no change ever happens...things just go back and forth. Again, not an accurate reflection of reality.

- If smaller: then the correct strategy is to push as hard as you can in the direction you believe in becuase, over the long term, that will eventually move things in your direction. This is probably what the Republicans did over the past 20 years.

Or, perhaps, the change that happens over the long term has less to do with change and backlash and more to do with the types of actions and policies likely to survive in an environment created to produce certain types of results.

It would be a good time for you to admit that there may be flaws in your logic.

[chadm]

23. Or maybe...

the best way to avoid harmful backlash is through secrets, lies, and doublespeak...so that the opposition doesn't even know what you're doing and can't respond to it. Better yet when you control the media so you can constantly expose the opposition to spark outrage and they can't do the same to you. Yup, that's pretty much the situation we're in.

[Northwind]

25. The opposition is irrelevent.

The system itself creates the backlash, the efforts of certain "sides" within the system are irrelevant to the result.

And the backlash is equal in degree but not necessarily equal in nature.

Again in the aforementioned sodomy law SCOTUS decision, the change itself was actually quite mild, as was the backlash, but the initial change was in actual policy, whereas the backlash was evidences through public perception. This is ideal. Make a small change in policy, weather a little public rumbling, move on when it subsides. More simply put, make policy, let the system rumble a little (manifested as a little public bitching) and then wait for it to cool down. Then proceed to the next stage of policy. This is the only way to effect long-term, beneficial change. Instigating major policy changes creates more violent backlash that will spill over from the arena of pubic perception into actual policy action.

None of this is theoretical. This is how systems work, period. Denying it on the basis of ideology does no one any good and in fact does harm in the long and possibly even short term.

[chadm]

28. OK.

Your model explains absolutely everything about every society and government worldwide throughout history. Its undebatable. Nice job. Glad that's solved.

[govegan]

26. Wish I had more time to respond, but just briefly....

I don't agree with the thesis of gradual, incremental change being necessary or required within systems that are outwardly stable.

Looking into astronomy and cosmology one can find numerous examples that do not fit this theory.

As well, we can identify "systems" where incremental change is applied regularly until a certain saturation point is reached and catastrophic change then follows.

In the human body, the lifelong habit of high intake of animal fats, for instance, can bring gradual accumulation of plaque on vital sections of the arterial system. One day a massive heart attack or stroke strikes with devastating results.

Does the body really reject a more healthy regimen, even though the results would bring great benefit? Or is the rejection forced upon the natural system by ignorance and custom at the center of control?

Ignorance and custom are indeed enemies of radical change, but they do not preclude the success of such change, given the right circumstances.

[chadm]

30. Actually

It is the intake of simple carbs that causes this build-up, but your point is taken.

Cancer is another example. Viewing the world through this lense of duality is temptingly simple but innacurate. There are many forces at work...for example the US Economic System exists in a larger system that is the world political and economic system. While this economy can grow to the size of a Mammoth...at some point the larger environment cannot support the species and it will die.

We're actually talking about evolution...and there's a lot more to cover than this simple thread has.