Revolutionary fervor

With the constant outflow of media, we are regularly reminded of the injustices being faced by the common man. Modern systems and institutions often seem oppressive and tyrannical, governments seem untrustworthy and the world around us seems more treacherous than before. All these growing observations encapsulate reasons for change and the idea of a revolution seems intriguing in the modern society for it embodies itself as a strong force of change which may possess the powers to eradicate totalitarian systems and oppressive regimes. It asserts power to our hope and longing of a utopian world, promising the pursuit of truth, justice and equality.

The question of whether we need a revolution to achieve social change is one that has been debated by philosophers and thinkers for centuries. From Plato’s Republic to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, the idea of revolution has been thoroughly examined. While there may be convincing arguments in favor of the proposal of a revolution, it is important to know the opposite end of the spectrum to understand reasons why we should be cautious in our approach to achieving social change.

One of my primary concerns with revolution is the issue of violence. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that violence was a necessary evil in some cases, but also acknowledged that it had the potential to escalate out of control. The French Revolution, for example, began as an attempt to establish a more just and equitable society, but quickly descended into a period of violent chaos that claimed countless lives. In this sense, revolutions are a double-edged sword: while they may be necessary in some cases, they can also lead to untold suffering and destruction, often times, of those who pursue it.

Another major concern with revolution is the question of leadership. A drive to absolute socio-political change is guided by distrust and hatred for the existing leadership. However, such hatred casts an obscure silhouette which limits a person’s ability to point out flaws within their own plans. Great thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Hannah Arendt argued that charismatic leaders often arise in times of crisis, and their influence can prove to be dangerous. Nietzsche, for example, argued that the will to power was a fundamental human drive, and charismatic leaders were able to harness this drive to their own ends. Arendt, on the other hand, argued that charismatic leaders often relied on the suppression of individual thought and dissent in order to maintain their position of power. In this sense, revolutions can often lead to establishment of new forms of oppression and inequality which defeats their purpose.

Finally, there is the issue of vision. Philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre argued that it was not enough to simply tear down existing systems and institutions; we also needed a clear vision of what we want to construct in their place. Heidegger believed that we needed to re-think our fundamental relationship to the world in order to achieve true social change, while Sartre argued that we needed to reject the idea of objective truth in favour of a more subjective, individualistic approach to politics. Thus, revolutions are often too focused on the negative aspects of the existing order, rather than the positive possibilities of the future. A revolution may bring about significant change but it is the people who must decide what that change should be for momentary order can quickly descend into complete turmoil.

In conclusion, while the idea of a revolution might sound appealing in some respects, there are compelling reasons to be cautious in our approach to achieving social change. We must be mindful of the potential for violence, the dangers of charismatic leadership and the importance of adopting a clear vision of what we want to achieve.