THE INDIVIDUAL AND REVOLUTION

James Constant

gov@coolissues.com

            Historian Toynbee tells us that revolution occurs when the existing structure of "Society", has ceased to answer to the conditions, needs and demands of Society which has the power to make a change in the structure.¹ In recorded history, changes brought about by revolution have brought about changes in the management of Society along with new conditions, needs and demands which put new tensions on Society [1 p 8]. Within the period from which records survive, we have evidence that there have been many revolutions. Over time, revolutions have become more frequent. [1 p 9]. Toynbee further tells us that evolution has been the rule for betterment of Society, and revolution has been the exception [1 p 10].

            What emerges from Toynbee's account is that as a structure of Society matures it ceases to answer the conditions, needs and demands of Society and that most changes that benefit the entire Society are usually made by the evolutionary process of gradual adjustment, rather than by the violent acts of revolution. New religions, philosophies, ideologies and ideals have had as much effect upon human affairs as have new tools. There are relatively long time periods of evolutionary change interrupted by short time periods of revolutionary change. Over time, as communication and technologies have increased, these long time periods of evolutionary change have shortened.

            Hoffer says that societal change is pioneered by men of words (intellectuals), materialized by fanatics (politicals) and consolidated by practical men of action (bureaucrats). Change does not happen until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of "men of words" who articulate grievances. Like canaries in coal mines, they are the first to sense and report the abuses of those in power. Their words undermine established institutions, discredit those in power, weaken prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and set the stage for the rise of a mass movement. Men of words are succeeded by "fanatics" who take over the management of the mass movement after the prevailing order is discredited. The final consolidation of the mass movement is the work of "practical men of action". By their natures men of words are individualists while the fanatics and practical men of action are collectivists. While men of words provide the theory of government it is the fanatics and practical men of action that provide the practice of government. After their job is done, the men of words are pushed aside but their words remain in place to perpetuate the charming of the inert masses by the new dominant minority. Ironically, men of words also work as propagandists, like parrots. By nature, they have a craving for recognition and when their status is recognized by those in power, they will not hesitate to switch roles and put their powers in the service of the strong against the weak. In a modern secular Society, justice and a fair judicial system are the main factors of societal longevity. In the meantime, all individuals must conform to the prevailing order, just or unjust^.3

            Basically, then, a State organizes its Society according to its interests which, as Society evolves in time, becomes misaligned with the interests of Society. As Society matures, injustice increases and more individuals become disaffected. When many individuals become disaffected and when the State's rules are discredited, Society has the power to make a change and revolution is an option. What are the interests of an individual and Society and what are the driving forces of societal change? It turns out that while man and Society pursue their selfish interests, long life, power and wealth, both are at odds with natural selection by their external and internal environments.

GROUP SURVIVAL

             I adapt the following from my book.[2 pages 252-261] Every group must meet the tests of survival. Like individuals, groups, Societies, governments, and civilizations do not survive. Civilizations begin, flourish, decline, and disappear. The causes of growth and decay are broadly discernible. Society thinks and acts with the brains and muscles of its members. Masters organize the work of their subjects to obtain the resources for growth of their Societies. Men become busy studying science and building new structures of government, law, religion, morality, and education, all of which then receive provisional solution and wide approval. Inevitably, these structures will age and will no longer be able to meet the challenges of change, criticisms, oppositions and repressions will mount, and new solutions will be sought, as the Society begins to decline. When a Society, group or civilization, declines it is through the failure of its political and intellectual leaders, and its institutions, to meet the challenges of change, and such failure of leadership and institutional obsolescence allow the society to weaken itself with internal strife. At such times, men are busy destroying the old structures.

            What does survive a Society, along with the natural genes which instruct natural replication, are the artificial genes --- the coded instructions of mankind, the books of the collective intellect which instruct the replication of solutions to life's problems, in science, government, and religion, and all other concerns of men. Some precious achievements which have survived through many societal generations, and are usually taken for granted, are making fire and light; the wheel and other basic tools; language, art, and song; agriculture; family and parental care; ideas of social organization, government, law, religion, and morality; and education which instructs the collective knowledge about life's problems.

            Societal natural selection favors those artificial genes that replicate the longest through many societal generations. Like natural genes which they mimic, it is artificial DNA, not individual Societies, that survives. Artificial genes in different Societies have opposite ends, and those artificial genes that maximize in one Society do so at the expense of the survival of other Societies. This principle explains man's changing ideas of government, law, religion, morals, and education. Babylon, Egypt, Athens, Rome, Alexandria, Cordoba, the Western Renaissance and England are dead but their artificial genes drive modern societal change.

            The utopian vision of group welfare (of Societies and their institutions) is at odds with societal natural selection. When societal natural selection is considered from the perspective of the survival of artificial genes instead of the survival of Societies, group welfare is always a fortuitous consequence. Like individuals, it is the uncoordinated scramble for selfish gain that characterizes Societies. So long as artificial DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. Like natural genes, artificial genes do not care about suffering, because they do not care about anything. They are neither kind or unkind. They are neither against suffering one way or another unless it affects the survival of artificial DNA. In this respect, artificial and natural genes are alike in that they are not cruel but only pitilessly indifferent. Death for both individuals and Societies is most egalitarian and democratic and only their genes survive.

             War is the obvious external threat to a Society. Heraclitus said that war is the father of all, and war has indeed been the rule of history. The causes of war are the same as the causes of competition among individuals: acquisitiveness, pugnacity, and pride; the desire for food, land, materials, fuels, mastery. While individuals submit to restraints laid upon them by the State, States acknowledge no substantial restraint, either because they are strong enough to defy any interference with their will or because they are protected by a bigger State. World order comes not by gentlemen's agreements but through a decisive victory by one of the great powers which then dictates peace, as Rome and England did. Historically, interludes of peace are unnatural and exceptional.

            Less obvious, and more insidious, is the internal threat to Society, from failure of leadership and institutional obsolescence to meet the challenges of change. The total amount of suffering in the political and religious world is beyond all reasonable contemplation. Millions of people are victims of their own as well as their competing Societies, governments, and religions. The reason for this suffering is that most governments have been oligarchies ruled by a minority, chosen either by birth, as in aristocracies, or by a religious organization, as in theocracies, or by wealth, as in democracies, or by numbers, as in socialist countries. It is unnatural, as Rousseau saw, for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized for united and specific action, and a minority can. Nevertheless, States decline internally when their elites monopolize privilege and power, oppress people, consume men and resources of the State, and engage in costly wars. The excluded then band together and periodically throw out the elites and replace them by others, in most cases violently. To some degree or another, there is always a tension between the ruler and ruled. Thus, unlike man who favors himself, Society favors its elites, Rousseau's and Jefferson's principle. It is quite ironic that the most advanced Societies, based on the collective knowledge of mankind and created by man to mitigate nature's indifference to him, tend to favor only their elites. While man makes government, law, religion, morals, education, and civilization, and designs them for his own purpose, his interests in these institutions may not coincide with those of the elitist and institutional interests obtained through privilege and power. This occurs because all institutions are contingent upon their axiomatic bases and, in each case, the product will be used by a number of persons, voluntarily or involuntarily. Moreover, the artificer may not be good, perfect, or just and the product may not be the work of good, perfect, or just art. Whether good or bad, by man's standards, Societies' interests are determined by its elites It is the institution's interest, not man's interest, that is being served. Society is strong when it has resources and when the interests of elites, institutions, and people are the same. Human nature, however, works in the opposite direction.

             Given that group welfare is fortuitous, the key to individual, societal, and species success, if not survival, is man's ability to manipulate his natural and artificial genes, and to assiduously monitor the strength of his societal institutions. Individual life might be prolonged by altering natural and artificial genes to postpone old age. Indeed, the artificial genes of modern sanitation, public health, medicine, agriculture, and food preparation have already extended old age, but not yet postponed its onset. Societal and species life might be prolonged educationally and biologically by increasing the amount of artificial genes which produce intellects educationally, and by increasing the amount of natural genes which produce intellects genetically, both as methods for long life and for replicating the longest, over subsequent natural and societal generations. While all this is now within the reach of science, keeping strong institutions is a political problem. Deciphering nature is one thing but making man's structures of government, law, religion, morals, and education bend to the task of maximizing artificial genes is another matter. Like biological systems, political and religious systems maximize their genes by chance. Simply put, we know what must be done but our Societies and institutions are only fortuitously relevant to solving problems of prolonging individual, societal, and species life.

            It is ironic that while man designs his artifacts so that no part outlasts the total, a matter of not wasting energy, he designs his social structures for infinite life. Constitutions and religions are notorious examples of institutionalized permanence. Initially based on widely held ideas, man's structures of government, law, religion, morals, and education are at odds with natural selection. Man's structures are crafted by elites for ensuring indefinite survival and thus are wasteful of energy. In time, because its axiomatic basis is flawed, or because its artificer is unjust, or the structure is not good art, the practice no longer fits the theory. In any case, privilege and power inevitably assert their interests, and change occurs when many people become seriously offended by the practice. The structure mutates or dies but its best artificial genes, its experience, survives. To accelerate this process of maximizing artificial DNA would require discarding structures, as soon as it appears they do not work. One must always remember that ideas underlying structures are tentative propositions subject to change. Change, of course, can only be made at the expense of the elitist and institutional interests, the grip elites have on the structure, and the inherent bureaucratic inertia. The ideal Society, in which each institutional structure is flexible to change and each individual is intellectually prepared to make this happen, however, is not likely. More likely, institutional change will remain a slow evolutionary process. Only few people, mostly in the advanced Societies, will be intellectually active opposing the elitist and institutional interests, until the multitude steps in to make the change violently.

THE STATE'S EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS

            The State's external environment consists of a Society of States and its internal environment consists of a Society of individuals. War and revolution, and the physical environment, are the main threats to the State. To survive, the State seeks to broaden its external influence and increase its internal power. Imitating a nucleus, every State attempts to organize its external and internal Societies according to its own DNAs, ideas and interests. However, it is the strongest external and internal societal environment, not the State, that selects DNAs. In the long term, States come and go. Mutations (defects) in a State's DNAs do not survive selections by the societal environment. What survives are traits which define future societal generations.

            Each State has its own existing structure and degree of development. I classify States as dominant, fully developed, partially developed, and undeveloped. To survive and multiply in both its external and internal environments, a State relies upon its theories, religions, philosophies, ideologies, ideals, resources and tools including weapons of war. A fully developed State has the strongest theories and tools, a partially developed State has the weakest theories and/or tools, and an undeveloped State has few or no theories or tools. A dominant State is fully developed with broad influence and power over its external and internal environments. The ancient civilizations of China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and modern England and America are examples of dominant States. The modern States of Europe, Israel and Japan are examples of fully developed Societies; Russia, China, India and Brazil are examples of partially developed states. The smaller States in America, Africa and Asia are examples of undeveloped States.

            Externally, conditions, needs and demands are placed on a State by all other States. The interests of a State are aligned with some but not other States. Divide and conquer and co-opting other Societies, including its own, are important rules of control. Wars occur when the interests of a State and other States are grossly misaligned and when each State has the power to make or defend aggression. When a State wins at war its structure survives and when it loses it changes its structure of Society in order to survive,. The 20th century States of Germany and Japan, England, America and Soviet Union are examples of aggressors who lost and changed the structure of their States and defenders who won and survived their structures. There are several types of wars, external armed conflicts between States, internal between States and their Societies, guerilla and terrorist warfare. World Wars I and II are examples of external armed conflicts between States, the Russian and Cuban revolutions of 1917 and 1956, respectively, are examples of internal armed conflicts between States and their Societies, the ejection of Soviet forces from Afghanistan by the Taliban guerillas is an example of a successful guerilla warfare, and the 2001 attack of New York skyscrapers by Muslim jihadis is an example of a successful terrorist warfare.

            Modern developed States have mixed structures of Society based on the ideas of capitalism, democracy, socialism and communism. These ideas are products of the western world and presume that power and wealth, as administered by the State, belong to the people. In fact, irrespective of the type of Society, a State's power and wealth belong to the managers of Society and few who control the resources, means of production, and government, the dominant banks and corporations. The popular doctrine that a State derives its authority from the people is a remnant from Rome, the greatest organizing State known. According to this doctrine, the ruler does what he pleases and his command has the force of law because, through their representatives, the people have somehow transferred their power and authority to the ruler. Capitalists, Democrats, Socialists and Communists and even Monarchs agree. In fact, under any of the mentioned types of States, people who give their votes to representatives implicitly, or formally, or in a short time period election, cannot withdraw that vote implicitly, or formally, or in an equally short time period. They are tethered to the State for years to come until Society builds up its power to make a change. The genius of democracy is that it periodically allows changing managers without changing the structure of its Society. Authoritarian States are more honest.

            A self regulating Society is one in which the Society has power to make a change on short notice. At present, States are instant action but their Societies are delayed action, if any. Society is a slothful species beset by inertia for a number of reasons. It usually is fragmented along religious, cultural, racial and political lines; it has been divided and co-opted by the State; it discovers that its interests have been compromised long after the fact; and even with a modicum existence people prefer the vote, faith and hope eternal over action. Society acts only when it becomes desparate. In western developed States, guarantees on bank deposits, social security, medical programs and welfare blunt action for change by Society. Disaffected individuals, usually a minority, must wait in their afterlife to have their rights guaranteed by a State's Bill of Rights and vindicated by a State's judicial system.

            States organize their external and internal Societies by creating bureaucracies, namely, departments of defense (war), treasury, commerce, transportation, exterior, interior, justice, labor, agriculture, etc. The managers of Society have the advantage of organization, the State's resources and police powers, while people in the State are fragmented and easily submit to the State's conditions and propaganda. Fragmentation occurs along ethnic, racial and cultural lines, and by dividing and co-opting individuals, with rights to vote, through propaganda, and with money. Psychology also is an important element of control, since most people prefer being left alone and pay small attention to acts by the State until those acts impact them directly. In America, great pacifiers are the voluntary military service, welfare, the minimum wage and social security which keep people from thinking about change.

            Internally, conditions, needs and demands are placed on a State by its Society. The interests of the State and Society are aligned with some but not all parts of Society. The State will interfere with the interests of Society when those interests misalign with interests of the State. Revolution occurs when the interests of the State and Society are grossly misaligned. and when Society has the power to make a change in the structure of the State. When a Society has such power and wins it changes its structure and when it loses it remains tethered to the existing structure. History shows that even when Society succeeds to make change it soon forgets the reasons for change. The 20th century States of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Iran are examples of States whose revolutions won and made a change in the structure of the State. The Soviet Union no longer exists and China has shifted from hard left to capitalist left. The 20th century States of Russia (1905) and Greece (1946-50) are examples of States whose revolutions lost and Societies remained tethered to the existing structures.

            There are several types of revolutions, namely, palace revolutions and street revolutions which change both the managers of and the structure of Society. Some palace revolutions are quick takeovers while others bring on civil war. The Spanish civil war of 1936-1939 was started by defecting Spanish generals. Following its independence, Indonesia is an example of a State in which a successful quick takeover palace revolution took place by General Suharto in 1968. A military coup in Chile ended a democratically elected socialist government in 1973. The Soviet Union which existed since 1922 was dissolved by communist bureaucrats in 1991. The 1917 Russian revolution is an example of a successful street revolution. Lenin tells us that it is only when the masses no longer wish to live under the old regime and when the sovereigns no longer can govern under the old rules, then only can the revolution be successful.⁴ Trotsky speaks in terms of a universal permanent revolution because revolution in a particular country must surely fail.⁵ A silent universal revolution, permanent opposition, is made by disaffected individuals as the State matures and they perceive a misalignment between interests of the State and its Society brought about by advances in theories and science.

            War and revolution are the principle concerns of States. Nevertheless, evolution is the rule for the betterment of Society and war and revolution have been the exceptions. In between wars and revolutions there has been an ever accelerating evolutionary advance in the tools for war and peace and development of resources which, in time, tend to misalign the interests between States and between a State and its Society. Theories, religions, philosophies, ideologies and ideals, which inherently misalign interests, have evolved at slower rates and, with some exceptions, have long time periods. Exceptions with long time periods, science and religion, have been in place for at least several thousand years. Exceptions with short time periods are the Nazi, Fascist and Communist philosophies and ideologies which have been substantially attenuated after the German, Italian, Japanese and Soviet regimes collapsed after WW II.. The German, Italian and Japanese theories were defeated by war. The Soviet theory was defeated by the collapse of the Soviet State under economic pressure by America and by the mismanagement by the managers of its Society.

THE INDIVIDUAL'S EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS

            The individual's external societal environment consists of the Society upon which the State exerts its influence and organizing power, directly through its police powers and courts or indirectly through its political departments, and his internal environment consists of his body upon which the Society and physical environment exert their powers, directly or indirectly. The State and physical environment are the main threats to the individual. To survive, the individual must contend with both his external and internal physical and societal environments. The individual and his family must stay healthy and this depends upon how far the development of his Society has been organized by the State and on his physical environment, to obtain food, shelter, employment, health and old age care. To multiply, the individual must broaden his external influence upon Society and control his and his family's health.

            Each individual lives in an existing "as is" structure of Society with some degree of development. I classify individuals as dominant, fully developed, partially developed, and undeveloped, i.e., correlative to the degree Society is developed. To survive and multiply in both his external and internal environments, an individual relies upon his theory, science, religion, philosophy, ideology, ideals, resources and tools, distinguished from those of the Society. A fully developed individual has the strongest theories, tools and/or resources, a partially developed individual has the weakest theories and/or tools and resources, and an undeveloped individual has few or no theories, tools and/or resources. A dominant individual is fully developed with influence over his external and internal environments. Kropotkin's professionals are examples of fully developed individuals usually found in dominant and fully developed Societies and some found in the manager's class in less developed Societies. Bahkunin's workers and Lenin's proletarians are examples of partially developed individuals usually found in partially developed Societies. Undeveloped individuals are usually found in undeveloped Societies. Managers of Society and captains of commerce and industry are examples of dominant individuals. Professionals are examples of individuals who become attracted to and benefit most by joining the managers of Society. They are needed by the State to manage its external and internal interests; they are essential, highly schooled and paid. Nevertheless, they are mere personnel. Those with a conscious view of injustice by the State disaffect. Workers and proletarians are supervised by professionals to execute the State's external and internal plans.

            Externally, conditions, needs and demands of Society, placed upon it directly or indirectly by the State, are not always those of the individual. The interests of an individual may be aligned with some but not all interests of the State imprinted on Society. Marxists speak in terms of class differences between proletarians and the aristocratic possessing class. Disaffections occur when the interests of an individual and interests of the State imprinted on Society are grossly misaligned, and revolution occurs when a portion of Society has the power to make changes. When Society has the power to make changes and wins it survives and multiplies its Society, and when it loses it remains tethered to the existing Society or adapts in order to survive and multiply. There are a number of ways individuals might be disaffected by actions of the State. In dominant and fully developed States, the cause might be heavy taxation, military induction, loss of rights, liberty, property, indebtedness, racial and religious discrimination. In partially developed States, additional cause might be unemployment, poverty, hunger and shelter. In undeveloped States, the individual exists at the mercy of State Authoritarians and Dictators.

            Internally, the individual must meet the conditions, needs and demands of his body, and the bodies of his family. The individual and his family need food, shelter, medicine and medical care, likely in developed States and less likely in less developed ones. The individual looks to Society and/or his physical environment to meet the demands of his body and the bodies of his family. To meet his needs, his interests may be aligned with some but not other parts of Society. Disaffection occurs when the interests of the individual and Society are grossly misaligned. When an individual has the power to make a change in Society or physical environment that meets his interests and wins it increases his chance to survive and multiply, and when he loses he remains tethered to the existing Society or physical environment When the individual lacks the power to make a change in Society or physical environment that meets his interests he remains tethered to the existing Society or physical environment. However, few individuals have the power to make societal change. The managers of Society, professionals, scientists, doctors and engineers are examples of individuals who make changes in Society. In all Societies, past and present, most individuals, professionals, workers and proletarians are tethered to the existing Society because they lack powers to make changes in Society or the physical environment. These individuals most likely are disaffected and many fail to survive, especially in periods of societal stress.

DISAFFECTED INDIVIDUAL AND EVOLVING SOCIETY

            All States have a nuclear form, a small nucleus surrounded by a large Society. The nucleus is the head of State, monarch, president or dictator and his managers, the armed forces and bureaucracy, whose job it is to organize the State's external and internal environments according to its interests, to survive and multiply. These goals are attained by using its theories, religions, philosophies, ideologies, ideals, resources and tools. It is the developed States that most likely succeed in achieving their goals. In all States, Society produces an output that sustains the armed forces and bureaucracy and all laws are written and organizing acts are made to benefit the State and its dominant supporters. Welfare to Society, which is wasteful of energy, is made to mitigate revolution. In developed States the army, bureaucracy, banks, corporations and press are sinews of the State and employ the vast number of professionals. In partially developed States, banks and corporations are weak appendages of the State and employ relatively few professionals. In undeveloped States, banks and corporations are mere offices of the State. In every State, therefore, the armed forces and bureaucracy are primary concerns for the State because they assure the State can survive and, when managers organize Society, banks, corporations, industry, agriculture and press, the State is likely to multiply.

            To the extent the State succeeds or fails to organize its external or internal environments, the Society and individual succeeds or fails to survive and multiply. It is evolving society that benefits individuals because man has time to solve problems. It also gives individuals especially intellectuals and the young many reasons for disaffection. While young people spark innovation old people consolidate gains. In developed States, intellectuals and young people first perceive the misalignment of interests between the individual and the State brought about by advances in science and other fields. While employment is high in these States, power and wealth accumulate to managers of Society and their supporters and these leave professionals and young people disaffected. Individuals feel they have become hired slaves with hard to get high paying jobs. The State responds by using tools to automate, religion and racial difference to divide, theories and ideologies to charm and cajole, and money to co-opt. Critical professionals, bourgeois reformers, organizations of farmers, industrial workers, political machines of the urban poor are co-opted so that, inevitably, protest appears at a more primitive or inchoate level.⁶ In partially developed States, employment is low, power and wealth is already in the hands of managers of Society and more people are desperate on the verge of desperation. In undeveloped States, employment practically does not exist and people have few if any means of sustaining themselves and their families.

            During a period of evolutionary change, in any State, a disaffected individual has a number of choices including to adapt, mitigate, migrate or oppose. An individual adapts when he becomes part of the armed forces, bureaucracy, banks, corporations and press as these can assure his survival and multiply. When there exists a large difference between the interests of the State and Society, individuals who adapt become, in effect, oppressors of the people. An individual who mitigates is a person who adapts without losing his disaffection of the State and without becoming an oppressor of the people. A person who migrates simply gives up, knowingly or unknowingly, his allegiance to one for another State in order to survive and multiply. Finally, very few individuals chose to oppose the State even as they adapt, mitigate or migrate. Opposers are revolutionaries, and their supporters, who form the vanguard for change in the existing State.

            Opposing the State can take a number of forms. In a democratic Society, the individual may use his money, vote or action to oppose the State. He may write letters to the editor, view films and books by opposition authors, vote for or contribute to any person or party on the ballot, or join up with others in street protests, internet blogs, forums and other action, that oppose the State. The Libertarian, Green, Socialist and Communist parties in the United States are examples of disaffected political groups who oppose the existing Capitalist State. Those heavily taxed or regulated, or whose property is taken without compensation, or those heavily indebted, or those devastated by courts, judges and lawyers also oppose the State. In non democratic Society, the individual lacks the freedoms in democratic States and, therefore, can oppose the State only by being a clandestine supporter, or joining underground political groups, or a revolutionary vanguard. In all States, during long periods of evolutionary change, individuals who form the vanguard for change in the existing State bear the heavy burden of isolation and suffer the greatest persecution, even when their disaffection is justified.

            Ancient Egypt was a highly stable Society and history only knows of two revolutions there: a successful street revolution ending the Old Kingdom and an unsuccessful palace revolt which sought but failed to change the New Kingdom. The street revolution was violent because the burdens placed on the backs of the mass of people had eventually become intolerable. While the pharaohs sought immortality by building gigantic public works, the people lost both their faith and patience, and revolted. Ironically, today people admire the pharaohs and pyramids but shed no tears for the workers that built them. We do not know who the revolutionary leaders were but we can surmise that a vanguard to change the existing State must have existed over some 800 years, the time it took to build the pyramids, between 2600 BC and 1800 BC. We can only imagine the state of mind and actions of individuals in the vanguard to bring down the existing State. We must also find it notable that the Old Kingdom was replaced by itself after the abortive palace revolution. The same can be said about the French revolution of 1789 and the Russian revolution of 1917. The tendency of revolution to topple into reaction is a given in history. [1 p 5-6] The American revolution of 1775-83 follows the same path. Power and wealth are in the hands of a few and the majority of citizens have been reduced to being hired slaves. Salaries are adjusted to maximize the individual's production but leaving him perennially in debt. Most individuals live from paycheck to paycheck. All laws benefit the State and its dominant banks and corporations. Patents are taken by deciding defenses before deciding claims; copyrights are taken by mass marketers with small or no payments to authors; land is taken by eminent domain for minuscule payments; courts tell juries what to decide and do not allow relevant evidence to be heard. The failure of capitalism is indicated by the costs of unpopular wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, by racial and religious tensions, by heavily subsidized savings and loans and commercial banks, mortgage originators with no interest in making quality loans to ordinary people, by investment banks that securitize and package these loans, by rating agencies that vouch for the quality of loans, by enticing borrowers to loans and indebtedness, by bank and corporate executives excessive compensations, by the unprecedented looting of the Treasury with bailout money for corporate bankrupts without the slightest complicity and accountability from corporate executives and the State's managers, and by the collusion between banks, big business and legislatures that assign all profits to the few and all risks and debts to the many, all of which have placed a heavy debt on Society and exhausted the patience of the American public. Sixty percent of American voters gave their votes in 2008 to a black man for the first time, in the hope that America's external and internal policies would change. However, hope is the coin of religion not politics.

DISAFFECTED INDIVIDUAL AND REVOLUTION

            The goal of revolution is to redistribute power and wealth, from the old managers to the new vanguard managers of Society which is reorganized according to the new interests. Some parts of Society may change the conditions for individuals and some may not. The Russian revolution of 1917 industrialized Russia but it suppressed religion and appropriated property, and its collectivization of farms created widespread famine in the 1930s. The Cuban revolution of 1953-59 created a world class medical-health program but it suppressed religion and appropriated property, and its collectivization of agriculture created perennial food shortages. Franco's palace revolution, the civil war of 1936-39, changed Spain's managers but moved its Society from hard left to hard right. It later created the Spanish economic boom of 1959-73 at the expense of severe suppression of civil rights.

            Revolutions have never succeeded in delivering man to the promised land. However, the fact that revolution is illusory does not follow that a religion or philosophy or ideology that makes the promise will not fail to win allegiance. [1 p 26] Changes that benefit Society come from new theories and new science during periods of societal evolution, and are accompanied by wealth creation which, in time, increase tensions and revolution. During a revolution, a new structure of Society emerges from the old. But, a new structure does not mean that conditions change for all individuals. Democratically elected officials, change the managers of Society but usually leave the existing structure and conditions intact. Palace and street revolutions change the managers of Society and replace the existing structure with a new structure but leave conditions unchanged or worse for parts of Society. What revolutions have in common is violence which destroys lives, and redistributes wealth and property to the new managers and owners. If the revolution succeeds, hardest hit are the old managers, power and wealth in the hands of a few, the existing armed forces, bureaucracy, banks, corporations and press, who lose their lives or means to survive and multiply. The new managers must launch repressive measures against loyalists and all opponents to prevent a reaction and counter-revolution. The winners are members of the vanguard who become the new managers of Society and bring about change by replacing the existing structure. The majority of people who suffered under the existing regime continue to suffer during the period of revolution and later many will suffer as the new regime evolves. If the revolution fails, the vanguard has sacrificed itself for its cause, along with its supporters and sympathizers.

            The number of disaffected individuals during a period of evolutionary change will increase geometrically as the time of revolution approaches, as people increasingly become conscious of the disparity between interests of the State and its Society, and lose their patience. Those who adapted with the existing State will break into its hard core supporters and others, along with mitigatants and emigrants, will defect to the swelling ranks of change. Many professionals will switch their allegiances along with workers and proletarians. The disaffected individual during the period of evolutionary change is now called upon to review his choices in the coming revolution. Those most disaffected are the intellectuals and young students, whose education makes them conscious of injustice practiced by the State. They are among the first, along with workers and proletarians, drawn to the barricades.

            While a revolution brings forth new managers it brings about a new structure of Society which historically leaves conditions unchanged for many people. The lesson from history is that evolution brings about change in better conditions for mankind, and revolution is the exception. The question, therefore, is whether revolution can be justified. Historically, the answer is yes when conditions become intolerable for the individual and Society has the power to make a change in the Structure. This most likely happens in the partially developed and undeveloped States. In developed States, Society has been co-opted and, therefore, is unlikely of making change through revolution; the disaffected individual is left to fend for himself; and reform implied by elections, palace revolts and appointments are preferred. Germany elected Hitler (1934), Italy anointed Mussolini after his march on Rome (1922), and Japan appointed General Tojo (1941), all promising change. 

            In developed States, the disaffected individual has three choices, namely, as a sympathizer, activist or vanguard. In undeveloped States the individual may have no choice. A sympathizer passively supports bringing down the existing structure; an activist acts legally and a vanguard acts illegally to bring it down. As tensions between the State and Society rise, many sympathizers become activists and some sympathizers and activists become vanguards. Sympathizers and activists are disaffected people who have lost their patience with the State. Their choices are based on the need to survive and multiply. Vanguards are Hoffer's true believers, intellectuals, politicals and bureaucrats, who seek power and fan the fires of violent change by the religious and political sirens of theology, ideology, and patriotism. Terrorists such as nihilists who espouse destruction of the State for its own sake and jihadis willing to blow themselves up to satisfy their religious beliefs are examples of extreme vanguards. While Nihilists offer no constructive program or possibility, jihadis offer holy war and heaven on behalf of Islam.

PERMANENT OPPOSITION AND PERMANENT REVOLUTION

            A specific question is whether individuals benefit from a change in the structure of Society brought about by revolution. The answer is: in the short term surviving vanguards most likely benefit obtaining power but most other individuals in Society will not likely benefit from the change. In the long term, prompted by science and commerce during interludes between war and peace, evolution brings about changes that benefit Society and thus likely to benefit individuals. Wars and revolutions do not create societal benefits but they accelerate changes in science and theory. Since Babylonian times, each generation of man and Society has suffered untold horrors of repressions, wars and revolutions but each succeeding generation has evolved benefits for humans and their Societies as well as tools and ideas for wars and revolutions.. So long as genes survive, good or bad in man's view, it matters not who gets hurt. While Society changes slowly through evolution, wars and revolutions simply determine the types of genes that are favored by the State and subject to change by the environment. History teaches that, the physical environment permitting, each individual lives in a Society "as is", with artificial genes favored by the State, until replaced by natural selection by the State's external and internal environments. 

            In all States, a disaffected individual may use his power to oppose the existing structure, knowing that his opposition may offer no better structure in his lifetime. While he may support all opposition groups, as sympathizer or activist, the greatest risk a disaffected individual has is joining the militant vanguard at any stage of evolutionary or revolutionary change. To translate his disaffection to a proper choice, the individual must remember that his interest is to survive the risks of repression, war and revolution by avoiding the religious and political sirens of theology, ideology, and patriotism, all designed for eternal societal life. The choice of being a vanguard is a choice between survival and collectivism, and can only be made if conditions are intolerable and no other choices exist. If the disaffected individual survives the revolution, but rejects the collectivism of the new State, he remains unchanged being a disaffected individual in permanent opposition, to the new State as he was to the old State.

            Anarchism is a political tradition that has consistently grappled with tension between the individual and Society. Beyond their rejection of compulsory government, anarchists disagree on all other positions. There are two main types of Anarchism, the individualist and collectivist varieties. The former is kin to Libertarian and the latter to Socialist ideals. Individualist anarchism endorses private property and opposes revolution. Collectivist anarchism opposes private property and endorses revolution. In collectivist anarchist theory, revolution is needed to loosen the grip of the existing structure, so that the functions of life can regulate themselves without top-down or external direction. [6 p 45] Historically, Anarchism has been the revolutionary politics of artisans and workers who do not need a boss or who trust each other, of idealistic aristocrats, of self reliant professionals and progressive educators. [6 p 51] Corporate Capitalism, State Capitalism and State Communism have all been unacceptable to Anarchists, because they trap people and push them around with heavy central planning. Socialism is a lesser evil for Anarchists. [6 p 53] Anarchists are comfortable with siren calls by Libertarianism's free enterprise, America's limited government and Communism's withering away of the State. In history, and by definition, there is no example of a successful State based on the ideals of Anarchism. Anarchists are nearest to local government and farthest from State government. Anarchism resonates with intellectuals and students because it gives expression to the human need for freedom to self organize and regulate their own lives.

            A disaffected individual finds common grounds with the anarchist. They differ only by the facts that while anarchists reject compulsory government on principle, disaffected individuals reject government because their interests misalign with interests of the State or because they have been wronged by the State in violation of its own rules. A Muslim in a Christian State, a Libertarian or Capitalist in a Communist State, a Socialist in a Capitalist State are examples of disaffected individuals who reject government because their interests misalign with interests by the State. The taking of real and personal property without compensation by a Capitalist or Democratic State or the creation of ownership rights of property in a Socialist or Communist State are examples of States in violation of their own rules. In any case, like anarchists, there are two types of disaffected individuals, the individualist and collectivist varieties. While the anarchist's ideal is to abolish or reduce the State, the disaffected individual's ideal is perfection of the State in which he happens to live according to his own interests. Historically, no perfect State has existed because individual's interests misalign with interests of the State or because individuals have been wronged by the State in violation of its own rules. Since no State can be perfect, a disaffected individualist is likely to support permanent opposition, and since no State can be without compulsion the disaffected collectivist is likely to support permanent revolution.

            Anarchists and disaffected individuals do not speak for the majority members of Society who follow the State's rules, orders and acts by default. Otherwise we would likely have fewer wars and revolutions, fewer tensions between man and Society, and fewer disaffected individuals. Men and their Societies die but only their genes survive in the long term. Natural selection cares not about man's and Societies' survival in the short term. While wars and revolutions bring about the death of men and Societies, States and the physical environment bring about the death of men. Welfare is wasteful of energy and is fortuitous to human and societal long term survival. Short term goals set by man and Society are defeated in the long term by their genes. The disaffected individual values his and his family's lives foremost. According with his theory, science, religion, ideology and ideals, he will support the State in acts that benefit him directly and oppose the State in acts that do not benefit him directly.

            The interests of individuals and Society structured by the State are different. While man's interest is to manipulate his natural and artificial DNAs to prolong human life now, State's interest is to manipulate its natural and artificial DNAs to prolong political life eternally. Therefore, man's and State's theory, science, religion, ideology and ideals are not necessarily identical, being more so in the developed States. While prolonging human life is a matter of science, prolonging societal life is a matter of a State's theory, science, religion, ideology and ideals. Indeed, the artificial genes of modern science have already extended man's old age in all types of States, but have shortened the State's political life. The ancient Egyptian, Roman and Byzantine States, and the English empire, have had the longest political lives. While today's States have had the shortest political lives, today's religions have had the longest religious lives. Had the axis powers won WWII, the artificial genes of Naziism, Fascism, and Banzai would have replaced the artificial genes of Democracy, Socialism and Communism. However, the strongest external or internal environment wins because natural selection does not care which people and Society gets hurt. Democracy won not because it was right but because it was strongest. Nevertheless, the artificial genes of science would have survived because science cannot be corrupted and its defects are quickly removed by the environment. Science exists in an authoritarian society as well as in a democratic one. The artificial genes of religion survive because they give hope for the infinite afterlife to many members of any type Society. Thus, the artificial genes of science and religion prolong human life and give hope, respectively, regardless of the type of society,

            Yet, while the interests of individuals and Society structured by the State are different, both are at odds with natural selection which replicates the longest only those human and societal traits favored by the physical and societal environments. Individuals and societies scramble for selfish gain by making theories of government, law, religion, morals and education which are then filtered and selected by the environment. If the physical environment has a limited food, energy or water supply, both individuals and societies will adapt. There are no human Societies in the Earth's arctic and desert regions or on Mars because they cannot adapt to extreme physical environments. However, animal and plant life, some organized in societies, exist in the oceans and land environments on Earth. Likewise, if the societal environment has a dearth of theories, ideologies and ideals, both individuals and societies will adapt. There are no developed States without strong theories. Simply put, human and societal traits are determined by the physical and societal environments, by evolution not wars and revolutions. The strongest external and internal environments screen out the theories, ideologies and ideals of people and their Societies without caring who gets hurt in the process. If the physical environment permits, Science alone survives the longest.

² James Constant, Uncertainty and Relativity of Knowledge and Survival, pages 69-70, 1996, Library of Congress Catalog No. 95-072410, ISBN 0-930293-01-0.

³ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, Mentor Books, 501 Madison Avenue, New York 22, New York 1951 2d print 1960.

⁴ Vladimir Lenin, State and Revolution, p 386, The Great Ideas Today, 1970, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.

⁵ Thomas Simpson, Trotsky's The History of the Russian Revolution, page 226; Leon Trotsky, From The History of the Russian Revolution, p 347, The Great Ideas Today, 1994, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.

⁶ Paul Goodman, Anarchism and Revolution, p. 60 The Great Ideas Today, 1994, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.

Copyright © 2009 by James Constant

Other References http://www.coolissues.com/government/otherrefs.htm