I've Never Seen a Bloodless Revolution... But Maybe it's Necessary

Simplified.

Protestanta revolted against the Catholics control of information.

Democracy revolted from the Kings control of political power.

United States revolted from Britain's control of the monetary system.

Simplified. It's Freedom from Oppression. It's a fight about control.

And in my simplified world there seems to be two ways to fight against it. Either work from within for gradual change, or leave it altogether and change it from without... God help you when the two forces finally collide.

The greatest example of this is the differences between the French and English revolution. The bloody revolution in France (from without) set against the gradual revolution of Great Britain (from within). From this one particular example, it seems clear that change from within is better, but I think the most important question to ask is... would the revolution in England would have been possible without the mess that arose in France?

And the answer effects us all.

For it appears that every generation has their own form of revolution. Every young person faces the entrenchment of the older and must determine how they will face it. Gradually... through the slow, torturous.. process of time... change minds... or immediately, band together with like-minded individuals and 'revolt'.

The answer is not so simple. It probably depends on how willing the elders are to change, or maybe the younger are to learn. It depends on patience. And how much time can really be given to the process.

So... in turnt... the first question is

1) Speed... working from without makes the change quicker... but more volatile...

Governments, groups, councils, boards are set in place to make sure change is slow, deliberate, and safe... but conditions happen where change needs to be faster. If a person is on their deathbed should you spend time talking about how they should eat better or get more exercise to help their cholesterol? No, you quicken the pace and get a heart transplant?

That is why in any time of peril the Romans would elect leaders and give them ultimate power over the land in order to quickly address the problem... in hopes that once the peril was overcome these men would return, give their power back to the people, and once again put on the clothes of an ordinary citizen.

BUT

... working from without can cause the same sort of absolute control of leadership that they hated in the first place. For example, although it sped up the process of getting things done, Rome was finally overcome when a few generals refused to give their power back to the bureaucracy... and, millenia later, only by a stroke of luck was Washington able to convince the American generals to give their power to the American people after the revolution...

2) ... working from without makes the change cleaner... you don't have to parse through loads and loads of accumulated junk and precedent... you begin with a clean slate and make what you want... there are no half-measures. If something doesn't work you scrap it. If entrenchment is too deep you cut it.

... this is probably the kind of measure that President Obama wishes he could do with health insurance. Completely overhaul the whole thing and begin again... And might be the only solution to save it.

BUT

... working from without will also mean you lose your history. You throw out Frankenstein only to realize how valuable some of the parts really were. Systems in place set up in the course of history to address real problems that arise when working with people in a community. A completely new health care bill will most likely miss a lot of the necessary care now set in place in the present, confused system.

... in some cases...

... you lose resources. You lose people, support, money, and a host of things that are available to people who choose to work from the inside out.

... you set a terrible precedent. You make it acceptable to do the same thing you just did in the future. It's hard to hammer out the value of sticking to something through hard times when your own life is a testament of rebellion. Sulla took over Rome only to give up power once his changes were enacted, but setting precedent for Caesar years later...

... you create enemies. People actively opposed to the way you do things... or maybe just hesitant to lend you support because they disapprove of your methods. And sometimes all it would have taken was listening just a bit to have them as allies...

... So I guess I'll repeat what I said at first... if possible, change from within is better... but sometimes it's just not possible...