Friday, 22 May 2009
revolution for the sake of revolution?
It seems that some people stage revolutions against dictators, under the guise of reforming the country and providing freedom, just so they can have their turn in power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Examples?
ReplyDeleteI think there's a link in the title to the a piece on the Iranian revolution, nicole
ReplyDeleteThe article would be more of an argument for the argument that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
ReplyDeleteChristina, I'm sure that most revolutions have been lead by people who simply want to be in charge. Few people are willing to lead a revolution if, at the end of it, they are to simply fall back into anonymity. Leaders of revolutions want to be in charge of the country. Whether this be because they feel their ethnic or social group is being targeted, or simply because they feel they could do a better job.
A more interesting question is how many leaders of revolutions have done it for selfless reasons?
What counts as a selfless reason? If you truly believe that you are they right person to lead your country, the only person that can save it from those who have their hands on its thoat, would installing yourself in power be a selfish action? If you are willing to sacrifice your life and liberty for the "good" of the people, placing their interests above the "self", then wouldn't that be completely selfless?
ReplyDeleteOf course it'd be fairly difficult to distinguish between those dictators and revolutionaries who say, and probably believe, they are doing it purley for the good of the nation (i.e. every dictator and revolutionary) and those that actually are (i.e. probably very few)
I agree with John. If someone is a born leader, and feels they know how to lead a country in the right direction, how is this selfish? If someone enjoys their job, does this make them selfish also?
ReplyDeleteI agree of part of the statement above, but power corrupts. What happen in the USSR? Stalin was not a born leader. He was not somenone who can lead the masses but he had his vision of how communism should be. And like you say, this guy felt like he knew how to rule a country, but he missed completely the point of what is communism. Also I think that not only a revolution gonna lead to a country's development but a lot. This way people will change and new ideas will come. On the other hand, you cannot compared a job with a leader of a revolution or a dictatorship. In your job you don't decide who is going to die and who is going to live.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly democracy is good for this, as every one is supposed to have a chance. In a democracy if someone believes they are a good leader, they can try and work their way up. The only problem is that everyone else has to agree that they are a good leader, And as Plato once said something along the lines of that the people do not always know what is good for them. The ideas on a natural born leader ruling and ruling out of selflessness have been around and debated for a verrrry long time. Maybe there is such a thing as a selfless ruler. There does not seem to have been many. It seems most dictators turn pretty power hungry and lead corrupt governments. Hitler said he knew what was best for Germany and look what happened there.
ReplyDelete