The Revolution of Love

My theory on Revolution is very basic. For me, I see 3 different types of Revolutions:

1- Violent Overthrow.

2- New Constitution.

3- New Leadership.

My Revolutionary Theory is centered around State Power, which seems virtually impossible to get away from. Kentucky was formed a State in 1792, when it was adopted into the United States, and I don't see it going anywhere for quite some time. But Mikhail Bukinin and Noam Chomsky have affected me enough that I can see a world without it, but it would take a much longer paper to write. For now, for this project, I'll assume State Power is absolute and inevitable.

Violent Revolutions have been these unique phenomenons where a war is allowed and any and all bloodshed is allowed to happen, as long as it's guised as being a part of the Revolution. The Revolution is fought by, of, and for the People, and it's aim is to overthrow, and to destroy the previous system.

Most every nation on the planet has had a violent Revolution, and many nations have had several of them.

Here's a short uncomprehensive list: The American Revolution (1774-1783). The 3 French Revolutions (1789-1799; 1830; 1848); The Haitian Revolution (the only instance when slaves rebelled, and got a State for themselves; 1791-1804); Egypt's 5 Revolutions (1879-82; 1919; 1952; 1971; 2011); China's 4 Revolutions (1898-1900; 1911-1912; 1927-1950); The Russian Revolutions (1905; 1917); The Mexican Revolution (1910-1920); The German Revolution of 1918-1919; The Bolivian Revolution (1952); The Cuban Revolution (1953-1959), The Iranian Revolution (1979); The Nicaraguan Revolution (1979); The 1986 Philippine Revolution (“The Yellow Revolution”); The 1989 Autumn of Nations (“The Fall of Communism”) had Revolutions happen in Poland first, then in Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. The Color Revolutions happened also in countries that have defected from the Soviet Union in the early 2000s. Yugoslavia had their Bulldozer Revolution (2000); Georgia's “Rose Revolution” (2003); Ukraine's “Orange Revolution” (2004); Lebanon's “Cedar Revolution” (2005); and Kuwait's “Blue Revolution” (2005). Kyrgyzstan had a 2005 Tulip Revolution. Moldova had a Twitter Revolution in 2009. And recently, we've seen many Revolutions during the Arab Spring (2010-2013). As explained by Wikipedia, the Arab Spring “began on 18 December 2010 and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and surroundings. While the wave of initial revolutions and protests had expired by mid-2012, some refer to the ongoing large-scale conflicts in Middle East and North Africa as a continuation of the Arab Spring, while others refer to aftermath of revolutions and civil wars post mid-2012 as the Arab Winter. By December 2013, rulers had been forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt (twice), Libya, and Yemen; civil uprisings had erupted in Bahrain and Syria; major protests had broken out in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Israel and Sudan; and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Western Sahara, and Palestine. Weapons and Tuareg fighters returning from the Libyan Civil War stoked a simmering conflict in Mali which has been described as “fallout” from the Arab Spring in North Africa.”

Ukraine had another recent 2014 Revolution.

Georgia had their Revolution of the Roses (2003), where prolonged peaceful protests led to the abdication of their President, which fits the 3^rd definition of my definition of Revolution.

Malcolm X's definition of Revolution is pretty spot-on. “Revolutions destroy systems. Revolutions overturn systems.” It throws out the old order, and replaces it with something completely different, for the people. That's a Revolution.

That's what Haiti did in 1804. It's what George W. Bush did in Iraq in 2003 (called the “Purple Revolution” with the 2005 Elections), and that's what Lenin did in Russia in 1917. The State government was wiped out, and replaced with a completely different one. All done in the name of the People, which history will determine if that's an appropriate label, since even Hitler was talking about the liberation of nations in the named of freedom and democracy by invading and occupying them.

But violent Revolutions aren't necessary in America because we have the institution of elections. At least, currently we still do. But with the decline of the American Empire, we're seeing any and all ideas being questioned.

JFK said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Since America has elections, and allows for major Constitutional changes (and so does Kentucky), we have not seen a Violent Revolution happen, since Peaceful Revolution is possible here. Peaceful Revolutions can happen, like Georgia's 2003 Revolution of the Roses, where their President realized he had lost his country, when he saw the hordes of masses protesting his criminal regime, and fled the State House. Egypt's 2011 Revolution was a peaceful Revolution, that used massive peaceful (though many were killed by the authorities; peaceful by the protesters) street demonstrations to compel their leader to abdicate. However, since 2011, military reactionaries have taken over the State, and killed the Revolution that had once succeeded. At least, for now. But even with massive foment of the people, without a new Vanguard of Leadership, or a Constitution to codify the Revolution into a new regime, that peaceful people's Revolution can be lost. Virtually all violent Revolutions, especially ones that have remained institutionalized and steadfast, had a change in vanguard of new leadership, and a new Constitution, which means they represented all 3 types of Revolution I identified in the beginning of this theoretical framework for Revolution. But for the American people to achieve a new Constitution and a new leadership, a violent Revolution is not needed, nor desired. This is great for Americans, because oppressive reactionaries know exactly how to suppress violent Revolutions: with harsh and swift bloody State violence. States are problematic because they claim a monopoly on violence, which is one reason they are so persistent. A violent Revolution in America would be an absolute bloodbath, which helps nobody.

New Constitutions and New Electoral Revolutions can achieve the same sweeping results that violent Revolutions can claim. The elimination of the consideration of a violent Revolution is liberating. Instead of wondering if one can achieve good through evil means, or having any other type of bogged down and contradictory, stupid and idiotic ivory tower debate, now we can focus on the Revolution of Love, with Love, by Love, and for Love with sniper scope precision and with the crystal clarity of HD.

The Revolution of Love I prefer, for one, I abhor violence, bloodshed, and war. Einstein said that man must end war, or war will end mankind. Another reason I do not support violence to achieve Revolution, is because with violent Revolutions, or with coup detats, the same use of military force that was used to takeover a country's government, can be used justly against that very same regime. Without democratic legitimacy, violent Revolutions are flimsy things, with their foundations standing on blood-soaked sand. What would have stopped Trotsky from overthrowing Lenin through murder, or Che with Castro? In fact, that may be how Stalin came to power. Daniel Shay (Simon Girty and Tecumseh too) was doing the same thing George Washington was doing, just like John Brown did the same thing Abraham Lincoln did; just on a much smaller scale. They also lacked democratic electoral and Constitutional legitimacy.

I'l repeat this point, because it's an important point. Violent Revolutions are dependent on, and must be in tandem with, Electoral Revolutions and New Constitutions, but Constitutional Revolutions and Electoral Revolutions are not dependent on, nor have to be in tandem with, Violent Revolutions. Indeed, the peaceful Revolution that is set upon the foundation of democratic legitimacy and a new Constitution will last forever. Bolivia's 2008 Electoral Revolution, and subsequent 2009 Constitutional Revolution, embodies this precise notion. 

Electoral and Constitutional Revolutions, one which constitutes sweeping changes of, by, and for the People, are just as effective, if not moreso, than violent Revolutions with new leadership and Constitutions, because they were freely chosen by the people, instead of being forced upon them. Bolivia's Socialist Revolution of 2008 was an Electoral Revolution. By electing their leader, as opposed to Lenin not waiting for the Constituent Assembly to choose Russia's new leader after the 1917 February Revolution. Lenin took power through brute force in the 1917 October Revolution. Since 2008, Bolivia has been able to enact many Socialist Reforms, which is firmly sweeping changes of, by, and for the People, and since no imperializing nations have tried to assassinate Evo Morales, as has happened to democratically elected Socialist Revolutions in South American in the past (see Salvador Allende).

Aristotle defines Revolution as: 1) Complete change from one Constitution to another, and; 2) Modification of an existing Constitution. [Aristotle, The Politics V. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html]

With Aristotle's definition, Kentucky has had 4 Constitutional Revolutions so far: 1792, 1799, 1850, and 1891. Also, as a fun side note, Kentucky's Section 4 of her current 1891 Constitution pens Kentuckians as having a sacred right to Revolution.

Constitutional Changes doesn't necessarily equate to sweeping changes that “destroy systems” and “overthrows systems” of, by, and for the people, but it can. It would have to be a major modification in a Constitution in order to completely change the system. When the Bill of Rights were finally ratified by the United States in 1791, that would constitute a Revolution, since that modification of the Constitution constituted major sweeping changes, and it established certain basic human rights for Americans (and a basis for human rights for the world, as we see a continuation and an expansion of those human rights in the Declaration of Rights and Man, as well as the UN Charter on Human Rights). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also constitute a major change in the US Constitution, and since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was of, by, and for the people (since it ended segregation), it would be considered a Constitutional Revolution.

In Kentucky, a 1975 amendment to our Constitution completely changed how our Judicial System ruled itself, and that's why Kentucky's Judicial System has gone berserk, and is now running without checks and balances. It's a major change, but since it's against the people (only lawyers are allowed to become Judges, and there's virtually no accountability), it's not a Revolution; it's Totalitarian Fascism. A change in Constitution, or in Leadership, can represent a counter Revolution, where the new regime becomes more draconian and repressive. So by itself, changing a Constitution, or having a change of the state vanguard of leadership, doesn't directly correlate to a Revolution.

A democratic electoral Revolution, or a Constitutional Revolution, can achieve the same ends as a violent Revolution have historically accomplished, by destroying and overthrow the current order, but those elected would have to represent a radical department from the current state of events, and it would have to be beneficial to the people. Many folks talk about Left vs. Right, but really, the questions confronting us today is more of a distinction between Up vs. Down.

Determining whether something is a Revolution or not is a matter of scale, of which future generations may or may not agree upon. Lincoln's War was a major Revolution in the United States. America was forever altered, most would say for the good, since that war kept the Union together, and slavery was abolished forever (except for child labor, which FDR changed in 1938, liberating all the children in America from involuntarily servitude, except for the children on Southern farms).

With my definition, it's possible that Kentucky has had a Revolution under every new Governor Kentucky has elected every 4 years after 1804 (James Garrard). Before Paul Patton and Steve Beshear, our Governors were mandated to only serve one non-consecutive term. By only having power for 4 years, that Constitutional requirement forced Kentucky's government to change every 4 years, regardless of how much Kentucky folks loved their commander-in-chief of Kentucky's armed state forces, or the public face (the Head of State) of Kentucky. While Republicans may have similar views on different topics, Baby Bush was different from Pappy Bush and Ronnie Reagan. All of them radically departed from Nixon. None of them cared about the people, so my point is moot, but my point is to draw a line of distinction between the differences between their regimes. Whenever there's a change of leadership, clearly, a change of policy happens, since no two people think alike. An Electoral Revolution can happen independently of a Constitutional Revolution. A major realignment in American politics happened with the election of Barack Obama in 2008. That was an Electoral Revolution without a Constitutional Revolution. A new Constitution, however, can be used to solidify and consolidate America's 2008 Electoral Revolution.

The scale of change in Electoral and Constitutional Revolutions, as well as violent Revolutions, and whether or not the Revolution is rooted for the benefit of the people, is for us, we the people, to decide. Some folks might disagree with my designation of Iraq's 2005 Elections being a Revolution (me included), since over 1 Million Iraqis were genocided, and now, we've got a major ISIS threat confronting the world. The 2005 elections may not have been for the Iraqi people. But my point with that is to point out how Baby Bush's War wiped out the Iraqi government, and replaced it with a new one. Clearly that represents a departure of the past regime, and so Iraq's 2005 Purple Revolution contains at least 3 of the 4 elements of my definition for Revolution (sweeping changes, new leadership with democratic legitimacy, and a new Constitution). However, so far that 2005 Revolution hasn't seemed to have benefited the people of Iraq, or the American people, or for anybody anywhere. Though if the State of Iraq is maintained, and it's shown to have benefited the people of Iraq, then future Iraqi generations may see that pivotal departure of past oppressive regimes as a “Revolution”.

We also have Industrial and Scientific Revolutions to consider too. Industrial Revolutions can be argued to have raised the standard of living for the people, and Scientific Revolutions are clearly sweeping changes that benefits the people, but we're deflecting away from Revolutions that have a relationship with State Power. However, Scientific Revolutions represent sweeping changes of, by, and for the people, so they can't be disregarded.