From Cibernética Americana


Cloned copy here with talk threads involving me to work the § referred to above.Root 17:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC). Make an account to comment here.

the next step towards american revolution

hello. welcome. i invite all who have anything to say to say it. i have one question for someone to answer: is a peacefull revolution possible? if so how can we start such a movement?

Revolutions are inherently destructive. Revolutions which occur without violence to people are given laudatory attribution such as Glorious, Rose, Velvet, etc. To be maximally effective they must maximize the destruction of the old in order to make way for the radically different new thing. A fake revolution can be worse than none at all if it deceives that a solution to a serious problem has been applied when it hasn't. To be maximally glorious, a revolution must be careful to minimize harm and maximize benefit to all concerned and to assure that there is no reversal of the hard won gains of revolutionary struggle. Revolutions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have tended to be primarily non-violent and the result of a precipitated level of a new consciousness so even if there are future revolutions that dwarf even the great class revolutions of the past they can be expected to be mostly peaceful and mainly centered around a change in thinking rather than who can bonk who the hardest. Lycurgus 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Every revolution involves a fight, but not necessarily a violent one. Just two of quite a number of examples: In the Philippines the People Power Revolution overthrew dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986; also the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, 1989. As to the question of how to start such a revolution in the USA, you might begin with Robert Struble, Jr., Treatise on Twelve Lights, chapter one, “Radical Turnabout. See the summary in this article under the heading, "Proposed revolutions for the 21st century."
Moved unsigned thread element above into proper chronological order, dunno when or who started the thread. (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Events since my original response to this thread seem to confirm it. The violence in the Arab Spring betrays the relative backwardness of the societies in question and is still relatively non-violent in comparison with violent revolutions of the past. Revolution in American culture is a proper topic of development of a section of the article, doubt there's anything else in wiki except for the content associated with the founders war and the slaver rebellion. (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)



from types since it's an empty concept. Intensification of hold on power, recognition (in the case of scientific paradigms), etc. is not even counterrevolution, it's the essential opposite of revolution. What this would actually refer to is Change in specific spheres of activity supported by the ruling X (class, paradigm) which is self-directed change from the inside/outside or whatever the appropriate spatial analogy is. Revolution(sic) from 'above' X could at most be a self-evolution of X. Social revolution from above is an especially vacuous notion likely to be based on confusion of the aforementioned analogy as for example in the case of a monarchial revolution against say an oligarchy of nobles or elites. In this case the actual ruling class is said oligarchy whose perspectives determine 'up' and 'above' not said monarchy. Even the so-called Cultural Revolution whether it was a true revolution or a misguided reaction was still led against traditional Chinese culture which defined the above of Confucian virtue (heaven). Lycurgus 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

English Civil War

The English civil war was a revolution in every sense of the word it should get mentioned in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A civil war is generally only considered a revolution if it succeeds. Although the English Civil War did succeed in permanently establishing the primacy of Parliament, if failed to establish a Republic and the monarchy was restored. So yes, except for that it was one of the most important "revolutions" small r. However a revolution that doesn't result in a turn over of the social order or where that turn over is reversed is generally considered to be a mere revolt or rebellion. (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
What matters is what significant views have to say - political scientists and historians whose area of expertise is the English Civil War. Find any who argue it is a revolution and we can add it. I think in fact most historians believe that it was not until the Glorious Revolution that the power of Parliament was established as supreme - hence, calling it a revolution. In any event we need to look at the major historians and report what they say. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what matters as far as acceptability of content wrt wiki policy, in particular OR, it isn't the sole nor the primary determinant of the development of quality content, however and the statement, therefore, seems to represent an especially narrow and prematurely contentious viewpoint. (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

imbecile etymology

the § needs attention, as it stands now it's a "best of wikipedia" comparable to a "best of craigslist". Unfortunately freedom of access exposes the failure of education. (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had an edit on that section, so I corrected this. The redaction is complete except that I may have understated the case. Social revolutions certainly occurred in the history of Rome, for example in the founding of the Republic, the emergence of the Principate, etc. It's possible the use of the latin root in this context could be attested. The thing about Copernicus appears to have been surmised/confabulated, could easily have been avoided by a little research, and should have been sensed to be wrong. (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Excessive red links

compared to the current wikipedia norm for an article like this. I will address this if there are no objections. (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the body section, the one in question, is problematic. At this point the article is relatively "clean" up to that point. This is not the right venue for anything much to be done with the body of the article other than perhaps an outline of references to other articles, developing my ideas in my draft space. The thread above on the English Civil War and the timidity with which the etymology thing was dealt with pretty much makes clear why. (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)