JUST PHILOSOPHISING ON - HOW VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS NOW INCAPABLE OF BEING A MEANS OF BETTERMENT! PART 4.

  

It is reasonable to argue that certain violent revolutions have, indeed, performed a constructive role in progressing human and societal development through the ages. 

However, they have not done so in a direct linear manner. It has not been a case of violent revolutions destroyed a given oppressive and exploitative social order, and then giving rise, almost magically, to a significantly less oppressive and more just and equitable one. 

This, of course, is not surprising, since it takes less skills, intellectual prowess and capabilities to destroy social systems and infrastructures, than it takes to build and maintain more commendable and functional ones.

With the means of terror and the will to use them against people, a person or group, enormous harm can be done to the personal and national welfare of a people or nation. However, building a nation or country requires enormous resources and time.

Yes, it is the case that, with the popular mobilization of a people or nation, great strides can be wrought in building or improving the social, cultural, material and industrial infrastructure of any nation. 

Just as how such a mobilization can be applied to destroy those infrastructures.  

As we have seen in wars of all kinds. And yet, is it not the case that we should continue to pose the question: 

Is it really desirable and/or necessary that 'the house in which we live, must be destroyed before a better one can be built'? 

After all, were we to draw the analogy of a ship sailing on the ocean, as it were, and detecting that it needs to be improved. Would we opt for the option of destroying in and building a new one, at the cost of my of us dying in the process? 

Certainly not; what we would do would be to look around the ship to see what we could do to upgrade it and maintain its seaworthiness.

Why, then, should we not move away from the centuries old misconception of radical young and not so young people imagining that 'radical and effective change can only be realised through violent revolution'?  

When this is patently not so where the advancement of a nation is concerned, and has been consistently been proven by the resultant evidence? 

To be continued!