The New Revolution: Revolution and Counter Revolution

It is not difficult to see that in the long history of man, revolution and counter revolution has been, and always will be, in the make up of civilization and society. In every revolution, whenever the revolution succeeds in taking down the establishment, the revolutionaries become the establishment. Strangely, while the revolutionary is battling the establishment and cries for change, once the revolutionary is control of the establishment and implements their own ideas and systems, change quickly becomes abhorrent to them and they institute processes and systems to insure that their way, their idea is not changed.

However, it is impossible for change not to occur as it is impossible for the wind not to blow, the seasons not to change and man not to evolve, whether that is physically, mentally or socially.

Historically, revolutions have come as either social, economic or artistic revolutions and often, one type of revolution spawns the the other. The American revolution would be considered a "social" revolution because it represented a change in society and it's understanding of self and how government interacts with that entity. It spawned artistic revolution in the songs, poetry, writing and paintings or "art" of that time.

Generally, the idealism surrounding the revolution has a sound justification, yet, this does not mean that the outcome of the revolution will have the desired effect. For instance, the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was generally seen and represented as a revolution to uplift the common man and throw off their oppressors, but, in the end, those that came to power through that revolution ended up being the oppressors. To be sure, the revolution itself did spawn an economic revolution and an artistic revolution. The paintings and statues that were done in the near after math of that revolution was sparked by the idealism.

The problem with this revolution was that the ideal did not represent the reality. Utopia is a dream because men are not formed neither genetically nor psychologically to accept living in the idealistic Utopia of social and economic equality because it totally disregards man's natural drive to improve his situation, both socially and economically. This is often referred to as "greed", which it may be in many cases, but it is also in the genetic drive of "evolution", or to always improve on themselves or their situation. In the commune of Utopia, that drive is not equal amongst all men. Those who see others who do not share their drive, feel incapable of going forward anchored by the weight of those less driven and will seek out a means or a method to rid themselves of that anchor or place themselves above it. In the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution, with enforced commune, the only way to rise above it was to become the oppressor or the one in power over the commune, thus negating the entire ideal behind it which was the collective will and government of all the people and not just a select few.

In which case, it is obvious that man's natural drive to achieve will manifest itself under whatever conditions it can and sometimes will have a less than wholesome outcome if that power base is the only outlet.

From every revolution, the counter revolution is born. It is inherent in the very nature of revolution. First because one idea can never be the only idea. Secondly, most ideologies of revolutions do not survive the implementation in the same manner in which reality can never live up to our dreams. If it is sufficiently deficient, discontent will set in and the idealism of the next revolution is spawned. Third, revolution tends to break down the barriers of society in one form or the other which either leads to the belief that, if like the past, this new idealism does not succeed or will not change to meet the needs of society, it can be overcome by the same method: revolution.

The fear of a counter revolution is what always drives the original revolutionaries, once in power, to forsake some of their very ideals in order to retain power. They justify forsaking these ideals as necessary to insure that the "greater" ideal of the revolution is maintained. Interestingly, while cementing their power and giving up some of this idealism, many revolutionaries attempt to perpetrate the myth that they are still the revolutionaries and that there is some other power or establishment left to fight. A modern day examples of this phenomenon would be Iran who maintains a "Revolutionary Guard" as if the fight continued on and there was still a revolt. Of course, this is a farce because the revolutionaries are now the establishment and there is nothing revolutionary about their ideas. The idealism was lost in the first taste of power.

Iraq maintained a "revolutionary council" up to the regime being deposed in 2003. Of course, we know there was nothing revolutionary remaining. He had become the establishment and it became the oppressor. The USSR maintained a similar Revolutionary Council. Again, it had long lost its revolutionary idealism and had turned its systems into maintaining power and lived up to few, if any, of its original intent to enforce communal equality on the people: From each by his ability, to each by their need. Party officials lived like Hollywood stars in Moscow driving Mercedes while the people starved. So much for idealism.

It is with these things in mind that we must take a look internally, into the social revolutions of the United States and become aware of our own defunct revolutionaries. The social revolution of the sixties began in the best sense of the liberal idealism: freedom and equality for minorities and women. At some point, the revolution became the establishment wherein they abandoned any sense of caution or the true tenets of "liberalism" and instead, began to enforce from the legislative and judicial branches their new version of "liberalism". In their effort to protect the citizens, instead of giving the citizens freedom, they enacted more and more laws, more tax initiatives, more government plans, giving the state more power and, in effect, completely abandoning the original ideals of liberalism inspired by the words of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Robert Kennedy, not to mention the original liberals of the American Revolution.

Like the old revolutionaries of Russia, Iran and Iraq who retained their "revolutionary councils", the counter culture revolutionaries of the 60's, having long abandoned the idealism, still maintained the word "liberal" to describe their philosophies. In reality, once the revolutionary takes power, they are no longer revolutionary, but the establishment and, once "liberalism" is eschewed for power, whatever the reason, they are no longer a "liberal".

We have come full circle. The old revolution has run it's course. What started out as a grand idea has turned into a state run on power and an intent to remain in power through whatever means and for whatever causes regardless of the consequences. The old revolutionary guard, having run out of ideas or abandoned them, refuse to give ground to the new and thus have made themselves the "establishment" and spawned the counter revolution.

What is the "new revolution"? Some call it "neo-conservatives". It is neither new nor conservative. It is actually, "classic liberalism". The problem is, the old revolutionaries refuse to let go of the word "liberal" as much as other revolutionaries have always tried to maintain the fiction of ongoing "revolution".

It is time for the counter revolutionaries, the new revolutionaries, to take back the word "liberal", redefine it and use it in its original intent. It's time to give the old revolutionaries the title they actually deserve, "libertines".

Sometime in the future, this counter revolution will spawn its own counter revolution. We, the new revolutionaries, will become the "establishment" as all the revolutionaries who came before us. We can only hope some day that someone will look back with wonder and pride and remember where they were when this revolution began.