this link, which i found via my blogdex RSS feed, is essentially an anarchist doctrine written in the middle of the 19th century which asks us to choose between 1) believing in the existence of god and therefore living as slaves, or 2) believing in the nonexistence of god and therefore living according to ideals of freedom, liberty, and social justice. i haven't entirely finished reading this thought-provoking and still-relevant piece, but here are some thoughts that it provoked for me:
Start with "thou shall not kill." If all the people controlled by a government strictly follow that law, then the government can maintain any status quo. If revolution is impossible, then the government can only change within the degrees of freedom allowed by that system of government. Therefore, the masses can only legitimately not resort to violence if the government legitimately makes possible the most propogation of ideas upwards from the masses. In other words, revolution is least necessary (and the practicality of following the law "thou shall not kill" is maximal) when the possibility that new ideas that emerge from the people can change the government is most feasible. When it is most possible for a new idea that trumps the old dogma to be held by a person who can become a part of the government himself, or influence the philosophy of an exising member of the authority structure, then it is least necessary for the people to resort to violent revolution in order to change the government.
Then why do the impoverished or oppressed (defined by their perception) in the Islamic world revolt according to this philosophy? Because the ability of the single person with a single new idea to propogate that idea laterally to the masses and upward through the structure of government is not maximal. The government in this case must be defined not only by the local system of government, but more generally and totally by every political, social, and religious entity that bears an influence on the quality of life of the individual in that region. In other words, the United States government must be considered a contributor to the "government" of the Islamic world simply by virtue of the fact that it is perceived to exert an influence on the quality of life of the individual in that region. Therefore, social revolution will only become unnecessary in that region when the ability of the individual Islamist to affect the government, which includes the government of the United States, is maximized. This entirely explains the attractiveness of resorting to terrorism, which is a means of social revolution that has been shown to affect the actions of the United States government. Therefore, the government of the United States must change, in concert with the local governments of the Islamic world, in such a way that it can be influenced directly through some pathway that does not require violent revolution. Once every government allows itself to become vulnerable to the possibility that any citizen that it exerts an influence on will propogate an idea that will in turn change the inner workings of those governments, then social revolution will become entirely obsolete. Until that time, social revolution will only occur in areas where that balance has not been met, and will in fact serve as an indicator of where in the world that balance has not been met. This is, of course, useful, then, to those who wish to attain this global balance of power, for it serves to point our efforts in the appropriate directions. Where there is social revolution, these questions must be asked:
1) Which world governments, local, foreign, and global, are perceived by the inhabitants of that region to exert the most influence on the quality of life there?
2) What can be done to build more effective pathways for ideas that emerge from the inhabitants of that area to impact those sources of perceived influence?
