Every once in a while I get a funny piece of spam mail that I decide to comment on. Such was the case tonight; after finishing a Bible Study I found the following e-mail from “Anonymous@anonymous.net”:

“Dear Anonymous,

The purpose of this message is to inform you about the Revolution:

OCCUPY HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT IN LONDON ON NOVEMBER 5, 2012.
OCCUPY CONGRESS IN WASHINGTON D.C. ON NOVEMBER 11, 2012.

STOP WAR.
CANCEL ALL DEBT.
REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.

Please, watch the “Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect” movie to find out why, how, and to have sound arguments to persuade others. The movie can be easily found with a search engine.

Please, print the flyers at 2012jubilee.info and distribute them.

Please, spread this message and the movie to everyone you know.

-Anonymous”

I don’t recommend going to the .info site listed in the e-mail. I make no claims about it’s reliability and I can’t honestly consider anonymous to be a very credible source. That said, I would like to take this spam message as an opportunity to discuss my own strong dislike of revolution and why I find revolution in general to be so troubling, and why I am at best a very reluctant revolutionary, despite the fact that I find much in present society to be dissatisfied about.

Among the many reasons that I am leery about revolution is because I do not trust the vast majority of revolutionaries to create a better world than the corrupt one we know right now. Revolutions in general have a very bad track record when it comes to genuine and lasting positive change. Aside from the Glorious and American Revolutions, both of which were led by fairly conservative if somewhat egalitarian gentry, as well as the democratic revolutions of Eastern and Central Europe to end Communism, it’s rather difficult to find revolutions that had a beneficial result. The Chinese Revolution, Russian Revolution, as well as the French Revolution had mostly negative and baleful consequences, leading to the deaths and exile of many people–the Russian and Chinese Revolutions being particularly bloodthirsty (even more so than la guillotine).

Revolutions tend to devour their own makers. If a revolution is unsuccessful, a lot of people end up dead. But most successful revolutions have been even worse, as successful revolutionaries divide among themselves and use their generally authoritarian and dictatorial power to fight among themselves over minor differences or political spoils. Given the constant state of crisis and the disruption of civic order, authorities simply take more and more power and kill more and more enemies of the state until there is either almost no one left to kill (aside from man-made famines or plagues of diseases, of course), or until the mass-murderers in charge are themselves killed and there is a reaction towards more conservative ways that merely involve standard repression and not homicidal rage.

It is very tempting to desire revolution, especially when one sees a lot that is wrong about society. However, there are few grounds for optimism for revolution as a way to unite a divided populace. Such an attempt at revolution (see, for example, the English or American Civil Wars) usually ends up leading to a civil war. Even the American Revolution, a rare example of a successful revolution, shows just how guarded a good revolution has to be–it took more than a year after a shooting war started between America and her former colonial masters for a declaration of war to be passed with something approaching consensus from the American political class. It took a lot of time even when people were already dying and revolution was a fact on the ground. People are often only willing to take revolutionary steps in their mind and consciously long after their actions have already moved them in that direction. If we wish for revolutions to be successful and relatively free of lasting bitterness among those of us who are more moderate and reluctant revolutionaries, one has to be willing to take the time so that people do not feel rushed or coerced into actions they are not willing to take.

One of the most damaging results that attempted revolutions have is to turn existing states of crisis into conflicts that can only be solved by an immense bloodbath. When there are two deeply divided sides unable to progress either of their visions because of the relatively equal division between them, there are no quick ways of resolving such problems, because the situation for consensus is not present. The side that forces a rebellion or revolution in order to attempt to resolve the problem in their favor often greatly alienates those who are more moderate or conservative in nature, with the result that warfare becomes the only possible solution. Bullets prevail when ballots are no longer trusted.

If one wants beneficial solutions to the problems that plague us, including division and an increasingly bitter “culture war” that has not thankfully become a shooting war, yet, the solution must be gradual. We must win over hearts and minds if we want to win without bloodshed. We must commit ourselves to a patient and gradual approach where we convert people from the inside out, changing their thought processes, affecting their actions, and then leading them to recognize the consequences of their worldviews. Taking over buildings and occupying public spaces will only offend those who are moderate or conservative, even if they have a strong sense of social justice. The best revolution is not televised and filled with bogus and self-serving propaganda, but it’s the gradual change of hearts and minds from unjust ways to just ways, with all the consequences that result from genuine and consensual conversion. If only we had the patience to win hearts before we sought to win battles.