Talk:Revolutionary
|
|
Was Jesus a revolutionary? I don't think he should be included, and here's why.
First off, there are different kinds of revolutions, but I think this article is only talking about political ones. Gutenberg started a "revolution" of sorts, but I wouldn't call him a revolutionary. If we go down that route, it will be hard to draw the line. (Every new hair-care product is described as "revolutionary" nowadays.) So even though Jesus changed the world, the relevant question (in my opinion) is "Was he a political revolutionary?"
He was tried and convicted as one, according to the Gospels. But, according to those same sources, he denied wanted to foment a political revolution. Now I know that anything about Jesus is bound to be controversial, but I'm inclined to remove Jesus from the list. Comments? Quadell (talk) 16:48, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Hmmm...
A tough one.
I ain't no Xian, and Jesus wasn't no Spartacus... Still, in terms of his society, he was calling for revolution "of the spirit" I guess (under Caesar what is... yadda); it just wasn't overtly political -- as all the sadducees and pharisees were fearing. However, Jesus _was_ fomenting political revolution, whether he admitted it or not, to himself or not...
Besides that: the only reason we know of this local yokel troublemaker is because of the quirks of 5th century roman politix... For that matter: how could a non-entity like Stalin make such a name for himself, other than as a calculating coup-plotter, in the right place at the right time..?
Like I said -- a tough call! But I'd say to leave it in -- unless there were objective and strict criteria which this guy doesn't actually meet (like having actually existed, hehehe..!)
;>
- I hear you, but I'd still leave him out. A revolutionary isn't someone whose actions lead to a revolution, intentionally or unintentionally. (Otherwise Chief Justice Taney would have to be called a revolutionary for his Dred Scott decision.) The standard I would apply is "Is there evidence that this person wanted and intended to bring about a political revolution?" For Jesus, I would have to say the answer is no. For Charles Manson, it would be yes. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 01:05, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- There's nothing technically 'revolutionary' about some bourgeois apparatchik making far-reaching decisions -- after all, the system is hierarchical -- and then going home to his spacious manor for dinner. I think the characterization above lacks the essential elements of DANGER and _fundamental_ social change.
- Jesus, on the other hand, was certainly in danger his whole political life (aren't we all?) and paid the ultimate price (a fact essential to his legend). For that matter, there's nothing in the canon which proves that actual revolutionaries always start off _intending_ heroics. The whole point of revolutionary theory is pointing out that such people almost invariably are following the objective course of class struggle in their period. They often get involved politically by personal accident. Lenin might fit in this category.
- Charles Manson, OTOH was quite the nihilist. He worked for his own insane vision of race-war and Armageddon. He even whole-heartedly ascribed to the Nazi "hollow earth" UFO belief-system. I'd call that _counter_-revolutionary at best.
- A whole other animal.
- Pazouzou 17:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Move to "list of revolutionaries"?
While searching for a list of revolutionaries, my instinct was to search for exactly that term. Alas, it does exist but is ridiculously small (3 entries or so). Later I found this page, which has a much better list. An article on "Revolutionary" should focus on definitions and interpretations of this concept, an extensive list of people would fit better on a separate list page. I would suggest moving it over there. --koenige 04:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Since I've seen no objections, I'm moving the list to "List of Revolutionaries". --koenige 01:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Revolutionary groups
Um... at the moment there are only 2 groups so obviously it needs expanding, however I hesitate to add more as I fear the list will just grow unmanagably big. So two questions
1)Do we need a list of revolutionary org's on Wikipedia (there are already lists of lefty groups, communist groups, Anarcist groups etc.)
2)If we do should it not have its own page i.e. Revolutionary groups
--JK the unwise 14:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Focusing on political/social activists
I think we should keep this list focused on revolutionaries in the _political_ sense of the term, otherwise it will get out of control. If someone thinks musicians, writers, cientists, etc. deserve that qualification, (which is debatable), he should create a separate list.
- I agree, someone has just added Bill Hicks. No doubt he is considered by some a cultral revolutionary, but the list will become uninformative if not tightly defined (its quite close to useless allready). How about some one sets up a page of cultral revolutionaries?--JK the unwise 10:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Region/Nationality
Would it be a good idea to put them by nationality/region? Let me know and i'll help someone, do it myself, or they can do it :p