Although the English-speaking press doesn't honor the conventions at all, in the academic world at least there's a line drawn between a true revolution that involves an actual change in the system of government, and ones that simply usher in a new regime under the same political system. Which I'm guessing traces back to de Tocqueville's works on revolutions, which are mostly forgotten after you leave college.
So you're going to have a lot of semantic work to do for most English-speakers, since most folks aren't aware of where the lines are supposed to be drawn between a change in the political system and simply a new ruling elite.
And to shanghai your metaphor a bit, usually in historical terms revolutions simply spin in a circle, but sometimes they rotate enough to cause the extant system to spiral upwards in complexity. So it's still a revolution, just one that spins up into a higher plane.
For instance the Protestant Reformation was another revolution that resulted in the eventual change of an entire socio-political system, but it didn't move past the old ways so much as push for additional complexity and force another layer for personal meaning onto exegesis, instead of simply just trusting the authorities.
Full revolutions create the illusion of moving past the old, but really they just force increasing layers of complexity. Donald Trump's allure would've been the same 100,000ya as it is today, despite the differences in political systems.
So I just got my bill for $10 a month - and assuming you continue to act like this comment and the rest of my presence on Substack doesn't exist, obviously I'm going to cancel.
You haven't bothered to respond, you don't have any readership commenting, so what in the world am I paying for?
Congrats on your Twitter popularity, before you decide not to interact with folks who are paying for your writings, perhaps you might want to look a bit into who they are exactly.
Seems like you're just a different flavor of grifter than the legacy media.
Although the English-speaking press doesn't honor the conventions at all, in the academic world at least there's a line drawn between a true revolution that involves an actual change in the system of government, and ones that simply usher in a new regime under the same political system. Which I'm guessing traces back to de Tocqueville's works on revolutions, which are mostly forgotten after you leave college.
So you're going to have a lot of semantic work to do for most English-speakers, since most folks aren't aware of where the lines are supposed to be drawn between a change in the political system and simply a new ruling elite.
And to shanghai your metaphor a bit, usually in historical terms revolutions simply spin in a circle, but sometimes they rotate enough to cause the extant system to spiral upwards in complexity. So it's still a revolution, just one that spins up into a higher plane.
For instance the Protestant Reformation was another revolution that resulted in the eventual change of an entire socio-political system, but it didn't move past the old ways so much as push for additional complexity and force another layer for personal meaning onto exegesis, instead of simply just trusting the authorities.
Full revolutions create the illusion of moving past the old, but really they just force increasing layers of complexity. Donald Trump's allure would've been the same 100,000ya as it is today, despite the differences in political systems.
So I just got my bill for $10 a month - and assuming you continue to act like this comment and the rest of my presence on Substack doesn't exist, obviously I'm going to cancel.
You haven't bothered to respond, you don't have any readership commenting, so what in the world am I paying for?
Congrats on your Twitter popularity, before you decide not to interact with folks who are paying for your writings, perhaps you might want to look a bit into who they are exactly.
Seems like you're just a different flavor of grifter than the legacy media.
cf "Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis"