Christianity was a revolution by peaceful cadres until it donned the imperial robes of Rome. By that time three centuries had passed, and about a fifteenth of the world was Christian. Today there are as many Christians as there are Chinese, one fourth of the world. The Moslem conquered one seventh of the world within two centuries of the death of their Prophet. Flourishing today, they number a sixth.
The Industrial Revolution took three centuries to gain one quarter of the world. The French Revolution, cousin to the American Revolution of 1776, consumed a century and a half to embrace a quarter of the people of the world. The British trading and military empire, in 150 years, won its quarter, too. Marx and Engels extolled in 1948 the revolution of a social class; within a hundred years Marxist Leninism had revolutionized several nations and many parties, altogether a quarter of the world's people. With China, beginning in 1949, another fifth joined the aggregate.1
World revolutions all: by religious peaceful evangelism; by cultural expansion; by divinely inspired sword;by radical technological change;2 by idealistic masses; by commerce and gun; by communist organization, ideology, and violence. Each of these different methods has gained at some point from one-sixth to one-third of the world. If Chinese and Soviet Communism were not at odds, they should have to be counted together as the farthest limit of any revolution in world history. However, they would not command the highest technological plateaus of the world.
The crude numbers point to the difficulty of mobilizing all of mankind beneath the banners of world revolution and cosmarchy. If the Kalotic Revolution should involve all the world except the Chinese and Russian regions, however, it would be the most extensive revolution in history with two-thirds of mankind at its side. We might rest in this hope if it were not that modern technologies of war and the natural response patterns of the Chinese and Russian regimes do not permit optimism. Unless they too are partners in the Revolution, their governments will increasingly be driven to wreck it.
Accordingly, the method of Revolution must not compromise the universality of its program; it must be a Revolution for all people-Russians, Americans, Africans, Asians, Europeans, and Chinese. Such a responsibility is difficult to bear. It is especially so when we also accept the charge to conduct a Revolution that will be continuously fulfilled, if only in the broadest senses, over a long period of time-- generations, centuries, milennia.
When men agree on fundamentals, they can move fast and far in politics. For to human sciences, accord is what a basic theme is to a symphony and a basic design to an industry. A myriad of applications spring up. The Tutors hold and understand the consensus; they understand the methods of bringing change; and they need then to know one another. They can know one another through their words and actions, from sub scribing on every occasion to the same conduct, the same leaders or cooperating leaders, the same timing, the same laws, the same literature.
If they belong to groups, the groups should be informal without structure, without officers.3 They have to be independently impelled to serve or lead, always with a sense of priorities, abandoning useless, irrelevant or opposed activities no matter what the temptations. If they are presently involved in such activities, they should use them for all they are worth, and extricate themselves at the very first opportunity. A quarter-million people in the United States and a quarter-million elsewhere in the world are enough to power the drive for Kalotic Revolution.
This Principle of Independent Mutual Kalotic Adjustment is most important. It is contained in Aristotle's conception of virtuous activity, represented in Jesus (who recognized that like men were bonded by their very virtues), held by the philosophical anarchists, visible in early Americans who Tocqueville described as forming spontaneous cooperating groups on every occasion when a collective task was to be performed, and demonstrated by the many patient empirical studies of what "badly" or fashionably organized groups can perform when their members become attuned to their common needs and goals and are activated.4
The world is burdened down by sceptics and opportunists as well as by intellectuals and technologists, who might be Tutors but are instead idolators of bureaucracy.These speak of the age of organization, of bureaucracy. Sometimes they can be heard to quote Max Weber, profound scholar of a generation ago, a portion of whose life descended into madness, as he bespoke fervidly the triumph of "rational bureaucracy" and shrank spiritually at his own perception of the "disenchantment" of modern man fro the decline of the emotional and religious spirit. Others are quick to assert that one does merely what he is forced to do; like Bonaparte they believe that "you can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it." Some are only confused and perceive that everyone disagrees as to what should be done; they mirror this condition in themselves. To expect more than a small respite or a weak moderation of evil trends, to expect men, women, and children to shake off their trappings and act concertedly out of internal signals, in other words, the miracle of Revolution, is to them madness.
It is madness, as every large achievement is mad before it is crowned by glory. Because of this fact of "madness," and not despite it, the Revolution can advance two-thirds of its journey towards home on the determined, shared morale of its protagonists.
Let every wise man and woman consider his experiences and say how he has seen right policies either not to form or else to disintegrate, in groups of all sizes, from families to legislatures, because of the lack of two or three persons who would insist on what should be done, bold with the knowledge that what they ask is part of a larger scheme to which they adhere passionately and rationally. Let there be shunned the broken-down ideology, the rat-infested slums of institutions, and the trivial and passing incidents of life, and let there be a new scheme of the world into which every person can fit, through which he can cast his mind, and by which he can decide on what must be done in particular and in general, wherever he goes: then one can be witness to revolutionary change.
From personal conviction and dedication and from the identification of the same qualities in others emerges Kalotic Revolution. Upon this ramified psychological structure engaged in forming habits and decisions can be founded the formal structures that are needed to carry out directives continuously, to amass resources, and to execute laws.
Tactics are scientifically governed means of achieving a controverted policy. The tactics of the new Revolution follow some principles common to others.5 But, as has just been indicated, they also have special features that conform to the special spirit of the Revolution.
The Revolution amasses the surpluses of power that gather in old reservoirs. Where are these located? In the churches of the world, which do not know what to do but where everything can be changed rapidly.6 In the schools of the world, where teaching and learning are working one-sixth time. In metropolises, where power is rotting and for sale at bargain prices. In the mass media, rudderless ships with decks awash, that are sinkable by mimeograph machines.
Then those political structures that are most vulnerable to reform. Probing will reveal them -- probing by inquiry, by tests of pressure. No target is too small, none too big; a workshop one day, a nation the next. A cabinet of state is merely a village council wearing large hats. The Pentagon resembles a policeman on a beat.
Problems of access have to be carefully solved. Authorities armor and secret themselves. They use tricks to simulate access: tricks can be used to "Jam" the simulations. Access inventions are needed. The world's regimes can be plotted on a continuum of access, from most difficult to confront to least difficult to confront. The Kremlin and its numerous offshoots in and out of Russia are insulated and have many filters against contamination.7 The Inner City of Peking is comparable. The Italian "Deputies" employ devices on a middle level of inaccessibility, typical of another group of countries, which both filter out unwanted "noise" and humble visitors. American politicians, including the President, have been highly accessible in some ways, if not in others; on the other hand, they and others like them including the President, have been highly accessible in some ways, if not in others; on the other hand, they and others like them in another group of countries are often expert at dissembling, appearing flexible and open even when they are not.8
The more perfectly instrumented a campaign, the more likely to succeed. Instrumentation consists of preparing and planning, of initation of moves, of counter-defense,of counter-attack,of follow-through,of consolidation, of exploitation, of reporting. These are ordinary directives of all campaigns of every kind; they have only to be reworked on kalotic principles. For the main demand is that initiative be kalotically directed. Afterwards the very intelligence of the Tutors fosters the full range of instrumentation.
Then resources are required. Give half of all power, materials, personnel, and propaganda over to the Revolution. Each Tutor personally should convert his energies, failing irrelevant duties for larger obligations. If prevented from appropriating half of what comes to hand, then give whatever can be managed. The movement cannot wait for taxing power to be given to it.
We have not yet spoken about money. Most revolutionary forces suffer from lack of funds and of access to financing and foreign exchange. Here the Kalotic Revolution has intrinsic superiority. Most potential Tutors can assess themselves, their families, their friends, their plants and offices, their schools and colleges, their research and development organization, their churches, and their government. Approximately twenty billion dollars are spent on research and development annually in the world, most of it in the United States. Two billions of this can be formally or informally applied by its directors and workers to Kalotic causes.
Do not burn or destroy computers; use their "down-time" and "free" time for Kalotic calculations, models, intelligence operations, and decision options. The computer is to the mind of man what the steam engine was to his muscle. Radicals who would do away with it are not only "impractical;" they are self-defeating. The Tutors are par excellence the group that can use computers and, for planning, consummating, and pushing ahead with the Kalotic Revolution, they are worth more than all the armies in the world.
From the very beginning of Kalos where we define ourselves as process-oriented and future- directed, we are claiming the computers for our own. And as we proceed, ascertaining consensus, coordinating myriad Kalotic groups, determining and projecting Kalotic goals, accomplishing large-scale tasks of production and distribution in dystropic settings, speeding up every desirable process of change, and releasing man from unhealthy tedium, computers will be our greatest mechanical instrument Indeed, were it not for our foreseen command of the computer, we should have to give much less chance of victory to the Tutors and much less chance of victory to the Tutors and much less credence to the possibility of Kalotic Revolution.9
Bend all the trees and bushes of the mechanical wilderness with the steady winds of Kalotic change. Take pride in being called "prejudiced," if it is for Kalos, for the objectivity of the competent can only feed the rages of the ignorant and permit them to burn up the earth.
Resources and money are to be used, not hoarded. The history of many self-designated "revolutionary" movements reveals how a bookkeeping mentality can overcome leaders who have suddenly had their coffers filled with money from dues, assessments, and earning, until the petit bourgeois passion for hoarding pennies comes to dominate a splendid organization.
Give autonomy. Coordination is best performed by reporting and by reactive constructive criticism. If everything moves, all will move with it. Coordination is as much a result as it is a technique. Only some centers will be the major inertial and conquering ones. Accept the disadvantages that seem to come from the uncontrollability of separate kalotic movements. Accept the losses of twigs and branches; in a movement of a million centers, the rule (and an overall strengthening rule it is) will be "sauve que peut" until all are saved together. But meanwhile, too, there can be no quick suppression of a central conspiracy with the subsequent death of the whole, as happened to the trade unions and democratic parties in Germany when the Nazis attacked. This principle also guards against seizure of the Kalotic Movement by a small faction of anti-kalotic fanatics.
Autonomy will help resolve certain inapplicabilities of universal formulations. It can refine the differences in laws between highly plutocratic locales and dystrocratic ones, while maintaining both in the same cosmarchy. For instance, the nuclear family is called for in plutocratic countries; the extended family is still needed in dystrocracies. Conflicts of laws can be avoided by self-government, by immigration restrictions, or by avoidance of contact--of which the first is preferable. Also individuals should be able to choose which legal framework to live in, by change of name, religion, legal category, or immigration. In the course of time, both systems appear to be kalotically required to merge toward a middle ground, since both have in herently disturbing features.
Do not distinguish ends and means. Otherwise "means" will become ever more attenuated and the end more remote. If a means is not obviously compatible with the ends of an activity,it should be abandoned, even where its advantages are apparent. Do not sacrifice universality to parochialism, for example. Autonomy is a method of achieving universality, not a trick for feathering one's nest.
The means of Revolution should be essential to its achievement and, where options are available, should be those that cause the least risk of escalating undesirable conflict and that are most compatible with roles that need to be performed afterwards.
The occasions for winning radical reforms are less frequent in the early days of revolution. As time goes on, changes begin to shower down. Naturally, with every significant change, whether early or late, the non--changed characters and groups will hope that "this will be enough." that they will be bypassed, that the Kalotic movement will lose motive and adherents.
Everything should be made clear from the beginning. Their hopes are futile; a 360ø problems requires a 360ø victory, and the philosophy of Kalos implies unending victories. There is total commitment on the group side, just as on the individual side.
Tangible evidence of this attitude is made part of the single victory. Every reforms "X" has to be "X + 360ø," labeled as such. At least half of all those Tutors who have been working on the problem move on to a new target. The group, institution, or toparchy that has been reformed is not satisfactorily or sufficiently reformed unless its posture is altered to include as its institutional goal the whole of Kalos. It does not matter whether we are speaking of a peanut-oil factory or an air squadron.
A related question is whether sometimes a victory should be refused, for fear of its mollifying consequences. If a problem is serious and a great many people are disturbed and motivated towards revolution by it, should a solution of the problem be permitted? The question arises over many trivial victories too. Moving farther, a similar question arises as to whether some kinds of problems should be provoked, where disgust and dissent are not present but can be aroused and turned to advantage for recruiting Kalotists.
Most revolutionaries of the past have said yes to all three questions: refuse a major or minor victory if it will appease one's supporters and diminish their ardor; provoke problems in every sphere of life. Lest one condemn offhand these positions, recall that the advertising industry burns up $17 billions a year in America by provoking the population into agonies over trifles and by refusing to consider any increase of sales as a final victory.
Nonetheless, Kalos says this: never refuse a genuine major victory, even at the cost of losing the momentum and excitement of struggle, but prepare for its incorporation: the best victory celebration is an attack on the next strong point. Minor victories can be foregone; one of the most serious vices of potential Tutors is their proneness to trivial concerns. If no small points are attacked and no small solutions are accepted, the maximum effectiveness of the Kalotic organization can be achieved and maintained.
Since every personality is to be affected by Kalotics, then every group must be influenced. Hence there is no group that does not need to be kalotically provoked. The question thus resolves into tactics: what groups have high priority for provocation, what groups low priority.
A reknowned publicist, whom we would ordinarily label as conventional, because he has rarely found radical activism to be necessary, has shown how even these characters will be aroused to the occasion. Walter Lippmann, on his eightieth birthday, had this to say:
Our only hope is that a sufficiently large of [sic] number of people will become actively concerned about the destruction of the environment, about overpopulation and about adapting the political machinery which is necessary for the solution of these problems.
If a sufficiently powerful group of people understand and can lead the rest of the people, then it might happen.11
Myriad voices are calling for a new order in the world. No one seems to like it as it stands. Millions of words pour off the presses, crying "Let us agree" but no one can say on what to agree. A thousand authors, famous and obscure, give us books which coin the phrases of the day. "Society is sick!" "Ours is an age of anxiety." "The old order must give way to the new!" "People are not as virtuous as their forefathers." "Progress!" "Science!" "The Communist Menace!" "The people know best." "We must have Peace." "Co-existence." "Co-operation." "Self -determination." "We must sacrifice." And so on, so that if we could drown in nonsense, we should all be dead. For there is little value, little order, little logic, and little courage in all of this volume of words.
The major causes of causes of change operative in the world of the moment are blind wants, corporate imperialism, nationalism, and pro--communism. Other efforts, swamped in verbose indecision, weakly gesture at the problems confronting us. Or, holding grimly to leaky ships on wayward courses, they strike one by one against the rocks of the times.
The typical plea for a reformed world that is against war and communism is a defence of the present world, not a program. It comes from organizations where such pleas are care fully planned for inoffensiveness and audited for safety.12 It says that we should do a little here and a little there, that we should strengthen our educational system by teaching about communism and that we should produce more physical scientists. It says that we should not be ashamed of the profit system for it has worked wonders in America. It declares that we should not offend allies, not offend neutrals, not offend even enemies too much, and most of all not offend our own people. In effect, "We should assure our children's future by heavy insurance policies and turning them over to educational institutions."
The voice of convention would be pro--religious by putting barbed wire around the churches and saying nothing offensive against an established creed, while the surrounding territory is sacked and desolated of religiousness- "secularized." "We should pour resources into science," that is, whatever can be poured through a microscope or a telescope. We are told to build catch-basins but not prevent floods, to regret inanity and vulgarity, but not seek a higher level of unity. We are urged to take a grave view of many things, but never a view strong enough to hurt people's feelings, even when it should be obvious that a person whose feeling are easily hurt may be using this reaction just as a nazi or communist might threaten violence for slight of fenses. To hurt as few feelings as possible should indeed be the aim of the humane politician, like the humane surgeon. But to avoid the disease behind the hurt is a betrayal of the principles of the art.
When harried into a corner, the anxious talkers appeal to the people, which is like appealing to ghosts. For politics, the people have to be mere statistics.13 Only as they form into interests, ideas, and activity do they humanize and respond to appeals. Today the mass is as formless as its leadership. For it wants what it wants like the impractical dreamer wants heaven --without any interval of pain and thought. Then, when reform fails, it is the people who are said to be at fault, for not "acting" en masse.
Sheer activity is not to be confused with kalotic activism. It is a defect especially of political liberals to busy themselves with elaborate corrections of minor problems. They think that everything is in the execution, nothing is in the goal. For unconsciously and consciously, they fear controversy. They want painless reform of grave problems. So they will fritter away enormous amounts of energy worrying over dubiously effective and complicated reforms such as in the change of apportionment formulas in legislatures; the New York Times, after years of agitation for equalizing the populations of state legislative districts, won a set of victories, only promptly to regret the first effects of the victory on November 5, 1968, namely the unexpected reversion of the state assembly to the Republican Party. This example is chosen because it is exemplary of the "good works" that are kalotically nefarious. Rivers of sweat have drained from the worried brows of the well-intended, especially in this modern world of Americanized frenzy and socialized rote-behavior. Bureaucratic, legalistic, rattle--brained, and hedonistic minds can imagine every kind of well--meaning activity that impedes man's movement to revolutionize society and his life thereafter.
Therefore, we say "Seize the large solutions first and the small ones will come after them." How can many women stop giving over so much time to frivolous beautification and excessive tidiness? By their being credited with more important objectives. Women and men from the whole world should applaud the eleven housewives of Red China who built a shoe polish factory from the garbage and junk of their village,14 and the American women who picketed the "Miss America contest in 1968 with the slogans, "I am a women, not a toy, a pet or mascot!" and "Miss America is alive and angry, in Harlem."15
Revive from side paths into which conventional historians have pushed them some of the great doing characters and study their methods. Recall, for instance, Saint Therese. She offered an exquisite example of "obedient revolution."16 She would do precisely what she was told by her superiors; however, she chose to attack formally permissible problems that were in fact deviant and unconventional and carry them along bravely and efficiently until stopped by a stupid or venal authority. She would once more obey and once more begin her inspired work.
Look hard at what is authoritatively given you to do; in it is contained some important Kalotic directive or unforbidden Kalotic activity. Pursue that with great intensity, until blocked. Accept meekly the block, if it must be so, and promptly engage in a comparably useful Kalotic activity that the authorities have not yet discovered grounds for proceeding against.
Force is to be preferred to propaganda and economic pressures when it is required in self--defense, has less deleterious effects on character and policies, requires fewer resources, is less lingering in its effects, and is more honest and clear in meaning.
Violence is an escalation of political influence.17 Thus, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas has written that "where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective response."18 Logically and morally, the difference between physical coercion and propaganda, subversion,strikes, passive denial and other tactics is a question partly of which nerve endings are stimulated to bring forth responses. All such tactics bring non-rational adjustments of the affected organisms.
However, there are highly significant "side effects,"which ultimately determine the total context of cause and effect. Other means than violence leave loopholes for progressive increments of logical behavior. Other means are typically learned later: violence adds the indignity of childlike suppression (and sometimes the masochistic attractiveness therefore). Other means are more likely to be possessed by non--stratocratic elements and nations, especially the Tutors, hence are preferred by those groups and given a moral cast.
Violence can be transmitted only as a crude set of symbols- like drumbeats; it can therefore be applied only in limited circumstances unless it destroys its intentions,k i.e., becomes in strumentally non-rational; this is why movements of violence (unless they are pragmatically perfect as in Nazism and in theory Fascism, where means [violence] and goals [rule of force] were theoretically inseparable) , get out of hand as soon as their first blows fall upon the opposition: blind force fails.
Most significant of all, violence is regarded as a direct escalation of political means, with possibilities of great uncustomary pain and extinction of life. It is believed to be final, to allow no exit, and therefore is to be avoided and averted.
Hence the Kalotic Movement rejects violence in principle; it employs all methods short of violence that the public and potential opposition will accept as non-violent; it tolerates some kinds of violent demonstrations; it prepares a violent response for the possible outbreak of violence--not sporadic violence but a deliberate policy of violent counterrevolution.19
The resort to violence varies with the degree to which the potentially violent ones perceive their targets to be legitimately empowered to act as they are acting. Therefore, the movement justifies its tactics as legitimate and non-violent to ward off its enemies, and turns to systematic violence itself only under massive threat.
The systemic violence that occurs continually in different parts of the world has been described in Chapter II. Much of it is anti-kalotic. It is quite destructive, or it expresses class, ethnic, and religious hostilities, or it gives vent to specific demands that are unrelated to Kalos. To take one example among hundreds, in February, 1969, numerous riots were reported in India. Scores of persons were killed and wounded in Bombay. They "were touched off by a militant organization, the Shiv Sena, with a campaign for the ouster of non-Maharashtrians from jobs in Maharashtra State and settlement of border dispute with neighbouring Mysore State on the south."20
The advent of a Kalotic Movement would change some of the character of many such disorders around the world. First, more people would know what should and can be done to reform society (Kalocracy);more would become part of the Kalotic Movement, and if they were to agitate vigourously, it would have a larger beneficial meaning to themselves and the world; probably the total amount of systemic violence, insofar as so much of it is caused by non-kalotic fears and hostilities working themselves out in frenzy and destruction, would diminish.
Non-Kalotic violence is a negative function of Kalotic violence and Kalotic progress. Total violence is a positive function of all three. The formula is capable of refinement, but the lesson is here for the Tutors to express to politists everywhere: "Kalos and Kalotic Method can only improve the existing situation concerning violence in the world."
No matter how much some persons may wish to deny it in the beginning, they must admit in the end that the person who knows how to use force is vital to the Kalotic enterprise. Whether the skill is found in civilians or in the military is not important. The important criterion is that the expert on force know when and how to decide that others need to be compelled and how to accomplish the task of force efficiently.
The half-million and more people who lead the coming world revolution must take millions of action that are logically demanded of them. In every case, the question arises: how must this event be made to occur? Perhaps in five out of ten cases, the action can be generated out of consent, from the spreading consensus and the techniques of propaganda and persuasion. In four out of ten cases, direct and indirect organizational and economic measures will produce the desired result. But what of the tenth case?(And, note that we do not say `What if all else fails?' but rather mean simply,"What is the technique of the tenth case?") And the answer is "force."
Force may be distributed evenly throughout the change process. Or it may be focused in a set of forceful actions. In either event, it is justified by the same principles, and the problem is mainly how to disperse or focus force for the greatest effect--as it is for any other technique.
If this much is granted, then the inevitable sociological problem offers itself: to translate any abstract principle into action. you must use the resources of the existing and ongoing social process.That means a resort to existing and ongoing social process. That means a resort to existing capabilities wherever they are to be found. That means, to pursue the logic, wherever the moving front of revolutionaries in the tutors or intelligentsia cannot supply the agents of intelligent force, one must go to where they do exist and recruit them there: in the military, among activist farmers and manual workers, among flexible communists, or elsewhere. That a fraction of military men in different parts of the world is alert to the world transformation is evidenced in countries where a military revolt is not of the conventional and traditional kind, even though it is labelled right or left. Examples would be the Greek, the Peruvian. the Libyan, and the Ghanian, all since 1967.
The optimum revolutionary process is the swelling and bursting of a tide of change over all institutions, coincidental at the finale with the taking over of peak governmental institutions--legislative, executive and judicial--by revolutionary leadership. Unless the tidal process occurred, the seizure would take place under more dangerous circumstances. The new power-holders would have less restraints placed upon them by friend and foe, less orientation, and less cooperation. The role of violence would be augmented, with all the risks incident thereto.
The United States is a nation of considerable pluralism --of a separation of powers among branches and levels of government and among large corporations and associations, with limitations of power throughout. The total complex is not well adapted to direct control by a few men who would wish to promulgate basic changes. In the dichotomy of the two types of revolution-the tide and the seizure-we would prefer to see the USA transformed by a heavy kalotic tide covering all institutions rather than by a sudden concentration of power in a small violent group. There is every reason, for the good of America and the world, why great kalotic changes should be actuated immediately. However, a few years remain in which to revolutionize America by the tidal method. This involves the concurrent activation of leaders and dominant attitudes in two hundred jurisdictions, six hundred governmental branches, one thousand companies and associations, and a supporting public of several million persons.
|1.||The population of the Roman Empire, the world before 1750, and of Christianity at various periods are conjectural.cf. John V. Grauman, "Population Growth," XII International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (1968), p. 378; C.F. Gallagher,"Islam,"Ibid.,pp. 203-4. The Industrial Revolution, if commenced in 1670, has embraced by now some 750 millions in its workings and ideology; the French Revolution in many ways spread collaterally with it.|
|2.||The idea of "nationalism" could be said to be the most successful of all revolutionary notions, since it now appears to hold most people everywhere in its grip: but it is usually tied by origin to the American French Revolution.|
|3.||Cf. Margaret Mead and Paul Byers, The Small Conference (The Hague: Mouton, 1968).|
|4.||Cf. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York McGraw-Hill, 1960), and The Effects of Leadership (New York: Free Press,1960).|
|5.||Cf. "Strategies of Revolution, "in Chalmers Johnson, Revolutionary Change, loc. cit.; Nathan Leites, The operational code of the politburo (New York: McGraw-Hill Book co., Inc., 1951), for the strengths and weaknesses of Stalinist doctrine.|
|6.||It is urgent that the churches and temples around the world be converted before they die out. They are losing their most likely Tutors, also; priests and acolytes are dropping out in large number, turned loose and lost upon the anomic world.|
|7.||Cf. Merle Fainsod, How Russia is Ruled, pp. 408-14.|
|8.||Cf. Keith Henderson, in the American Behavioral Scientist classified the methods of avoiding questions and limiting answers, used by public officials. "How Executives Handle `Hot'Questions," V, Sept. 1961, p.5.|
|9.||E.C. Berkeley, The Computer Revolution (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1962) lists (pp.195-020) over 500 areas of computer application. Many more have accumulated in the past decade and some areas, such as information retrieval, now are composed of numerous sub-areas of computer technology. Cf.Scientific American, Information (San Francisco: W.H.Freeman, 1966), on the ways computers work, internally and as parts of technical and human systems.|
|10.||August Compte was eager to see great change without destruction of the social order (Cf. Herbert Marcuse, Reason and Revolution, pp.340-60). See and reformed capitalism. Also Kelso and M.Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto (New York: Random House, 1958).|
|11.||New York Times, September 24, 1969, p.49.|
|12.||"Here is a sort of inner club of the American intellectual Establishment, 18 men [no women] producing essays on as many different matters, foreign and domestic ... Each of the authors, in goods Establishment tradition, proposes solutions, and most even believe in them... But where despair is not overt it is implicit." Edwin Dale, a New York Times correspondent, in reviewing the book Agenda for the Nation, edited by Kermit Gordon and published by The Brookings Institution in 1968. (New York Times, Book Review Section, January 26, 1969, p.20).|
|13.||As, for example, when President John F.Kennedy received his highest popularity rating in public opinion polls just after the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs, in Cuba. But Lindsay Rogers has long ago described the absurdities of "poll-watching" in The Pollesters.|
|14.||Turnabull, ed., op.cit., pp.182-8.|
|15.||Cf. Peter Babcox, "Meet the Women of the Revolution, 1969," New York times Magazine, February 9, 1969, p.34.|
|16.||Her Life (1515-1582), her Way of Perfection, and especially her Book of Foundations evidence her method, even though she may have been unconscious of it.|
|17.||H.L.Nieburg, Political Violence: The Behavioral Process (New York: St.Martin's Press, 1969),|
|18.||Points of Rebellion, New York: Ramdom House, 1970.|
|19.||Adam Roberts, ed., Civilian Resistance as a national Defence (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1969). Erik K. Erikson, Gandhi's Truth; on the Origins of Militant Nonviolence (New York: Norton, 1969); Dr. Gene Sharp of the Center for International Affairs, Harvard, has an extensive history of the politics of non-violent action in press; Ali Al'Amin Mazrui, Violence and Thought (New York: Humanities, 1969); see the week to week running advice of Julius Lester to his black readers on revolutionary tactics, Revolutionary Notes (New York: R.W.Baron, 1969).|
|20.||New York Times, February 11, 1969, p.2.|