Revolution within the form is a subversive tactic that seeks
surreptitiously to replace the form of old things or words with new and/or
progressive meanings in order to bring about a contrary state of things that
normally would not be accepted by society. Basically, the names of the old
things are preserved, but their meanings have been altered. This can be applied
to laws, forms of governments, traditional philosophy, art, and language. Just
like camoflage on clothing obscures the wearer and is beneficial in military
situations, so this method is quite successful because when another meaning is
being hidden under an old thing, it becomes unperciptible to many and the new
is easily adopted. It is only one of the many modalities of revolutionary
strategy. Society is transformed without it ever being conscious of what is
going on. It was first observed by Aristotle and the phrase, “revolution
within the form”, was coined by an economic journalist named Garet
Garrett who also wrote extensively using this concept.
Aristotle observed that “People do not easily
change, but love their own ancient customs; and it is by small degrees only
that one thing takes the place of another; so that the ancient laws will
remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about a
revolution in the state.”1
Niccolo Machiavelli also
observed and promoted this idea: “He who desires or wishes to reform the
condition of a city and wishes that it be accepted and that it be able to
maintain itself to everyone’s satisfaction is forced to retain at least
the shadow of ancient modes so that it might seem
to the people that order has not changed—though, in fact, the new orders are completely alien to those of the past. For
the universality of men feed as much on appearance as
on reality: indeed, in many cases, they are moved more by the things which seem
than by those which are….And this much should be observed by all who wish to
eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to
a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero): one ought,
since new things alter the minds of men, to see to it that these alterations
retain as much as the ancient as possible; and if the magistrates change from
those of old in number, authority, and term of office, they ought at least retain the name.2
Machiavelli
did much to alter the context of the term classical republics and, as a humanist,
promoted this ideology of humanism underneath the ancient term of republic.
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, in his masterful study, Republics, Ancient and Modern,
examines the change of this term by the Enlightenment writers and thinkers.
Garet
Garrett heavily critical about the New Deal of President Roosevelt observed
that the common (old) meaning of the U.S. Constitution was changed from a
document that restricted government power over the individual, to one that
endorsed and legitimated such power. His expose on the Roosevelt revolution of
the American style of government was titled: The American Empire and has been quite
influential among libertarians and conservative Americans.
Joe Sobran, a reactionary Catholic commentator, also
observed the tactic: “The revolutionaries realize that their power depends on the
illusion of continuity. The overturning of fundamental principles, the
destruction of tradition, the creation of new powers; these must all be presented
as mere ‘reforms’.?” 3
Adapted
from the Wikinfo article, Revolution within the form, used under
the GNU Free
Documentation License.
