Shaking the World

I have never visited Russia. It is a trip I hope to take in the next year or so. But in the mean time I am learning about it. I recently picked up a book called, Ten Days that Shook the World by John Reed. It is Reed's account to the Russian Revolution in 1917.

I am only a quarter of the way through, but with Reed's description, it's apparent that Russia was mess. Not only were they entered into the First World War against Germany, but they were facing battles of their own. Political parties and groups swarmed everywhere. There was little food and the Russian currency was inflated.

They were trying to ally with the U.S. and Britain, but were constantly losing ground in the war b/c they had no unified government.

Not long after, Lenin and his Bolshevik party took over and so began the Soviet Union. Since then , Russia has truly come a long way. It made it through another world war and a cold one with United States Superpower for over 50 years. I recently heard and interview of Russian 20-somethings and one of them mentioned the Putin is well liked and encouraging the people to be patient another 20 years as the country develops some sort of democracy and identity of its own.

Russia has seen it's share of war torn country, orphans and poverty. As I continue to pour through Reed's emotional account, I certainly hope I will gain some insight to the transition that took place in Russia almost a century ago.

I am compassionate toward those who live in war torn conditions, to those who have difficulty seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. To stir Revolution and it's end result be more threatening than promising, can only scar a people. Revolution, in its nature, is a sudden marked change, one that often that purposes to revive people from the inside-out. Revolution often ignites and motivates. What happens when it does not? What happens when the outcome is un-anticipated? Most of all, must it be accompianed by violence or perhaps hatred? Desperation drives people to stir Revolution, to stir a fight for overcoming and renewing circumstances for the better. Must that struggle be violent?

I personally believe that at times, struggle must be experienced in full force to achieve change. But violence defined in society is often different than that necessary for good. I decided to look it up and what I found was this- predominently, violence is defined as "damage by distortion" or "unjust exertion." But I also noticed another definition: "a swift or intense force." En Route to change, particularly a nation, does not require a level of "swift or intense force" to implement it? Just a thought....