issue 21，求点评

yuyanw315UID: 3279139

The statement actually consists of 2 parts. (1) people who initiate revolution will certainly lose their reputations and social status. (2) people who distain by the rest world because of revolution are willing to be so. Actually, i don't agree with either part of the statement, to illustrate my view clearly, let me present it in details.


It is extreme and superficial to say that revolutionary are definitely be distained from the rest of the world, because by claiming so, the author may unfairly identify revolution as evil and negative. Actually, many reformers in history win reputations instead of lose them. For example Franklin Roosevelt, president of America, won good reputations by establishing the 3R policy during the American Economy Depression. The revolution succeeded in bringing American economy back to life. Actually, it also made numerous workers return to work, consolidated the capitalist system of America, and promoted the development of society. Another example is Martin Luther King, who was the leader of American Civil Rights Movement, also won people's respect, regardless of race, by the his integrity and notable intelligence. Even more, he was the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize due to his contribution of ending segregation and racial discrimination through Civil. They are both eminent revolutionary, and both won good reputations because of their devotions in the reform. That's to say, reforms don't ruin their reputations.


In order to judge whether reformers are taking risk of losing reputations by initiating revolutions, we should make clear some questions that who decided the destiny of revolutionary and what is the key point to determine the worth of a revolution. From my perspective, revolutions often come with the imbalance of the society, whether it can be just or able to succeed depends on whether the consequence meets the majority's benefit, just the same as the reason for which any rule exists steady. Here comes the key point, that it is the people who determine the worth of revolution---in other word, people's support brings reforms come to practice. We can see this from the example raised above. Roosevelt succeeded because he brought thousands of people back to work, brought American society into peace and power. Martine Luther king succeeded, because he roused the majority's consciousness of civil rights, and protect African American's benefit.


Here comes to the second fallacy---people who distain by the rest world because of revolution are willing to be so. We can also talk about this by bringing another example. Adolf Hitler, who is a notorious politician, dictator and military strategist during the second World War. He made many crimes such as bringing the world into turbulence, crucially killing large numbers of Jews, disturbing the world peace. Though it is difficult to judge his reputations in all fields, as he was very eminent in military, politic and many other fields, he did fail in the reputation of a person with conscious and morality. But under no circumstance should we assert that he is a man willing to lose reputation, for actually he is a man who cares so much about it. He
never took risks to lose reputation in order to solve military confliction, he remained cautious to not lose face in front of others, and he decorated his room for reception in order to obtain other's admiration.


In sum, as in my view, as long as the revolution is treated just by the public and meets the benefit of the majority, revolutionary are not likely to lose reputation. And a person who is of evil reputation because of ill behavior and fail to revolute is not necessarily willing to be so.