> As a general rule, social change is the result of a dedicated and
> well-organized minority imposing their values on society as a whole
> (e.g., the American Revolution). The sooner we discard the myth that
> social arrangements are the democratic result of the consent of the
> majority, the better.
> Miles
No one can impose their values on other people. They can only impose their rule - ultimately through armed force. Clearly the Iranian Guardian Council hasn't managed to impose its values on huge swaths of the Iranian population, despite controlling the state for 30 years. Yet the US civil rights movement managed to leave a strong imprint of its values on much of the US., despite never capturing even a fraction of armed power.
The Eastern European communist parties controlled not just a fiercely cohesive state but every media outlet, labor union, youth organization, civic association, etc., in society - for 50 years. Yet they were unable to impose to their values sufficiently to maintain their system. Meanwhile the American Revolution created a notoriously weak and fractured state with virtually zero direct control over organized society, yet its leaders were wildly successful in imprinting the stated values of their revolution on much of US society for 200+ years and counting. How's that?
SA