You say you want a Revolution?

[xi_o_teaz]

I hear lots of talk of "wanting a Revolution" here in the U.S. True, it would probably take a major Revolution to upset the balance of Power here in America. The Systems we have in place will probably not be casually replaced without one. Whilst the idea of a Revolution here in the U.S. certainly can seem nice to many people who "hate the System

Comments

[heron61]

I've disagreed with a number of your political and related posts, but I completely and totally agree with this one. Especially in a first world industrial nation, revolution sucks more than is easy for any first world citizen to imagine. Also, the US is simply too big to make it work at all effectively, so the result would simply be chaos, and I for one definitely prefer having running water, electricity, food in the grocery stores, and an absence of people attempting shooting at each other in my neighborhood.

The other part of the equation is that it's a dumb idea because it's not remotely necessary. The far right spent most of the 30 years between the early 70s & the early 00s building their power-base though grass roots organization and so they have dominated US politics for the past 30 years.

Saying that the only way to change this is revolution is saying that the left are clumsy fools who must rely on violence because they can't manage better tools, and while that's certainly true for many progressives (and in fact many people in general), those aren't the ones I want in charge of anything, particularly not major social & political change. The fact is that the far right is in a shambles now - Shrub's popularity has reached Nixon in mid 1974 levels, the US economy is fucked, and most people know that the right is to blame. We got lucky in that the reactionaries were foolish enough to believe their own propaganda - most Iraqi citizens will welcome US troops with open arms, a deregulated economy honestly works better, global warming is a myth, and similar nonsense. If the left needs a revolution to turn things around then the people leading it are just as idiotic.

The only reason to be considering a revolution is if there are no other options, which means (as some radicals seem to foolishly believe) being convinced that the far right is an unstoppable force and not a bunch of petty and idiotic greedheads who've been coasting on their previous grass roots organizational efforts for the past 5 years. Revolution is only successfully used if there is no other hope for positive change, and we're a very long way from that point.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

The only reason to be considering a revolution is if there are no other options, which means (as some radicals seem to foolishly believe) being convinced that the far right is an unstoppable force and not a bunch of petty and idiotic greedheads who've been coasting on their previous grass roots organizational efforts for the past 5 years. Revolution is only successfully used if there is no other hope for positive change, and we're a very long way from that point.

Being 'radical' is hardly insulting.

You seem to make the mistaken assumption that the 'left' offers a legitimate contrast to the 'right'. There is none. In an oligarchy, 'left' and 'right' are illusions to keep the masses deceived.

The 'change' the 'left' represents is likewise masturbatory. More war. More oppression. More integration of the panopticon. More fascism.

[heron61]

Being 'radical' is hardly insulting.

Where did I say that it was? There are both foolish and non-foolish radicals.

You seem to make the mistaken assumption that the 'left' offers a legitimate contrast to the 'right'. There is none. In an oligarchy, 'left' and 'right' are illusions to keep the masses deceived.

This coming from someone who at least passively supports both AIDs and Holocaust denial. I seriously question the validity of your opinions.

The fact remains that if Al Gore had become President in 2000, he wouldn't have been the best president in US history (not by a long shot) but we wouldn't have either an Iraq War or a Department of Homeland Securuty, since these were both pre-existing Republican plans that 9/11 was used as an excuse to impliment.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

This coming from someone who at least passively supports both AIDs and Holocaust denial. I seriously question the validity of your opinions.

If one cannot differentiate between "denial" and "revisionism", it speaks volumes.

Saying that Gore wouldn't have fallen into Iraq is speculative history. I'm not convinced there's much value in such 'what ifs'.

[heron61]

Saying that Gore wouldn't have fallen into Iraq is speculative history.

No, it really isn't. Shrub, Cheney, and Rove had well-known pre-existing plans in place to attack Iraq and had been looking for a reason since Shrub was elected. Gore had no such plans, and in fact no reason at all to attack Iraq. It's not like the Project for the New American Century was a bipartisan effort - it was far-right Republicans all the way. Saying Gore = Shrub is at best obfuscation and more honestly a lie. I often wonder how many of the supposed radicals that proclaim this nonsense are (either knowing or unknowing) shills for the far right. Given the known far-right backing (at least in terms of donations) of radical left political parties by the Republican party, at least some of them are.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Bush ≠ Gore.

Coke ≠ Pepsi.