Comments | xi_o_teaz: You say you want a Revolution?

xi_o_teaz

You say you want a Revolution?

Oct 11, 2008 09:57

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 ( Read more... )

2nd circuit, catastrophe, theory vs. practice, chaos, politics

Comments 27

ranger_rick October 11 2008, 17:47:15 UTC

Unfortunately this same type of thinking is what keeps the slide going. It pretty much looks like nothing else is going to work and the longer you wait the harder *and more extreme* it would have to be.

Not that there aren't other options, the people just are not up to any of them. Revolution is actually the easiest option.

ankh_f_n_khonsu October 11 2008, 17:53:23 UTC

Revolutions always hit the bottom poor the hardest.

Does the absurdity of this comment sink in when repeated?

How much revolutionary history have you examined?

ranger_rick October 11 2008, 18:50:49 UTC

You know, Xi, I wasn't going to say it buuuuut it was a pretty uneducated thing to say. You're talking about half-assed civil strife, not revolution.

heron61 October 11 2008, 20:27:17 UTC

It's worth noting that the difference between these two options is only obvious in retospect. Also (and perhaps more importantly) in a nation as large as the US, swift revolution is completely impossible, so there would be a whole lot of civil strife during the process, and a vast amount of it would be pretty damned half assed.

ranger_rick October 11 2008, 22:11:11 UTC

I never alluded that revolution was easy for anyone. Xi was alluding that the people on top would not suffer as much as those on bottom. That is only the case when revolution is a marked failure. And his examples only get into fairly tame civil strife, with little real pressure anywhere just isolated mayhem.

Revolution is seldom quick, or painless, for anybody.

Thread 20

heron61 October 11 2008, 20:25:22 UTC

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 ( ... )

ankh_f_n_khonsu October 11 2008, 22:19:30 UTC

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 October 11 2008, 23:22:46 UTC

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 October 11 2008, 23:33:31 UTC

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'.

Thread 6

Busy Day xi_o_teaz October 12 2008, 01:20:09 UTC

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their opinions. Whether we agree or disagree, I think this topic--in particular--is not examined enough (at least as far as I can see). It seems like several of the replies have gotten off the immediate thrust of my argument, which can basically be summed up as ( ... )