On A New American Revolution

[Axl Van Sixx]

Sure, but revolution is a universal reaction to an intolerable regime.

Also, Schlosser, if your argument is "too many Americans are dumb and/or hateful", isn't that also an argument against democracy in general?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

When the government does not have anymore money to borrow and they start cutting social security, medicare, and other welfare services, I think we will see a lot more protests, crime, possibly even revolution, and/or martial law.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

When the government does not have anymore money to borrow and they start cutting social security, medicare, and other welfare services, I think we will see a lot more protests, crime, possibly even revolution, and/or martial law.

Haven't we already reached that point? I thought that was why the Fed had resorted to "quantitative easing" (i.e. printing money).

 

[Schlosser85]

Sure, but revolution is a universal reaction to an intolerable regime.

Also, Schlosser, if your argument is "too many Americans are dumb and/or hateful", isn't that also an argument against democracy in general?[/QUOTE]

Maybe.

 

[Rocketman]

I think it's inevitable. Look to the history books and it's the same story all over the world, for decades. My only problem is these Occupy Wall Street hippies who think that giant Crayola signs and a few chants is going to change the world. They're wasting precious time. Smacking a tambourine in the park isn't going to get you free healthcare.

Historically, big change usually comes when something drastic happens. Look at 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, Columbine, etc. "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy" (to quote Batman Beginst. I'm NOT taking this out of context.

Now, before you think I'm promoting terrorism, stop. I'm NOT promoting terrorism. But historically, the only logical way to overcome class oppression, or to make a world-altering statement, is to fight. But fight for something good. Do it because it's right. Don't be the Joker, or Timothy McVeigh, but be someone who is "mad as hell, and you're not going to take it anymore."

That's basically what we need. We need people to assemble, plan, and go for it.

Now, when I say it's inevitable that this will happen, I mean this:
Things will get worse in America. Oh boy, is it going to get worse. And it's going to reach a breaking point where the majority of us won't take it anymore. We better not.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Haven't we already reached that point? I thought that was why the Fed had resorted to "quantitative easing" (i.e. printing money).

We haven't reached the point where the countries we are borrowing from stop lending us money. When we get there, then I believe we'll see what I said earlier.

 

[Hobgoblin]

This is a good argument, but let's not forget, the only reason FDR instituted his New Deal reforms was because of pressure from below. The American elites in the 30s were very concerned about the danger of revolution.

Yet no revolution happened.

Really? You must have missed this little bit of news from the Republic Windows and Doors factory in 2008...

Chicago Factory Occupied

Granted I did forget that but one occupation does not a revolution make.

How about all those Tea Partiers walking around with their rifles in 2009, proclaiming that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"? For a corporate astroturf movement, the Tea Party sure used a lot of revolutionary rhetoric.

Exactly. Rhetoric.

This is a good argument to use against right-wing gun nuts, but not so much regarding revolution. You forget that the military itself is made up largely of working class recruits. When soldiers are ordered to fire on their friends and family, there's a good chance you'll see revolt in the ranks (Egypt).

Ever hear of Dr Stanley Milgram? He performed experiments on people to judge how far they would go to hurt someone if a person in authority ordered them to do so. He had subjects increase the shock value of electrodes attached to a third person (who was really an actor). He kept ordering the person to increase the charge, and the person being "shocked" continued to shake and scream in pain. Despite the subjects discomfort with hurting a total stranger, they followed the orders. These were not soldiers that were being tested, but average people.

Now, image someone has been through the group conformity training that a soldier has. If a commanding officer orders them to subdue a crowd, you think they wont do it? Sure, some soldiers may defect but many will not.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Many Americans nowadays are more concerned about talentless hacks like the Kardashians, the Real Housewives and virtually every single reality show out there right now then a mass uprising against the government. Also, many Americans are probably more concerned with how their local sports teams are doing. Too bad we can't have a mass uprising against these no talent hacks.

Americans are too lazy for mass revolt. If we weren't, there would be no commercials on TV that show Americans sitting and talking (or even drinking beer) about that product. If you show ten American commercials, seven of them would probably involve sitting. A mass uprising against the government would require millions of people to get up off their feet and protest en masse like they did in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. That's never going to happen in the United States. There may be several hundred or even a thousand like there was with the Occupy movement or Tea party movement, but there will never be millions of Americans on the streets against the government, because we are too lazy.

What would a lot of Americans do? Watch a talentless bimbo like Kim Kardashian argue with her ex-husband of 72 days or mass revolt in the streets against the government? Many would probably take the former, while sitting on their couches drinking beer watching TV (basically being Homer Simpson).

I don't think that there will be a new American Revolution due to American laziness and several hundred or several thousand Americans protesting don't count. It's going to take millions and that's not going to happen.

If we don't like anyone, we'll vote them out. If Obama leaves office in November, he can go back to Chicago. It's what makes America great in that our former leaders can live in peace, no matter what they did in office. They don't have to go into exile in another country or anything. Same goes for any of the Congressmen we vote out, they go back to their home states as private citizens. If we have a violent uprising against the government, that goes away.

In Tunisia, Ben Ali had to go into exile for fear of his life. Ghadafi was executed. When Britain elected David Cameron as PM, Gordon Brown resigned and went back into private life in England. He didn't go into exile or anything.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think it's inevitable. Look to the history books and it's the same story all over the world, for decades. My only problem is these Occupy Wall Street hippies who think that giant Crayola signs and a few chants is going to change the world. They're wasting precious time. Smacking a tambourine in the park isn't going to get you free healthcare.

Believe it or not, a lot of the people at Occupy shared the same frustration. They wanted action, not rhetoric. Like I said earlier, these are the early stages of a movement and people are still learning.

Historically, big change usually comes when something drastic happens. Look at 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, Columbine, etc. "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy" (to quote Batman Beginst. I'm NOT taking this out of context.

I think you could call what's happening in Greece right now a pre-revolutionary situation, because austerity measures there have been so drastic and so painful that they've brought millions of people out into the streets. Unfortunately, there's no mass revolutionary party to take that energy and channel it. The Stalinist KKE, for example, is too busy making sweetheart deals with the government.

Yet no revolution happened.

There is one crucial difference between the 1930s and today. 80 years ago, American capitalism was on the upswing, historically speaking. The USA was a rising world power. Unlike today, when the United States is the world's largest debtor nation, in FDR's day it was the world's largest creditor. So the American government had a surplus with which they could finance Keynesian stimulus measures like the WPA as well as various New Deal programs such as Social Security.

Today, on the other hand, American capital is in decline. The massive deficits which the federal government assumed by bailing out the banks has made any kind of progressive reform impossible, so all we're faced with is a future of austerity and counter-reforms. This will only increase popular anger.

Also, let's not forget that the Depression was eventually ended by the gigantic stimulus measure known as World War II. But a world war isn't really an option in an era in which the most powerful countries all have nuclear weapons.

Granted I did forget that but one occupation does not a revolution make.

It does illustrate that American workers are more militant than many believe.

Exactly. Rhetoric.

The question is, why was one of the two establishment parties resorting to revolutionary rhetoric? They knew there was a lot of anger out there as a result of the country's economic problems and they wanted to get on top of that wave to exploit it for their own purposes.

Ever hear of Dr Stanley Milgram? He performed experiments on people to judge how far they would go to hurt someone if a person in authority ordered them to do so. He had subjects increase the shock value of electrodes attached to a third person (who was really an actor). He kept ordering the person to increase the charge, and the person being "shocked" continued to shake and scream in pain. Despite the subjects discomfort with hurting a total stranger, they followed the orders. These were not soldiers that were being tested, but average people.

Now, image someone has been through the group conformity training that a soldier has. If a commanding officer orders them to subdue a crowd, you think they wont do it? Sure, some soldiers may defect but many will not.

I'm familiar with the Milgram experiments. While it is disturbing, it also doesn't mean that people will always obey orders without question. Military revolts and mutinies have been common throughout history. However, there has to be discontent within the ranks.

As long as the average soldier is well-compensated and identifies with the brass, then you're correct. But look at historical mutinies and you'll find they occur whenever the lot of the average soldier (like the average worker in a revolution) becomes intolerable. That might happen if they're badly losing a war (such as was the case in Russia 1917, Germany 1918, or even to a lesser degree with many American troops in Vietnam). Or it might happen if soldiers find themselves with significantly reduced compensation. Obama recently announced his new budget will cut pensions and benefits for U.S. troops while continuing to spend like a drunken sailor on advanced weaponry.

So at the moment, you're probably right about the attitude of your average U.S. soldier, but things might look different 5 years down the road - especially if the government embarks on a disastrous war with Iran.

The other thing that might affect their mentality is if they're deployed to use force against U.S. civilians. With the passage of the NDAA, for the first time in American history the military is now legally available for domestic policing. I think there's a good chance many soldiers would balk at the notion of firing on American civilians.

However, it depends on how dehumanized protesters have been by the corporate media. Given the venom and vitriol directed at the Occupy protesters - who your average right-winger believes are insane hippie anarchists/communists who want to destroy America, **** on the flag, take away their guns, re-elect Obama, send Christians into concentration camps, ban apple pie, or whatever nonsense Fox News tells them - it's debatable whether brainwashed soldiers might think the use of violent force against such "vermin" would be justifiable. I don't want to believe it, but given the amount of gun nuts in the U.S., and the way "liberals" are demonized as the reason for all of America's problems (and yes, I would compare it to Nazi propaganda; just replace the word "Jew" with the word "liberal"), it's a possibility.

Many Americans nowadays are more concerned about talentless hacks like the Kardashians, the Real Housewives and virtually every single reality show out there right now then a mass uprising against the government. Also, many Americans are probably more concerned with how their local sports teams are doing. Too bad we can't have a mass uprising against these no talent hacks.

Americans are too lazy for mass revolt. If we weren't, there would be no commercials on TV that show Americans sitting and talking (or even drinking beer) about that product. If you show ten American commercials, seven of them would probably involve sitting. A mass uprising against the government would require millions of people to get up off their feet and protest en masse like they did in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. That's never going to happen in the United States. There may be several hundred or even a thousand like there was with the Occupy movement or Tea party movement, but there will never be millions of Americans on the streets against the government, because we are too lazy.

What would a lot of Americans do? Watch a talentless bimbo like Kim Kardashian argue with her ex-husband of 72 days or mass revolt in the streets against the government? Many would probably take the former, while sitting on their couches drinking beer watching TV (basically being Homer Simpson).

I don't think that there will be a new American Revolution due to American laziness and several hundred or several thousand Americans protesting don't count. It's going to take millions and that's not going to happen.

If we don't like anyone, we'll vote them out. If Obama leaves office in November, he can go back to Chicago. It's what makes America great in that our former leaders can live in peace, no matter what they did in office. They don't have to go into exile in another country or anything. Same goes for any of the Congressmen we vote out, they go back to their home states as private citizens. If we have a violent uprising against the government, that goes away.

In Tunisia, Ben Ali had to go into exile for fear of his life. Ghadafi was executed. When Britain elected David Cameron as PM, Gordon Brown resigned and went back into private life in England. He didn't go into exile or anything.

It really depends on how bad things get. People will only come out on the streets when things become too bad to tolerate. Clearly we're not there yet. I guess it comes down to whether you believe people will endlessly put up with being crapped upon as long as they have cable TV.

But the fact that war criminals like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush can look forward to a comfortable retirement with book contracts and exorbitant fees for public speaking makes me sick. I hope Cheney lives long enough to see himself put on trial for crimes against humanity. A guy can dream...

 

[Dr. Evil]

It really depends on how bad things get. People will only come out on the streets when things become too bad to tolerate. Clearly we're not there yet. I guess it comes down to whether you believe people will endlessly put up with being crapped upon as long as they have cable TV.

As long as Americans love crap on reality TV, we will always be too lazy to do anything productive and most Americans I don't think care until its time for the conventions.

In recent months, I think that the bigger story was the failed marriage of Kim Kardashian instead of the Occupy Wall Street protests, which is actually very sad considering that the Occupy Wall Street protests are more important than some reality hack's 72 day wedding to an average basketball player. However, I could see why many Americans tend to love reality shows.

I highly doubt things will become worse in the United States as you believe they will be. It's going to turn around eventually, it always does. It's not going to turn into Libya within the next year (provided of course, the Mayans are wrong, which they probably are, then again, Hollywood is backloading their major releases to this year so who knows). If the United States goes to hell, American culture disappears and that affects the culture of other countries (namely the entertainment and sports fields). It's fields like Entertainment and Sports (especially sports) that give Americans hope that things will be better. Both serve as temporary relief from the everyday concerns of America (which is why many Americans love reality shows). Foreigners love our movie stars so America disappears, so do our movie stars.

With the Olympics coming up in August, Team USA will give Americans hope that things in our country will get better instead of worse.

Of course, you'll probably disagree with me, so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

As long as Americans love crap on reality TV, we will always be too lazy to do anything productive and most Americans I don't think care until its time for the conventions.

In recent months, I think that the bigger story was the failed marriage of Kim Kardashian instead of the Occupy Wall Street protests, which is actually very sad considering that the Occupy Wall Street protests are more important than some reality hack's 72 day wedding to an average basketball player. However, I could see why many Americans tend to love reality shows.

I highly doubt things will become worse in the United States as you believe they will be. It's going to turn around eventually, it always does. It's not going to turn into Libya within the next year (provided of course, the Mayans are wrong, which they probably are, then again, Hollywood is backloading their major releases to this year so who knows). If the United States goes to hell, American culture disappears and that affects the culture of other countries (namely the entertainment and sports fields). It's fields like Entertainment and Sports (especially sports) that give Americans hope that things will be better. Both serve as temporary relief from the everyday concerns of America (which is why many Americans love reality shows). Foreigners love our movie stars so America disappears, so do our movie stars.

With the Olympics coming up in August, Team USA will give Americans hope that things in our country will get better instead of worse.

Of course, you'll probably disagree with me, so let's just agree to disagree.

Okay.

But my response to your description of media brainwashing is pretty much summed up by this classic John Carpenter film clip:

[YT]BA8drfZwnXQ&feature=related[/YT]

 

[DACrowe]

but be someone who is "mad as hell, and you're not going to take it anymore."

That's basically what we need. We need people to assemble, plan, and go for it.

I wish people would learn that this phrase from Network was meant to be a parody of pop culture, bumper sticker logic and the banality of inarticulate and mindless populist anger.

Anyway, there's not going to be a "revolution." Most Americans believe in their institutions and the strength of their foundation in the U.S. Constitution. If you don't like whose in charge, you vote them out. The United States has gone through much worse than what we're facing right now--the Great Depression, World War II, the civil angst of the 1960s--and it will get through a slow growing economy right now. You seem to forget the people who protested in Tunsia, Egypt, etc. had no rights and could not choose their government. Americans have that right and are far freer than either of those nations's new governments are going to allow.

The "revolutionaries," be they gun-toting militia nutjobs in the backwoods of Michigan or idealistic college kids who love Karl Marx, are living in a fantasy and take for granted the opportunities of living here. They also need to pick up a history book and read about 1861-1865 for that matter.

 

[Papa G]

This question goes out to all you Americans.

The United States is a country that was founded on violent revolution (there's no other way to describe the War of Independence). Why, then, is anyone who discusses the possibility of revolution today deemed to be a fringe figure with dangerous ideas?

Were the crimes of King George III so much worse than the crimes that the current American government is guilty of today? Did the British monarchy oppress the people more than today's federal government?

Congress has a record low approval rating. Ordinary Americans hate a government that has long stopped responding to their needs and desires. Citizens understand that in the "world's greatest democracy", they don't really have a say, that all politicians are corrupt liars who sell out to the highest bidder, and that one's individual vote doesn't really make a difference.

After seeing revolution with our own eyes in Tunisia and Egypt, is it any wonder that some people might like to see that at home? What do you think?

I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't have a stake in the matter so why do you care? It can be argued that the rest of the world depends on America, but America needs to fix its own problems right now and mind its own business-and there won't be a violent revolution because now our country has an internal infrastructure that would clearly prevent all out chaos. You're right that people are unhappy in America, and politician are sleazy liars who are more interested in themselves than the average citizen, but we still have more choice and control and a less oppressive government than Egypt or Tunisia. The whole Revolutionary War was started because of high taxation and tariffs, and today Americans are still some of the lowest taxed people in the world-our problems today may require tax reform to fix, but the big problem of unemployment won't be fixed with a revolution, it will be fixed with growing sectors of the economy that aren't strictly information and technology. I see you're obviously into Marx and Lenin, and while today governments like China are Marxist-Lenist, I'd like to point out that while Marx thought that capitalism and socialism were stepping stones to a revolution that would ultimately impose Marxist communism, no society has really ever successfully adapted Marxist communism. And although the occupy movement was at it's basic level anti-capitalist, the US won't become fully socialist or communist because that won't fix our country's problems-with our debt already through the roof we can't afford a large welfare state. Jobs are coming back slowly, and when people have money to spend, the whole economy will prosper and we can get back on top. I'm not saying that capitalism didn't cause some of our problems(I think it has caused a few huge ones), but the answer isn't a Marxist, or second, revolutionary war.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I wish people would learn that this phrase from Network was meant to be a parody of pop culture, bumper sticker logic and the banality of inarticulate and mindless populist anger.

Anyway, there's not going to be a "revolution." Most Americans believe in their institutions and the strength of their foundation in the U.S. Constitution. If you don't like whose in charge, you vote them out. The United States has gone through much worse than what we're facing right now--the Great Depression, World War II, the civil angst of the 1960s--and it will get through a slow growing economy right now. You seem to forget the people who protested in Tunsia, Egypt, etc. had no rights and could not choose their government. Americans have that right and are far freer than either of those nations's new governments are going to allow.

The "revolutionaries," be they gun-toting militia nutjobs in the backwoods of Michigan or idealistic college kids who love Karl Marx, are living in a fantasy and take for granted the opportunities of living here. They also need to pick up a history book and read about 1861-1865 for that matter.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I wish people would learn that this phrase from Network was meant to be a parody of pop culture, bumper sticker logic and the banality of inarticulate and mindless populist anger.

Interesting interpretation of the movie. What about articulate and organized populist anger?

Anyway, there's not going to be a "revolution." Most Americans believe in their institutions and the strength of their foundation in the U.S. Constitution. If you don't like whose in charge, you vote them out. The United States has gone through much worse than what we're facing right now--the Great Depression, World War II, the civil angst of the 1960s--and it will get through a slow growing economy right now.

History does not always repeat itself. I'm sure the ancient Romans thought their empire would last forever.

America only got out of the Great Depression because of World War II, which led to the postwar boom that allowed the government to get through the civil unrest of the 60s. Through all that turmoil, people didn't revolt because the average person had a high standard of living. But today there's a huge underclass that is having its already low standard of living pushed down further by austerity measures. We're facing a decade of economic stagnation and minimal growth.

Say you're right, and Americans are unwilling or unable to seek alternatives to the two corporate parties. In that case...you think things are bad now? I shudder to think what the world will look like after a few more decades of this broken system. The planet is screwed, that's for sure.

You seem to forget the people who protested in Tunsia, Egypt, etc. had no rights and could not choose their government. Americans have that right and are far freer than either of those nations's new governments are going to allow.

And what are Americans (and Canadians, Europeans, Koreans, Japanese, etc.) doing with those freedoms? Egyptians and Tunisians revolted when anyone who did so risked death. That took immense courage.

Americans say they hate their government, but over and over they return to the voting booths to vote for the lesser of two evils. Personally, I think at some point they'll say enough is enough. But evidently I have a higher opinion of the average American than the skeptics here.

The "revolutionaries," be they gun-toting militia nutjobs in the backwoods of Michigan or idealistic college kids who love Karl Marx, are living in a fantasy and take for granted the opportunities of living here.

Yeah, there are so many economic opportunities out there in the alternate universe you live in, where real unemployment isn't at 20%. Suckers who believe establishment mythology about the American Dream are the ones living in a fantasy.

Have you even taken the time to understand the Marxist critique of capitalism? Karl Marx had a better grasp of the economic system we live under than any modern day economist, and I recommend you check out Prof. David Harvey's fascinating online lectures about Capital, Volume I.

[YT]gBazR59SZXk[/YT]

They also need to pick up a history book and read about 1861-1865 for that matter.

Hmm...that implies that the Civil War wasn't worth fighting, so I just want to be clear: are you saying it was not worth fighting a war to end the unjust and exploitative economic system of slavery?

Revolution would not necessarily lead to civil war anyway. It might, but it might not. And excuse me, but aren't there right-wing idiots like Rick Perry in the current government who talk openly about secession? They're the ones you should be worried about.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't have a stake in the matter so why do you care?

Of course I have a stake in the matter. America is the largest economy in the world and Canada's leading trading partner. The Canadian economy relies on the health of the American one. And under capitalism, all this generation has to look forward to in the next decade - aside from unemployment, debt, austerity and perpetual crisis - is an exceptionally weak recovery, at best.

It matters to me because like everybody else I have to make a living, and it's a hell of a lot harder to do that in a recession.

It can be argued that the rest of the world depends on America, but America needs to fix its own problems right now and mind its own business-and there won't be a violent revolution because now our country has an internal infrastructure that would clearly prevent all out chaos. You're right that people are unhappy in America, and politician are sleazy liars who are more interested in themselves than the average citizen, but we still have more choice and control and a less oppressive government than Egypt or Tunisia.

You might as well compare modern China to imperial China and say it's more democratic now because people can theoretically join the Communist Party and elect local representatives. Does that mean that it's not a repressive system that eliminates real choice? Just like the Communist Party of China pre-selects its candidates, so the Democratic and Republican parties have total control over who their candidates are and ensure they stick to the general line of the party leadership.

Approval of the American government has never in history been this low. People know they're getting ****ed over, and sooner or later they'll want real democracy rather than the fake one we have now.

The whole Revolutionary War was started because of high taxation and tariffs, and today Americans are still some of the lowest taxed people in the world-our problems today may require tax reform to fix, but the big problem of unemployment won't be fixed with a revolution, it will be fixed with growing sectors of the economy that aren't strictly information and technology.

Today's world is not that of 1776. Today we live in a globalized economy in a serious recession, and tinkering with the tax code has nothing to do with the real problem, which - as always in capitalism - is fundamentally a crisis of overproduction.

Could you please list some of those growing sectors of the economy? I want to know what the next bubble will be based on.

The whole point of a revolution is that it would solve things like unemployment. Say what you want about the old Stalinist states, but under a planned economy they did have full employment, something most of us today can't imagine.

I see you're obviously into Marx and Lenin, and while today governments like China are Marxist-Lenist

Stop. What is Marxist-Leninist about China today? Other than the fact that the party in power calls itself Communist, not much. Clearly this is a government that has embraced capitalism with a passion.

I'd like to point out that while Marx thought that capitalism and socialism were stepping stones to a revolution that would ultimately impose Marxist communism, no society has really ever successfully adapted Marxist communism.

Gee, you think the fact these societies were extremely poor, backward and ravaged by war on the eve of revolution might have been a factor? Maybe the fact that they were constantly under attack by hostile capitalist nations?

Socialism requires material abundance and we have that in the advanced capitalist countries. You can't say no society has successfully adapted Marxist communism when it hasn't been tried in the wealthiest countries, who alone possess the material conditions necessary for socialism.

And although the occupy movement was at it's basic level anti-capitalist, the US won't become fully socialist or communist because that won't fix our country's problems-with our debt already through the roof we can't afford a large welfare state.

Who, other than right-wing ideologues, ever said anything about a giant welfare state? The welfare state is a product of capitalism designed to mitigate its failures. I'm talking about a planned economy where people decide democratically how to utilize society's resources. In the long term, that's the only thing that's going to solve the country's problems.

Jobs are coming back slowly, and when people have money to spend, the whole economy will prosper and we can get back on top. I'm not saying that capitalism didn't cause some of our problems(I think it has caused a few huge ones), but the answer isn't a Marxist, or second, revolutionary war.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. There's a good chance that the European debt situation will lead to a renewed global economic crisis, in which case the job market will go straight back to hell (as if it's not there already).

I didn't mention anything about war. I'm all for peaceful transition. It's just that any privileged elite, historically speaking, tends to violently resist giving up its privileges.

You're willing to admit that capitalism has caused huge problems, but I don't know why you're so resistant to take the next conceptual leap and think maybe there are better ways of organizing society.

By the way, guys, I started this thread to talk about the subject of revolution in general. I never said it had to be Marxist or socialist, as many of you are assuming because of my own politics. There could be a revolution and any damn kind of government could arise. In fact, revolution in the States would initially probably be like the Egyptian Revolution, or Russia's 1917 February revolution - mass revolt against the government, but without any clear idea of what to replace it with.

My concern was to discuss the possibility of revolution in general, not whether Americans are going to turn socialist. There's plenty of right-wing militia types out there that would like to see a revolution, but also more and more ordinary people.

Nobody can predict the future. What will 5 more years of austerity and economic stagnation do to the psychology of the American working class? What happens if you throw in a wild card like war with Iran? You might not see revolution, but you're certainly going to see more civil unrest and social movements like Occupy.

 

[DACrowe]

<nods head>

 

[DACrowe]

Interesting interpretation of the movie. What about articulate and organized populist anger?

....Probably not considering it ended with the phrase becoming a media slogan for empty-handed rhetoric of an Opinion Newsmaker's infotainment show (the movie predicted the Bill O'Reillys of the world decades ahead of time) who was gunned down by his own network when his ratings dropped.

History does not always repeat itself. I'm sure the ancient Romans thought their empire would last forever.

Tell me when a Julius Caesar or Octavian shows up and are appointed to titles like "Dictator for Life" after marching their personal armies into the Capital. And even then Rome lasted another 400 years.

Hmm...that implies that the Civil War wasn't worth fighting, so I just want to be clear: are you saying it was not worth fighting a war to end the unjust and exploitative economic system of slavery?

Umm....as I said you need to open up a history book about that time period.

The Civil War was a very worthy cause for the Union--the military force that kept the US together and prevented what would have been the dissolution of the nation. They also ended slavery in the process, the greatest American sin in our history that goes back to the founding. But the war began not because the Union wanted to end slavery, but because the South was pissed of they lost the 1860 election and were positive that Lincoln would either take away their slave-owning rights or continue to isolate them in power in the Capital by supporting free states.

They rebelled against the US government because they thought it was corrupt, tyrannical and wrong. It tore this country apart and cost more American lives than any war in history....and the US was still standing afterwards.

The whole point of a revolution is that it would solve things like unemployment. Say what you want about the old Stalinist states, but under a planned economy they did have full employment, something most of us today can't imagine.

That's like saying, "say what you want about China, but they have high employment" if you overlook the child labor, 30-hour workdays and inhumane working conditions.

I didn't mention anything about war. I'm all for peaceful transition. It's just that any privileged elite, historically speaking, tends to violently resist giving up its privileges.

It goes both ways. In history many idealistic revolutionaries who just want to rebel against "them" cut a bloody path that kills thousands of people and in the end they still hand their revolution over to tyrants like Napoleon or Stalin. Fortunately, in more ways than one, you don't have a Louis XVI or Nicolas II for that logic to take hold in this country.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

....Probably not considering it ended with the phrase becoming a media slogan for empty-handed rhetoric of an Opinion Newsmaker's infotainment show (the movie predicted the Bill O'Reillys of the world decades ahead of time) who was gunned down by his own network when his ratings dropped.

Can we just drop Network already? I used the line because people were familiar with it and it expresses populist anger. I'm not concerned with its context in the film, which is a discussion for another day.

Tell me when a Julius Caesar or Octavian shows up and are appointed to titles like "Dictator for Life" after marching their personal armies into the Capital. And even then Rome lasted another 400 years.

Dude, all I was saying was that every great civilization thinks it's the be-all, end-all, but nations rise and fall. America doesn't have to be exactly like Rome in every way for people to draw lessons from its history.

Umm....as I said you need to open up a history book about that time period.

The Civil War was a very worthy cause for the Union--the military force that kept the US together and prevented what would have been the dissolution of the nation. They also ended slavery in the process, the greatest American sin in our history that goes back to the founding. But the war began not because the Union wanted to end slavery, but because the South was pissed of they lost the 1860 election and were positive that Lincoln would either take away their slave-owning rights or continue to isolate them in power in the Capital by supporting free states.

They rebelled against the US government because they thought it was corrupt, tyrannical and wrong. It tore this country apart and cost more American lives than any war in history....and the US was still standing afterwards.

I love your arrogant, unfounded assumption that if someone disagrees with you, they must not know what they're talking about.

Cool the condescension. I know the North didn't enter the Civil War out of some benevolent desire to end slavery; that's a latter-day myth. Rather, Lincoln's sole interest was holding the nation together. As he explained shortly before signing the Emancipation Proclamation:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
​

Lincoln signed the Proclamation because by 1862 he realized that he couldn't end the war and preserve the Union without ending slavery. But regardless of his motives, Lincoln nevertheless ended a horrific, exploitative economic system.

You can't convince me that slavery was not the fundamental cause of the Civil War. All the facts you pointed out are correct, but the South was afraid of Lincoln because they didn't think he would guarantee the rights of slavery, and they seceded due to that very fear that he would end their way of life.

One can consider the Civil War as a Second American Revolution which carried out the promise that had been guaranteed, but not fulfilled, by the first: the idea from the Declaration of Independence (one of the greatest revolutionary documents of all time) that "all men are created equal."

From a historical materialist perspective, the Civil War was caused by the contradictions between the industrial capitalism and wage labor of the North, and the agrarian Southern economy, which was based on chattel slavery.

Now, you originally brought up the Civil War because you say this is the danger of revolution. But the Civil War ended slavery. Whether you think that was the primary cause of the war is immaterial; slavery ended due to the war, and without the war it might have continued for a long time in the South.

So do you or do you not believe that the Civil War was justified by the fact that it ended slavery? Similarly, do you believe the first American Revolution, the War of Independence, was justified? And if your answer to either question is "yes", then where do you get off telling people that revolution is a bad, scary idea and nothing good ever comes of it?

That's like saying, "say what you want about China, but they have high employment" if you overlook the child labor, 30-hour workdays and inhumane working conditions.

There's a difference between high employment in a market economy and full employment in a planned economy.

It goes both ways. In history many idealistic revolutionaries who just want to rebel against "them" cut a bloody path that kills thousands of people and in the end they still hand their revolution over to tyrants like Napoleon or Stalin. Fortunately, in more ways than one, you don't have a Louis XVI or Nicolas II for that logic to take hold in this country.

The War of Independence left 50,000 Americans dead or wounded. How dare those idealistic revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson cut such a bloody path with their naive utopian dreams!

You don't need a tyrant to have a revolution. You forget that in the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks took over, the people had already gotten rid of the tsar. The country was a multi-party liberal democracy! Sounds like something you'd approve of. What wasn't to love?

Well, maybe the fact that the government continued the war, continued the disastrous policies that had caused revolution in the first place and did nothing to address the people's desperate yearning for land, bread and peace. There's a reason the Bolsheviks gathered more and more support after the February revolution, and why there was eventually a second one in October that put them in power.

Just because you live in a "democracy" doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't preclude revolution. Look at Germany 1918, the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 or the British General Strike of 1926. In each case you had a situation of "dual power" where worker's councils and the official bourgeois government contested for authority. The fact that the workers supposedly lived in a democracy and had the vote didn't prevent them from revolting against their government. France, as well, came incredibly close to full-blown revolution in 1968.

Finally, there's no reason to believe that revolution always leads to dictatorship - especially in a country with strong democratic traditions such as the USA.

 

[Papa G]

Interesting interpretation of the movie. What about articulate and organized populist anger?



History does not always repeat itself. I'm sure the ancient Romans thought their empire would last forever.

America only got out of the Great Depression because of World War II, which led to the postwar boom that allowed the government to get through the civil unrest of the 60s. Through all that turmoil, people didn't revolt because the average person had a high standard of living. But today there's a huge underclass that is having its already low standard of living pushed down further by austerity measures. We're facing a decade of economic stagnation and minimal growth.

Say you're right, and Americans are unwilling or unable to seek alternatives to the two corporate parties. In that case...you think things are bad now? I shudder to think what the world will look like after a few more decades of this broken system. The planet is screwed, that's for sure.



And what are Americans (and Canadians, Europeans, Koreans, Japanese, etc.) doing with those freedoms? Egyptians and Tunisians revolted when anyone who did so risked death. That took immense courage.

Americans say they hate their government, but over and over they return to the voting booths to vote for the lesser of two evils. Personally, I think at some point they'll say enough is enough. But evidently I have a higher opinion of the average American than the skeptics here.



Yeah, there are so many economic opportunities out there in the alternate universe you live in, where real unemployment isn't at 20%. Suckers who believe establishment mythology about the American Dream are the ones living in a fantasy.

Have you even taken the time to understand the Marxist critique of capitalism? Karl Marx had a better grasp of the economic system we live under than any modern day economist, and I recommend you check out Prof. David Harvey's fascinating online lectures about Capital, Volume I.

[YT]gBazR59SZXk[/YT]



Hmm...that implies that the Civil War wasn't worth fighting, so I just want to be clear: are you saying it was not worth fighting a war to end the unjust and exploitative economic system of slavery?

Revolution would not necessarily lead to civil war anyway. It might, but it might not. And excuse me, but aren't there right-wing idiots like Rick Perry in the current government who talk openly about secession? They're the ones you should be worried about.



Of course I have a stake in the matter. America is the largest economy in the world and Canada's leading trading partner. The Canadian economy relies on the health of the American one. And under capitalism, all this generation has to look forward to in the next decade - aside from unemployment, debt, austerity and perpetual crisis - is an exceptionally weak recovery, at best.

It matters to me because like everybody else I have to make a living, and it's a hell of a lot harder to do that in a recession.



You might as well compare modern China to imperial China and say it's more democratic now because people can theoretically join the Communist Party and elect local representatives. Does that mean that it's not a repressive system that eliminates real choice? Just like the Communist Party of China pre-selects its candidates, so the Democratic and Republican parties have total control over who their candidates are and ensure they stick to the general line of the party leadership.

Approval of the American government has never in history been this low. People know they're getting ****ed over, and sooner or later they'll want real democracy rather than the fake one we have now.



Today's world is not that of 1776. Today we live in a globalized economy in a serious recession, and tinkering with the tax code has nothing to do with the real problem, which - as always in capitalism - is fundamentally a crisis of overproduction.

Could you please list some of those growing sectors of the economy? I want to know what the next bubble will be based on.

The whole point of a revolution is that it would solve things like unemployment. Say what you want about the old Stalinist states, but under a planned economy they did have full employment, something most of us today can't imagine.



Stop. What is Marxist-Leninist about China today? Other than the fact that the party in power calls itself Communist, not much. Clearly this is a government that has embraced capitalism with a passion.



Gee, you think the fact these societies were extremely poor, backward and ravaged by war on the eve of revolution might have been a factor? Maybe the fact that they were constantly under attack by hostile capitalist nations?

Socialism requires material abundance and we have that in the advanced capitalist countries. You can't say no society has successfully adapted Marxist communism when it hasn't been tried in the wealthiest countries, who alone possess the material conditions necessary for socialism.



Who, other than right-wing ideologues, ever said anything about a giant welfare state? The welfare state is a product of capitalism designed to mitigate its failures. I'm talking about a planned economy where people decide democratically how to utilize society's resources. In the long term, that's the only thing that's going to solve the country's problems.



Don't count your chickens before they hatch. There's a good chance that the European debt situation will lead to a renewed global economic crisis, in which case the job market will go straight back to hell (as if it's not there already).

I didn't mention anything about war. I'm all for peaceful transition. It's just that any privileged elite, historically speaking, tends to violently resist giving up its privileges.

You're willing to admit that capitalism has caused huge problems, but I don't know why you're so resistant to take the next conceptual leap and think maybe there are better ways of organizing society.

By the way, guys, I started this thread to talk about the subject of revolution in general. I never said it had to be Marxist or socialist, as many of you are assuming because of my own politics. There could be a revolution and any damn kind of government could arise. In fact, revolution in the States would initially probably be like the Egyptian Revolution, or Russia's 1917 February revolution - mass revolt against the government, but without any clear idea of what to replace it with.

My concern was to discuss the possibility of revolution in general, not whether Americans are going to turn socialist. There's plenty of right-wing militia types out there that would like to see a revolution, but also more and more ordinary people.

Nobody can predict the future. What will 5 more years of austerity and economic stagnation do to the psychology of the American working class? What happens if you throw in a wild card like war with Iran? You might not see revolution, but you're certainly going to see more civil unrest and social movements like Occupy.

On China,look it up-their government is a Marxist-Lenist single party state. Yes, their manufacturing sector was capitalized and that's what grew their economy in the last 30+ years. Most economic systems are hybridized today-even America isn't purely capitalist.

I know that since money buys influence, there will never be total sociological representation and of course politicians are self-intersted. I think if there were limited terms for every politician they would be less crooked.

I am willing to think that there is a superior ideology to capitalism, but what is it? Economist Ha-Joon Chang called it "the best of the worst." Do you want to grow the government, because the truth is that a large welfare state(which occurs in communism and socialism in things like socialized medicine and state-paid college tuition) is unsustainable. And over-production doesn't always cause a crisis-it didn't cause the crisis of '08. Deregulation was, and is agreed to be the issue that caused the collapse. Overproduction is often a problem when met with under-consumption, and in a bad economy people don't want to spend money.

And elaborate on "a planned economy where people democratically decide to use resources"...Sorry, but a lot of Americans don't even vote and wouldn't have the slightest clue how to utilize our resources. You're saying you're not advocating socialism or Marxism, but what do you want exactly?

Capitalism hasn't always been terrible-our manufacturing sector is in fact growing. Ford and Chrysler are bringing jobs back to the U.S.-the same sort of jobs that built our country in the second industrial revolution. How will that cause a bubble? Economists haven't pinpointed one exact cause for bubbles, but often shifting interest rates(such as the ones in the housing market) are a problem. I think capitalism just needs more regulation.

And I'm sorry, but you have too faith in the average American's attitude towards these issues. There were occupy movements here, but most people just sat around and said "Gee, this sucks." I lost my job, but the only thing I occupied was my living room while I drank and did drugs, because I know even the President won't acknowledge the occupy movements enough for them to change his policy. But I was in the military and I have a check from the GI Bill still coming, which I earned based on my extra effort.(The GI Bill might be a government program, but it has capitalist-merit based incentives.) Things aren't perfect here, but I've been to the third world. Maybe you should take a little vacation to the horn of Africa or East Timor and we'll see if you're complaining then.

 

[Pagan]

I disagree with the idea that if you don't like whoever is in charge that you can just vote them out. you can't get rid of the money men who bought the govt and use it to enrich themselves. the pigs will not wean themselves off the teat. and short of a constitutional amendment you're not going to get around their legal entrenchment. the lifetime appointed SCOTUS has ruled that they have the constitutional right to pour as much money as they want into the system. so there's no legal recourse short of an amendment. And good luck getting 2/3rds of the state legislatures to go to a convention. they're on the take and beholden to the party structure.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I disagree with the idea that if you don't like whoever is in charge that you can just vote them out. you can't get rid of the money men who bought the govt and use it to enrich themselves. the pigs will not wean themselves off the teat. and short of a constitutional amendment you're not going to get around their legal entrenchment. the lifetime appointed SCOTUS has ruled that they have the constitutional right to pour as much money as they want into the system. so there's no legal recourse short of an amendment. And good luck getting 2/3rds of the state legislatures to go to a convention. they're on the take and beholden to the party structure.

Actually recent years have really shown that the candidate with the most money is by no means guaranteed to win. John Corzine is the best example of this.

 

[Pagan]

Actually recent years have really shown that the candidate with the most money is by no means guaranteed to win. John Corzine is the best example of this.

The candidates themselves don't have to be rich. but they have to have the support of the money men. or at least curry their favor. Look at how Ron Paul is treated. He scares the establishment on a national level. Oh sure they'll let him be a congressman. They'll let him play in his own little sandbox. He will vote the party line enough that he's not such a threat. But even with his popular support and strong showings in some polls they treat him like a red headed step child. Even if he's 2nd or 3rd in a state poll the media ignores him. He rarely gets any time during a debate. And the GOP establishment are okay with that. He's treated like Kucinich was on the Democratic side. Because his ideas would lessen their influence. They threaten the status quo,. They want to show people what's happening behind the curtain hiding the inner machinations of the military-industrial-media complex.

 

[Destructus86]

A new revolution will never occur. We have become too complacent as a society. Too comfortable and we don't want to disturb that comfort no matter how many rights are taken away.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The candidates themselves don't have to be rich. but they have to have the support of the money men. or at least curry their favor. Look at how Ron Paul is treated. He scares the establishment on a national level. Oh sure they'll let him be a congressman. They'll let him play in his own little sandbox. He will vote the party line enough that he's not such a threat. But even with his popular support and strong showings in some polls they treat him like a red headed step child. Even if he's 2nd or 3rd in a state poll the media ignores him. He rarely gets any time during a debate. And the GOP establishment are okay with that. He's treated like Kucinich was on the Democratic side. Because his ideas would lessen their influence. They threaten the status quo,. They want to show people what's happening behind the curtain hiding the inner machinations of the military-industrial-media complex.

You have the money men supporting candidates like John Corzine and Mitt Romney and yet they were either defeated or having a tough time.

 

[04nbod]

When the government does not have anymore money to borrow and they start cutting social security, medicare, and other welfare services, I think we will see a lot more protests, crime, possibly even revolution, and/or martial law.

You Americans are such drama queens sometimes!
That is not going to happen. America in general will whine, gravitate further right, elect a republican to do the necessary evils and eat a doughnut afterwards. Its unconscious, its just like here, somehow we elected a conservative. None of us really know how it happened because no one will admit they voted for him. Now we can boo and hiss as he cuts nurseries for babies and care for the elderly but sigh in relief when the structural deficit finally starts coming down.