Bad news for those wanting revolution.

[JNelson6563]

Here on DU it appears more of us are painfully aware of how bad things are for so many people in the current economy. Of course many can't really relate on a personal level but at least the effort is made.

And while it is fun to dream about a glorious revolution where the uber-wealthy are made to pay, the poorest among us see some justice and economic equality is less remote as a possibility...I'm here to tell you we are ever so far away from the much touted breaking point many here seem to think we are rapidly approaching.

Take a look around friends....look at the money that is spent out there every single day. How many millions of dollars do we spend each weekend at the movies? At bars & restaurants? How much is spent at sporting events? Let's think about all the cheap & useless plastic crap bought each and every day...really. Go to your local Wally World or dollar store or Target or whatever and really LOOK at what folks are buying.

I contend that a great deal of what the masses get suckered in to spending money on every single day is completely un-necessary.

We are of course conditioned from birth to be consumers on a grand scale and it is more effective than anyone could've imagined it being.

I knew a woman who was pretty poor and struggled every month to get by. She got a massive tax refund one year being a single mom with two little ones. Thousands of dollars. She could have paid her bills and had a very nice cushion moving forward. Instead she bought a huge flat-screen TV and lots of other stuff that nobody needs because she felt deprived. This was obviously effective marketing at work.

This mind-set is pretty common imo.

But let's put that demographic aside, the folks who have next to nothing and blow the rare windfall on crap. Instead I would rather focus on those who have more but are not wealthy by any means. That is who props up the consumer machine week after week.

As long as many millions of us have the ability to get by and then buy crap that isn't needed, indulge in little things like a movie or a dinner out, no health care worries because they have coverage...all of these people will never see the need for revolution.

There are way too many folks out there who have it reasonably comfortable and therefore will never go along with the idea that serious change needs to happen.

Frankly I believe the ruling class knows this and keep just enough of us fat and happy to be too content to challenge the status quo. Not to mention it might interfere with the schedule. I mean storm the Bastille or catch this week's American Idol? WEll shit isn't it the finals this week or something?

And as long as we have 47% of American voters willing to vote for the likes of Romney (not the 1% who would actually benefit from his policies) the storming of the gates ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Julie--bearer of bad news

[a geek named Bob]

1. JNelson6563, I think there's a flip side to that question...

In addition to how bad things are currently, There's the question of what the revolution will give people - of course, there's also the cost of the revolution itself. Revolutions are messy. Who cleans up?

From a quick look at other countries, Social Democracies seem to work. (By Social Democracy, I mean a country with "strong" regulated capital markets, "strong" environmental controls, progressive taxation rates, an actual social safety net, pervasive education distribution, and governmental/social interest in starting small businesses.) On the flip side, the examples of national scale "pure" socialism don't lend a lot of confidence for a revolution. I'm starting to wonder if there are scaling issues involved: I've seen communities up to about 100 make it work, but I don't have any information about retention rates. Also, said group were NOT self sufficient.

[JNelson6563]

2. Agreed!

It is a very complex thing to consider, many layers. I was mostly just trying to address why it is unlike to happen in any big way, any time soon. The misery is not nearly widespread enough.

You bring interesting points to the discussion. I do think solid regulation coupled with Social Democracies, as you say, is the way to go. We've seen often enough that '"pure"socialism' usually results in some animals being more equal than others.

Julie

[a geek named Bob]

4. Thank you for the compliment!

I think that one problem that is threaded through the rest of the morass, is that we - as a society - don't have agreed-on definitions for our current problems, nor on an agreed upon definition of where we'd like to be. Like some say: "You can't fix a problem you can't define."

Another problem to consider is the social meme of Jante Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

Given time and discussion, I figure we could map out the various threads for a hybrid Social democracy for the USA.

[libtodeath]

3. When has "pure" socialism ever been tried correctly?

[Bradical79]

5. What is "pure" socialism?

and how would you correctly implement it?

[libtodeath]

8. I wasnt the one using the phrase just copying it

ownership of production by the population for common benefit would be my definition.

[a geek named Bob]

6. Oy...

This is where it starts...

Look... There are people who like the idea of Socialism. I get that. The usual defense FOR EVERY CASE is that it's never been tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

The link above would suggest otherwise...

Either Socialism inherently doesn't work (my conjecture) or there's something about Socialism that lends itself to message drift.

[libtodeath]

9. And capitalisim has been so wonderful for the 99% of us.

[a geek named Bob]

11. Capitalism seems to work for the Social Democracies...

Your comment was little more than an attempt at a cheap shot, verifying nothing.

What about that link I posted? Was that link wrong? In what way was it wrong? Why did all of those "formerly socialist" countries leave the fold?

I'll agree that FIRE based predatory capitalism sucks. How about regulated Capitalism?

All of the facts seem to point out that pure socialism/drift socialism doesn't seem to work.

[libtodeath]

17. Nonsense,you were the one who was trashing an economic system without acknowledging

it has been abused in the past,I suppose one will point to the brutality of Stalin and say "SEE"
To me the cheap shot was dismissing "pure" socialism outright.

As you say so has capitalism and it has more then proven itself capable of producing monstrosities as well,hell the entire Iraq war can be laid largely on its feet yet you dont just out of hand say capitalism doesnt work.

That was my point.

[a geek named Bob]

40. actually...

I was thinking of the incompetence on the part of ALL of the Soviet leaders, but I'm glad you pointed out Stalin.

Like I've said... Show me a working Socialist system... In short, you can't.
Luckily, the citizens of these United States are bright enough to realize that the Socialist system for what it is: piles of truly epic fail.

[libtodeath]

54. Show me a capitalist system that has not enriched a few and enslaved the rest

works both ways and yes a strongly regulated capitalist system is better but to default that capitalism has to be the one and only starting point is bullshit as far as I am concerned.
There has been far more fail with it then success.

[a geek named Bob]

60. enslaved???

Really? Bombast much?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

Capitalism has more fail than success? Please present facts.

To put it simply, I've worked for 30 years. I like getting paid in tangibles, and detest thieves. If I build something, and you try and take it "for the people," you will need emergency medical care

[libtodeath]

63. Yes for all practical purposes enslaved

to menial jobs at low wages,begging a small number of employers for insurance to utilize their system of for profit health care.
Need examples of failure?
Have you been awake the past 4 years when our and others capitalist systems have brought the world to its economic knees?

[a geek named Bob]

78. playing "it's the same as" is a mug's game

Slavery means having LEGAL absolute authority to control another's actions. In most of the slave states, the "Owner" could rape, beat, torture, or sell off the slave, at a whim.

You're posting bombast, not facts.

[libtodeath]

86. And you are spreading rw points more then progressive ideals

we should as a country not dismiss out of hand socialism as you did,it is designed for the betterment of the common man not those fortunate few that capitalism rewards.
If you are going to default to capitalism and then say but sprinkle on some social justice then yes you get something better then complete dog eat dog profit seeking.
However you still retain most if not all the underpinnings of that and it will be a struggle to contain them.

Why not start with a socialist economic system and then where and if needed see if there are elements of capitalism that can help.
That way you retain the basis of economic and social justice.

[a geek named Bob]

95. so it's socialism or right winger?

I snicker at your black/white fallacy.

From what I've read, there's precious little economic nor social justice in your socialist systems.

Remember the Iron Curtain?

[libtodeath]

97. Now who is clutching at strawmen

dismissing socialism out of hand because of a few botched attempts at elements of it and declaring capitalism the only way despite its obvious failings is something I would expect more from a right leaning forum then a progressive one.
To throw the red scare boogyman of corrupt communist governments even more so.

[a geek named Bob]

98. sigh...

okay... so citizens WERE able to leave the Soviet Union? How about the PRC? One way of describing a facet of justice is... can you leave?

Obvious failings?

Ural sea
Lake Bakhail
Chernobyl
Gulags

How's that for failure?

"Few" botched attempts? Really? Show me a working socialist country... with a higher per capita for the 90%, better water, food, and air, and the right to leave, and better schools, and been around longer than 30 years.

The problem that I have with socialists is the same one I have with the low tech people... they want EVERYBODY to play their game.

[libtodeath]

102. Seems an odd statement given your postings totally throwing socialism aside from the start

who is wanting everybody to play their game?

[a geek named Bob]

106. I've yet to meet any socialists that only want to try a limited experiment with only a few people,

outside of three communes I know. Instead, the script seems to run along the lines of: everybody will be joined in fellowship.

I don't make people play with HV experiments nor Rocketry. Nor do I insist that any and all join the barter/hour compact that can be found in my community. Why should they insist - even via implication - that I'll join up with the rising class war?

[mythology]

119. You obviously don't have any idea of what slavery is

I don't have to worry that my boss is going to whip the skin of my back, or sell me to somebody or rape the women in my life or sell my kids or have me killed because he needed to make an example. My boss didn't have me kidnapped and shipped across the sea in abominable circumstances, left in a situation where I have no friends or family and nobody speaks my language.

I am free to select a different job, move to a different city or get an education, none of which were options to slaves.

Comparing capitalism, with all its flaws, to slavery is just blatantly ignorant of unmitigated horror of what it means to be a slave.

[link:|

[PETRUS]

31. Your list appears to be meaningless

From the article you linked:

"This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions, regardless of the type of economic systems they had. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism."

Not to mention:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2008)
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (March 2008)
This article may contain original research. (February 2008)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2012)"


No doubt there are things to be learned from the experiences of these countries, but I think "socialism bad" is a pretty tendentious conclusion, especially since there is no consistent definition that pulls the list together.**

Maybe the real lessons include things like:

-Impoverished, pre-industrial, and politically disenfranchised populations are particularly susceptible to authoritarian demagoguery.

-Political violence frequently produces severe, unwanted, and unintended consequences.

-The world's power elites have the motive and the means to disrupt egalitarian people's movements.
I
-----
**Somebody upthread asked "what is pure socialism?" If we're going to debate the merits and faults of something, we need to agree on a definition. Here's what I use - Any system that grants formal decision making powers within a productive enterprise to labor is some kind of socialism. (Under capitalism, authority is based on ownership.) "Pure" socialism would vest all decision making power in the workers, and could also involve different property arrangements (co-ops, public companies, etc.).

[a geek named Bob]

43. yet those are nations that self identify as socialist...

Look, if socialism is so great... point out five countries with higher standards of living.

"Any system that uses" sounds perilously close to using the "one drop rule" that we're supposed to shun (Dred Scott and all that...)

If the world's power elites have the power to disrupt any and all "egalitarian people's movement,"* then I submit that there will never be a pure socialist system.

*All of the socialist systems that have been mentioned sound like little more than glorifying mobs.

[PETRUS]

72. Thoughts

I can't point to any nation-states that meet my criteria. There are no such radical democracies in the world. (Which begs the question you take note of in your third comment, but I'll answer in order.) All we see are glimpses. Germany requires firms over a certain size to have seats for workers on the board. There are many co-operative enterprises, the biggest and most famous beig Mondragon. These are measures that align with my pocket definition but they exist in a larger context so I'm rather uncertain what to extrapolate from them.

On a side note, by standard of living do you mean some measure like per capita GDP? I'm not so sure that's how we should be evaluating ourselves. But that's a different conversation.

I have no idea what real connection there is between the definition I suggest and the one drop rule. That is a really weird comment to make.

My pessimistic side finds value in your "there never will be" hypothesis. The neoliberal wave of the last 30+ years shows that even modest gains from people's movements (the New Deal here, Social Democracies in Europe, etc.) are very hard to defend. Even so, I think it's important to keep advancing the principles of solidarity and democracy.

[a geek named Bob]

84. The One Drop rule was a court decision that allowed

"One Drop of black blood" to declare a person as Black. My analogy, clumsy as it was, was to suggest that some people are ready to declare a system as Socialist, if the system in question has one socialist trait.

By "standard of living" I'll use a modified per capita GDP. What can a member of the 90% buy with their discretionary funds? What kind of protein sources do they have, and are there regular shortages? (A follow-up question I try and find out is what causes shortages.) What would it take for a person to change income bands? (Admittedly, this is a transitive version of the GINI coefficient, but it's fun to try and figure out.)

As to your comments on the neoliberal wave, I'll pause and reflect. The neoliberal wave was/is based on the majority of the voters siding on an emotional level with the greedheads. Also, the greedheads had to have the majority of voters being low information folks, and to keep the conversation firmly locked on the idea of "traditional values," - WTF ever that might be - "greed is good, and builds strong jobs!," "largesse unto the top wealthy will automatically build more jobs" and a neo-marcusian "our message is reality, and there is no other." Each of these worked great, until there started to be alternative media.

On a personal level, I think the last 32 were effectively the top of the wave for the Nixon/Reagan/Bush FIRE predators. Unless President Obama really messes up, the GOP has to back away from the Teabagger movement. Worse, some news articles suggest that freakin' Texas will vote blue by 2024. That helps the Democratic Party, which is more amenable to Social Democracy structures.

I'll question the tern "solidarity..."

[PETRUS]

104. Yeah, I know.

The discussion preceding my entry was about "pure" socialism, which admits of degree and I was addressing that. My definition is a pretty functional way to describe the real world, which isn't "pure" anything. So I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Anyway, I like your idea about using quantity/quality of protein if we're going to try to evaluate the status of a population. It seems sensible to examine health, education, all that. With respect to your idea about discretionary income, I'm hesitant about that because market values are strange, and higher consumption doesn't necessarily mean something good.

The near or middle term future of domestic politics isn't something I want to try to predict. Our problems are bigger than the United States anyway. Global warming/climate change and the world's weaponry are serious threats to the health and welfare of billions of people. Unless we get our act together, questions about how to govern ourselves might be asked in a very different context, if asked at all. Perhaps a bit more international solidarity (!) is called for.

Since you asked: Universal public pensions, education, and healthcare are nice expressions of solidarity at a national level. In more general terms, I suppose I see it as the recognition of shared interests and acting in a coordinated fashion to achieve common goals.

[a geek named Bob]

105. thoughts on your thoughts

With respect to your idea about discretionary income, I'm hesitant about that because market values are strange, and higher consumption doesn't necessarily mean something good.

The reason for the disposable income question is twofold:how close to the local poverty line are people? How many options do the citizenry have?

I'm (slowly) working on a few solutions to get rid of global warming. I got tired of waiting for others.

Your examples of solidarity are the same ones I'd use to describe the social safety network.

[PETRUS]

107. Cool. What are you working on?

[a geek named Bob]

108. a few ideas...

1.) a semi-von neuman machine that builds copies of itself from excess CO2 and CH4
2.) a "whale" that pulls out the excess dissolved CO2 in the ocean
3.) cheap rafts that consist of controlled growth kudzu.
4.) "umbrella" islands that act as semi transparent cloud cover, to slow oceanic heating. (Might also slow down evaporation, under certain circumstances, to weaken hurricanes.)

What can I say? I am a geek.

[PETRUS]

109. Why rafts?

[a geek named Bob]

110. A few reasons

1.) easy to build
2.) can be "copied" via using the kudzu
3.) we can use them for living on and traveling
4.) "whales" (as previously described) could dock there

[libtodeath]

58. thank you

i hate to see a socialism is a failure meme here because of a few attempts and capitalism is extolled as the only choice when it has left so many dead or kicked to the curb.

[PETRUS]

81. You bet!

[BlueMan Votes]

33. "pure" socialism would be just as bad as "pure" capitalism.

what seems to work best is a combination of the two- it's getting the right mix that's the real trick.

[a geek named Bob]

46. The Nordic social democracies seem to work...

How about we look at those first?

[BlueMan Votes]

50. one MAJOR difference between us and them...

racially homogenous population.

they have it, we don't.

racism and socialism don't work well together.

[a geek named Bob]

56. hmmm...

so.. are you saying that social democracies are racist?

I'm hoping that's not the case, as Germany, Sweden, et al seem to have good economies.

so... how can the USA build up a social democracy?

(If someone's dumb enough to pull the actual revolution trigger - Tea bagger or Socialist - I'll be arming the cops.)

[BlueMan Votes]

62. i'm saying that the nordic countries don't have to deal with internal racism...

to the extent that the u.s. does.

many people of one race don't want to see people of another race getting anything for "free".

[a geek named Bob]

77. I'd redirect that

many people don't like the idea that they (supposedly) work hard, and "others" get something from that work, for no supposed work on their own.

[BlueMan Votes]

79. and those "others" tend to be people of another race/culture...

and/or social class(although not yet to the extent of the caste system in India- but we're getting there!)

[LongTomH]

59. I don't think European societies are racially homogenous any more!

There have always been some black people in Europe. In more recent years, there's been an influx of people from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Europe is a popular place to emigrate to.

[BlueMan Votes]

66. the nordic countries are.

and those were primarily the ones under discussion.

as other European countries have become less homogenous, their problems with racism have also increased accordingly.

but- the U.S. has a BIG head start on them...we've almost gotten it down to a science.

[leftstreet]

7. Yet another blame-the-Working-Class thread

[JNelson6563]

10. Whatever.

I am a member of the working poor. I marvel at how many people are shocked to learn I don't get a physical every year or even go to the doctor unless it is extreme emergency. People cannot imagine such things. And I don't mean wealthy people.

Then there's this factor: Many are a few rungs up the ladder and will do anything not to fall down a few pegs, not to mention what they'd do to go up a few.

Small business owners, the saviors of the world right? Many are just as bad about exploiting their own work force as those at the top (who they all aspire to be). I see it every day, I live it.

As long as the bulk of the masses are contented there will be no big change.

And for now, they are.

Julie

[leftstreet]

13. So you'd rather go to the movies than get a physical?

[JNelson6563]

20. I don't do either of those things.

I am not among those who has disposable income for movies, restaurants and plastic crap. In fact I don't have any disposable income at all.

Julie

[leftstreet]

22. But your OP was about lazy irresponsible people

Sounds like you could write an excellent OP about an unjust system that benefits a few, and leaves the rest with so little

[JNelson6563]

24. It was about content people.

Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

It's actually human nature to stick to the devil they know over the devil they don't. If things aren't so bad for you why risk all and work for massive change?

Nowhere did I say anyone was lazy. I'd say my view is that many are more apathetic about the blight of others than we'd like to believe.

[leftstreet]

25. Work all that into an OP. Maybe you'll start a revolution

Although I believe it's 'plight' of others, not 'blight'

[JNelson6563]

30. What a silly mistake! Thank you!

Not sure what I was thinking, yes, it's the "plight" of others I wish more would take note of.

Post has been edited to correct. Thanks for pointing that out!

And I doubt I am the one to lead or start a revolution in any case. Too poor, too broken from hard labor that I am too old for but do anyway because I need a home, heat and food.



Julie

[Silent3]

12. If there's anyone out there even close to revolution, it's the teabaggers...

...not anyone whose discontent is coming from the left. And despite all of their loud fussing and pouting, I don't think the teabaggers are all that close to revolution either.

I'll be happy with a slow evolution toward a more just society. True revolutions don't have a good track record for achieving better conditions. They often either revert to the same mess as before, or create new kinds of injustice and misery at the expense of a lot of misery and bloodshed to get there.

It's not dismissing or belittling the real and serious injustices in our society to say that we're still a bit of distance from the kind of mess we'd have to be in for true revolution to be worth the risk as an attempted solution.

[JNelson6563]

26. Good points.

I agree with what you say.

I don't advocate for revolution, was addressing those who seem to think "any day now..." and/or would love to see it.

I too can be content to make gradual progress.

Thanks for your comment.

Julie

[99Forever]

14. Thank you...

.... Lady Antoinette.

[a geek named Bob]

15. cheap shot...

I think that OP is pointing out the current conditions.

[99Forever]

18. As am I.

Speaking of cheap.

[a geek named Bob]

48. You're saying you're cheap?

Great! I'll be over with pizza and beer!

(cheap shot cascade?)

I doubt we are facing an actual revolution. Instead, as someone upthread pointed out, I think we are slowly having an evolution away from the predatory aspects of certain forms of capitalism, and back to the strong social safety network.

The whole creeping "why not try socialism?" meme is a reason I infrequently help at Occupy actions.

[99Forever]

61. A question.

What is there that would lead you to believe that " we are slowly having an evolution away from the predatory aspects of certain forms of capitalism, and back to the strong social safety network."

From where I sit, the exact opposite seems true.

[a geek named Bob]

75. WARNING L*O*N*G* POST

Predatory capitalism depends on a few things:
1.) Control of the Government, at Federal, State, and local levels
2.) Tight control of the money supply, and control of the economic activities
3.) Control of the Ideology and the spread thereof

As long as they have controls of these three items, the predatory folks can live fat and happy.

Here's where the post gets long, and I understand if folks wish to drop out here...

Elizabeth Warren's election into the senate is enough to give me pause. She's not a big fan of the FIRE folks (Financial Insurance, and Real Estate). Even if she doesn't get appointed to the SEC or other watchdog groups, it's a sign that the FIRE predators DON'T have complete power. The amount of money spent on the most recent election - if money is the only issue we look at - should have seen plutocrat >ahem< excuse me, "job creator" Mitt Romney elected handily into the presidency. The same thing can be said for Linda McMahon, yet writ smaller. (That last one is actually a twofer, as she had money AND a Media source on her side.) Then there's the interesting point (interesting to me, at least) that President Obama doesn't have to do anything, to have the Bush Tax Cuts lapse. That would suggest that the predators don't have as much power over the government as they posture.

Control of the money supply, and the economic activities thereof, is the lifeblood of the predators. Some folks in Colorado recently started using Pot as a medium of exchange. That's kind of hard to hoard for long periods, and is just about the definition of a "tool of conviviality." Then there's the BerkShares system, Ithaca dollars, and so one. This means that the FIRE guys don't control ALL of the money supply. Add in Gift economies and the various barter systems, and things are obviously out of their control.

Previous to about 1982, I would have said that you could make a case that the FIRE guys were in control of a majority of hte Ideology structure. However (and this is a big caveat), they were not in control of the various sub cultures. The public schools and media were purveying one set of ideologies, and the sub cultures were arguing another different set. With the creation of the hacker nets, a different method of communication was created, later widened to become the Internet. As more and more people move from TV to Internet, the method of the message has changed. Pre-Internet, all you could do was yell ineffectually at the screen of the TV. Now, you can post messages to the other speaker, and perhaps sway the "audience" to a different point of view. It sounds like such a simple thing, but it has its consequences. In my somewhat limited readings on the subject, the first rule of a coup d-etat is to take over the national media, in order to have only "your" message take to the airwaves. That's a tough trick to pull off, when regarding the 'net.

Given the Maker movement, there is a certain level of peaceful disruption to the current social system...

The FIRE predators:
-can't rig all of the elections at this point
-can't control all levels of economic activity
-can't force us to buy only from their dealers (with a 3D printer, I can build you a steam powered car. It just takes time)
-can't control the schools
-can't control the public message

worse, the FIRE predators are losing fear tools. San Berdoo was talking about seizing their foreclosed houses.

Then there's the fact that most of them are old and largely from whites-only clubs.

[woo me with science]

16. Predictable, huh.

[99Forever]

19. Aren't you glad...

... we have such wise men to tell us how we are doing and what we are going to do about it?


>>> <<<

[JNelson6563]

21. Actually I'm a woman

I don't consider myself to be particularly wise and I am coming from the perspective of the working poor.

Any other erroneous assumptions I can clear up for you?

Julie

[99Forever]

47. Maybe you should work on your own...

... erroneous assumptions first. Such as that people "want a revolution," just for starters.


What "people" actually want is economic JUSTICE and they are seeing that it ISN'T going to come from the ballot box. So, that narrows the options, just a little. Take a gander through history and see the results. This doesn't get settled over tea. Greedy bastards NEVER give up anything willingly.

[JNelson6563]

70. Most want the same thing.

It's how it's a achieved that I think is the point.

And yes, I contend that there are people who would like to see a revolution. Some even think anarchy would be a good idea.

Julie

[99Forever]

74. Isn't what I was saying?

if you have a suggestion as to HOW to get economic justice for the rest of us, short of revolution (be it violent or peaceful) please explain it in detail, because what's happening now, REALLY sucks for many millions of us. Tell me HOW it is that you will get 1%ers like the Waltons, who have more wealth than 40% of the people of this Nation combined, to not continue being inhuman pieces of shit that wouldn't give up one penny to the likes of us. Tell me what your plan of action is to end the Koch brother stranglehold on our government.

I'm all ears, show me the better way, one that actually WORKS. We can't eat souring rhetoric and false promises.

[JNelson6563]

85. I don't believe I offered a plan.

I simply said not enough people are miserable enough for change to happen via revolution.

I don't believe that by making that statement I am now responsible to come up with how we can achieve what it is we all want to achieve.

But then again I'm not sure why you brought hostility and what-not to the discussion. It's like you came loaded for bear. I believe that would be your problem, not mine.

Julie

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You do realize the French Revolution

Came after two decades and a crop failure that sent food skyrocketing? The OP is correct.

Now chew on this, speaking of crop failures...we ave a drought...grain production is way down, and food prices are expected to go up.

[2naSalit]

36. For those not paying attention...

the drought of 2012 affected over 50% of the US croplands; many livestock producers-mostly beef-sold off the majority of their herds; those who didn't were allowed to graze their cattle on sensitive public lands beyond the normal grazing allotments to provide for their herds' most corn goes to ethanol production and less to the food supply... and that's just what i can recall off the top of my caffeine deprived memory at the moment.

I agree with the OP author, I am in the same boat as she only I'm fighting with the system to keep from losing my ability to rent the shanty I inhabit because I was injured on the job (back in July) and the workers' comp pukes are fucking with me about getting proper diagnosis and maybe someday I can have some kind of actual medical attention to help heal the problem, until then I can't work at all, and I have not only always supported myself but spent several years supporting sisters who were getting divorced with children... back when there was a relatively better economic environment in this country.

Those who can afford the movies and anything outside of basic survival ability just don't get it. And I would go so far as to add that those who don't have a stable income and waste miniscule financial resources on stupid things are conditioned to think that they are not part of the socially acceptable ranks if they don't make a show of their faux ability to have these things... it's how we ended up with so many with untenable credit card debt and medical bankruptcies for example. Another more relative and obvious example would be what everyone saw last Friday at the malls of America.

The food crisis will be felt hard by the end of next spring and there will be a lot of angry, scared people trying to get food. The rich have been working overtime to make this a reality... why? So that they can degrade the once middle class into worker drone slaves who will do whatever it takes to feed themselves and secure some kind of sub-standard housing to survive. And "whatever it takes" is a pretty desperate mind set which will promote further degradation of the social fabric.

Just look at that POS Blankfein now boldly parading about on FuxNews and elsewhere touting his faux intellect trying to convince the pre-conditioned, dumbed down masses that they have to give him and his cronies the rest of what we have, that they haven't already stolen from us, because they need more yachts and to own our public lands so they can sell them off to the highest bidders. He's doing god's work after all... in his own words. Wonder what god that is. The weenie-waver class of bullies is hosing us and we need to change that.

So those of you who want to argue semantics can continue to feed the beast and place roadblocks to anyone trying to reason this set of dire issues in a public forum. When you have no food because there's none at the store, maybe you'll consider what you were saying here when some were trying to work through the mental mire and come up with some possibilities that could grow into solutions that we can all participate in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I am the wrong target

I was just pointing out the potential trigger.

[2naSalit]

42. Actually

I was aiming at the other two commentors... I agree with your comments. Maybe I clicked on the wrong "reply" link. Sorry about that.

You have made some absolutely valid points that I have no argument with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. No problem.

The coming spring will be "fun"

[JNelson6563]

23. I'd rather see the rich deprived.

It is sad to see so many of my fellow working class fall into the trap of handing over their very hard earned money to the top earners so eagerly & enthusiastically.

I'd expect a liberal warrior like yourself to see that and encourage against it.

Julie

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. You are correct

One of the things that might push people though is not the yearly buying of crap. (We got family a couple gift cards and others our customary box of chocolates), is the rising prices of food. We have a drought, a serious drought. People are expecting food prices to sky rocket.

In some ways that was the trigger for the French Revolution after twenty years. Food, rather lack of it, was also one f the triggers for the Russian Revolution, and the Arab Spring.

So if the anger is deep, I suspect it is, you will see an increase in marches and other events. Violent revolution will only happen if peaceful means of blowing off steam, happen. Given occupy and official reaction, it's likely. That will only increase the pressure.

[JNelson6563]

53. Good point!

I think the cost of food is already causing a disturbance in the force, as it were. No doubt it will get worse.

Julie

[Zorra]

29. The revolution is already far along in process. Things are going extremely well.

It will not be televised.

"There are way too many folks out there who have it reasonably comfortable and therefore will never go along with the idea that serious change needs to happen."

That's what we are counting on. Revolution is happening all around them right now, while they are grazing on the couch, admiring the spellbinding scenery on their TV's.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead

We know exactly what we are doing, and where we are going, and there is absolutely nothing that you, or anyone else, can do to stop us, if that is your intention.

[JNelson6563]

34. I wouldn't stop it.

I for one think some big change would be a good thing but I have little to lose so of course I'd be for it.

As to the revolution going on now, all around us, as you say, I like to think I am a small part of it in that I choose wisely where I spend my money. Farmers market, the local food co-op, Credo phone service...stuff like that. I can only really buy what I need so I try to do that carefully.

And I try to buy most everything else second hand, borrow back and forth with friends or barter.

It ain't much but if we all do a little bit to starve the beast the 1% enslaves us with, perhaps things might change.

I guess I'm cautiously optimistic.

Julie

[Zorra]

37. I kind of didn't think you would.

Several fruits of the revolution, all chronicled on one of my favorite newspaper front pages ever:

[2naSalit]

39. That's exactly what I've been doing for years now...

and I have no intent to feed the bastardly beasts of moneyworld if my income improves. I've survived by barter, recycling and frugal use of money for decades. I'm all for the occupy movement and would be more active if I had the physical ability to do so. But since I have what I have, which is not much compared to many, I will continue to lend support by not buying stuff unless absolutely needed. It's amazing but I actually live "better" with less stuff than many of my acquaintances who have better incomes than I do.

[AlexSatan]

32. "Effective marketing"

That implies that people have no choice but to give in.

Personally, I have to put the blame more on those who choose the "luxuries" before taking care of what needs taken care of.

And the word for that is simply "materialism".

On Edit: I originally had the word "greed" but change it after thinking about it for a couples of minutes.

[JNelson6563]

35. Effective in that

people who can't afford big flat screens, the latest gadgets, etc. feel "deprived". So when there's a windfall it's off to the big box store to buy all the stuff TV tells us will make us happy/beautiful/cool/whatever.

In reality, to go without when one has the means (even if only rarely so) is empowering but many have been convinced otherwise. It's a perspective thing.

Julie

[2naSalit]

41. Thank you for this OP

it's a good conversation to have and I hope it inspires some independent thought that leads to effective action on the part of many.

[JNelson6563]

49. Thanks for the kind words!

Some seem to be misunderstanding my meaning and thinking I'm coming from an elitist perspective heaping scorn on the poor working stiffs of the nation.

I am among the working poor and would love to see everyone start making economic choices that stuck it to the upper classes in a big way.

I'm glad you got the intention behind my somewhat clumsy attempt to get discussion going.



Julie

[2naSalit]

64. I thought that

you did a very good job of making your case and I, at least, had no problem getting your point.

But then, I am standing on the same gangplank with a little push toward the end of it having been injured on the job this year. I was "holding on" with a relative level of surety until that happened. I was able to pay my immediate bills and feed myself but a work injury that has left me unable to work is pretty scary. There may be a sketchy social safety net but it takes a lot of effort to have it become available and proving eligibility is a full time job in itself and usually requires that whatever pittance one receives is shared with an attorney or you end up with nothing and even more bills to pay. Even after five months of painful inability to work, I still have only had x-rays taken... after four months... because I applied for disability from SS at the same time I filed my WC claim. It seems that WC is only concerned with sending me back to work with no treatment for my injured spine. It's a racket and can be called nothing more than that. But I digress.

Your OP is great and don't let anyone tell you that it doesn't clearly illustrate your point. Anyone who argues against it or claims that they don't get what you were saying is either feeling guilty for being identified by the conditions you pointed out, oblivious to the situation due to cell phone and big screen distractions or are part of the problem.

Personally, I wonder about subliminal conditioning embedded in the screen scene that promotes an addiction to the desensitization to violence and the war machine culture... the screens keep getting bigger and the graphics more intense.

Just sayin'

[JNelson6563]

65. Wow! Good luck!

How many of us are but an inch from the same situation you're in? Too many.

Hugs and encouragement!

Julie

[2naSalit]

73. Thanks,

for the support, it helps. One thing it did make me do was to go back to meditating, that is holding me in a stable mental/emotional state at least. Time changes things and I'm hoping for the positive end of the scale.

Like you, I have been doing work I'm too old to do but must to keep food and shelter available. I hope this issue clears up before long, it has kept me from doing my usual rigorous exercise and that's hard to accept. I have every intention to age gracefully and this has placed that program on hold... not liking it at all... but soldier on I must.

[AlexSatan]

100. In reality

"In reality, to go without when one has the means (even if only rarely so) is empowering but many have been convinced otherwise. "

Very well said. Unfortunately, many in this country have been convinced of many things that are detrimental to the overall well-being of the country.

Materialism is also one reason that a European Social Democracy simply will not work here any time soon. Most Europeans have far less "stuff" and live simpler lives (and are happy with them) than Americans. I'm not sure how to change that mindset though. We seem to be heading the wrong direction in that respect.

And it isn't just the poor working stiffs. The middle class and upper class also share in the same materialistic status-seeking, just on different scales.

[Yavin4]

44. The Consumer Culture Is The Primary Driver of Income Inequality Much More So Than Tax Cuts

By making consumer items "affordable", we devalue the labor that makes them. That $100 flat screen TV exists because the labor that made it is only making $1 an hour. The only beneficiaries of devalued labor is the top 1%.

The consumer culture also makes it impossible to re-balance our economy. We cannot impose import tarriffs or other measures to ensure better trade balances because of the impact on prices.

Look at Germany. They do it right. Their economy is balanced between production and consumption. They produce high quality products that the world buys and their people have a higher standard of living than most nations.

[JNelson6563]

51. Wish I could rec your post!

Well said!

[Savannahmann]

52. Absolutely right

Additionally, Germany has one of the best single payer health systems in the world. They spend less on Defense, allowing more to be spent on social programs, education, science, and art. If all of those things were half as bad as the Repugs say, then the German people would revolt. Instead, they're one of the highest standard of living in the world.

[Yavin4]

89. They Also Have Strong Labor Unions and Work Less Hours Than People in Greece!!

And I mean Greece before their crisis.

[leftstreet]

57. Wrong. Profit is the primary driver of $1 an hour labor

not 'consumer culture' whatever that is

Consumers/working class people are not at fault here

[Yavin4]

91. Disagree. People See Themselves As Consumers before anything else

even before being citizens. Deny people the right to vote, and only a few will complain. Raise prices by $1 at WalMart, and you'll get a bloody revolt on your hands.

[Carolina]

55. so true, so sad

Sports, reality shows and the latest i-gizmos keep the people distracted and stupid

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I hear tell that carrying pictures of Chairman Mao can have a deleterious effect on one's sex life.

[JNelson6563]

68. That's what they say!

Whoever "they" are...

[limpyhobbler]

80. LOL indeed I've heard that too!

[lalalu]

69. I am tired of hearing this same line.

This is the same crap that was used to justify taking away from middle class and working Americans. The line was that American workers could afford to lose jobs and see their wages lowered a little to help the less fortunate in other countries. Yeah that turned out well.

Most people in the middle who have a little extra to spend have worked damn hard for it. I have top of the line health care coverage and I earned it. I also took lower wages in return for better benefits. I am tired of people behaving like we did something wrong because we made the right choice when so many at the time didn't give a damn about health care. There were a lot of people at the top who had inflated Enron type 401K plans and thought they could just purchase health care.

So those of us who made smarter choices, sacrifices, and worked hard are suppose to feel guilty if we choose to spend money on ourselves for something extra? We still have analog TVs in some of our rooms and I drive a 5 year old car. Yet when i want to spend my money on something new it is my right. If people have a problem with that then screw them and screw the revolution.

The biggest problem facing this country is the fact that many of the foot soldiers who use to help in the revolution have dropped out. Many get government help and live in subsidized housing and don't feel they need to be involved. Other have been told that committing crimes to get by is not their fault so they live by committing petty crimes and a revolving door of prison. Just imagine if these street gangs turned their anger towards corporations instead of each other. BTW, in the past that was done and why we had protests in the streets. But we can't discuss that because it isn't PC so instead blame some working class sucker.

[JNelson6563]

93. Not sure where to begin...

But then again, you have made "smarter choices" and aren't struggling so perhaps I, a lowly working poor who struggles, don't have a high enough powered intellect to dialogue with someone who is so obviously superior to those of us in the "have not" column.

But, from what I can gather from your nearly coherent post, I'm the one with the elitist mindset(?).

I reckon you learned such reasoning skills at some fancy school that perhaps we who have obviously made stupid choices didn't attend?

Wow.

Julie

[lalalu]

99. Try again

I attended public schools, some of the best, and I am very proud of it. Yes, I attended and graduated from a top college but that was partly due to a great public education. My child also attended public schools and is now doing graduate research at one of the top universities in the nation. Again that is partly due to attending great public schools.

So your theory about an elitist school is as wrong as the rest of your post. The irony is that the elitist are people who assume people who make right choices only attended elite schools. I happen to believe a public school education is the best. It is one of many decisions I made that many people like you would probably be the first person to look down on.

Many people complaining now are the same ones who didn't give a damn before when they thought they would be living the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Some of us chose to embrace our working class or middle class backgrounds. We lived within our means and didn't think having an MBA or being a Yuppie was our ultimate goal. So I will be damned if someone is going to lecture us because they chose a different path. If i want to spend my money I will because I earned the right.

Welcome to the revolution. It has always been here, how nice of some of you to finally drop by.

[JNelson6563]

112. Do continue.

Rugged individualists that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps looking down their noses at others. I love it!

No one cares if you spend your money. You're obviously not terribly concerned about those stupid "have nots" therefore you're not one hoping for revolution. Why you even clicked this thread I'll never know.

Oh and my previous response to you was pretty much tongue in cheek sarcasm. At least the parts about you being smart and stuff like that there.

Julie

[lalalu]

113. Rugged individualists who are proud of attending public schools?

You are trying to create a scenario that only exists in your mind. Some of us stuck to our principles. This thread is like all the others by people who sold their souls and now want to blame everyone for what they did.

Go try again because once again you have failed. I didn't vote for Reagan or any idiot member of the Bush clan. As Joy Behar once said some of us aren't running from the word liberal. I am tired of those who did trying to lay their guilt trip on everyone. All those Reagan democrats who suddenly found the light.

[Skittles]

101. WHOA

get off your high horse - you are not the only person who WORKED HARD and "EARNED" - what a snotty attitude you have

[lalalu]

114. That is what you don't get and probably never will

It is not just about working hard and earning things. It is about choices made and how you apply what you have learned. I learned from those who fought for us and worked hard to make things better. I learned from them that healthcare and social security were sacred. I learned from them that yes unions could be corrupt but their good contributions far outweighed that. I learned from them and applied it to choices I made in my life.

A lot of people preaching and pointing fingers now are the same ones who sold out and now want to behave as if everyone sold out. Not true and I am tired of this crap. They need to own up to their collusion in national policies that got us here. Stop pretending some hardworking chump is responsible.

[Skittles]

117. OMG!!!

bye bye!!!!!!!!!!!

[a geek named Bob]

118. You're leaving?

Take a flashlight with you... It's dark out there.

[Skittles]

121. naw - just deciding not to waste any more time

[lalalu]

120. Bye

[coalition_unwilling]

71. I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread. There does not seem

to be any 'bad news' (or even any 'news' at all) contained herein.

I want the massive and excessive concentrations of wealth in this country to end (where the 6 WalMart heirs control as much wealth between them as the bottom 30 million Americans combined, for example). If that happens via democratic processes, so much the better. If it requires a revolution, so be it.

[JNelson6563]

92. It's a perspective thing.

For those wanting revolution, there is bad news because it's not going to happen as they hope.

Julie

[coalition_unwilling]

103. What bad news? Am I being too literal minded? - n/t

[NCTraveler]

76. Why do you....

think "There are way too many folks out there who have it reasonably comfortable" is bad news? People who want a revolution at the current time in the US need to line up with the teabaggers and doomsdayers. I really don't understand why you think you are bearing bad news here.

"I knew a woman who was pretty poor and struggled every month to get by. She got a massive tax refund one year being a single mom with two little ones. Thousands of dollars. She could have paid her bills and had a very nice cushion moving forward. Instead she bought a huge flat-screen TV and lots of other stuff that nobody needs because she felt deprived. This was obviously effective marketing at work."

Or she wanted something nice in her life. Maybe the nice tv was enough to get her kids to sit down and watch educational programs. Maybe family movie night. Or are you upset that she was on food stamps. Is that the part that was left hanging on the tip of your tongue.

Most people don't think revolutionary change is needed. Mainly because it is not. Change is needed, just not on the scale that many extremists fell it is.

[JNelson6563]

88. Oh my. You couldn't be more wrong.

The "bad news" was for those pining for revolution, it ain't comin'.

As to the woman in question, actually she bought the $4000 flat-screen for her boyfriend who hit her kids and was all around a jerk. She and he shared an opiate addiction. They ignored the kids other than to buy them cheap crap from time to time. They played video games, snorted crushed morphine pills and watched movies on their giant TV.

They didn't get food stamps because they both collected unemployment and she got child support from the dads of her kids so they didn't qualify~too much income for cash-strapped, fascist run MI to give them benefits.

I mostly felt sorry for her being so mired in that world she couldn't see clearly enough to make smarter choices.

This was a few years ago. Her addiction got so bad she moved back to Montana with her kids so that she could get help from her family. That didn't happen, she graduated to injecting the drugs and prostitution to buy them. Her kids are in foster care, she was headed for prison but had hep C and was 7 months pregnant and a raging heroin addiction. That is the last I heard of this tragic tale.

Any other details I can provide so you don't continue making erroneous assumptions?

Julie

[NCTraveler]

123. So she makes poor choices in every area of her life...

But the tv was because of marketing? Not because her abusive bf demanded. My post stands.

[JNelson6563]

124. She told me

she wanted one because everyone had one and they were so much cooler than the old style TV.

Just going by what she said. Apply whatever you want to it.

Julie

[NCTraveler]

125. Keeps evolving.

Nice. Well they are much better than the old style.

[limpyhobbler]

82. I would like to recommend you this David Harvey video.

He addresses many of the same points you raised.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101782400

[ChazII]

83. K&R

Your thread gives me food for thought.

[Fire Walk With Me]

87. That we are even discussing revolution reveals that it is already occurring.

Of course it will not be due to 100% of any population becoming involved. It comes from just enough of them becoming involved, and it is said that 10% is the genuine tipping point. We are already there.

[JNelson6563]

90. So I've been told upthread.

I would love to see change happen, I'm one who would benefit as would my kids.

I do think there is an increasing awareness for the need for change and there are pockets of organized activism (most notably Occupy) but I'm talking about all out chaos in the streets sort of revolution. I believe some want to see it come to that & I contend it will not occur in that way.

Julie

[Fire Walk With Me]

94. I don't want chaos or fighting in the streets ala' Greece, etc. I'm too old and am disabled.

Not appealing to me. I know that we can win this through simple force of numbers. Look at what's happening to Rush Limbaugh. The same thing has begun to happen to other unacceptable aspects of our world, thankfully.

[JNelson6563]

96. I hadn't gotten that impression from you.

Didn't figure you for an anarchy-in-the-streets sort of revolutionary. I agree about the force of numbers. Somehow we have to convince those who are not quite as bad off to join us.

Julie

[Fire Walk With Me]

115. Remember that we've just seen a strike against Walmart.

The largest strike against the largest employer. One month ago, there were two actions. This week, one thousand. And the concepts of fair pay, income inequality, and solidarity are becoming more than buzzwords or water cooler conversation, they're becoming a trend

[kentuck]

111. Yep, you're right about that Julie..

They have manipulated this capitalist system to the point where they know exactly how many pennies it takes for people to survive and they don't go a penny farther.

[JNelson6563]

116. It sure seems that way, doesn't it?

They are exacting bastards.

Thanks for the comment!

Julie

[hrmjustin]

122. Interesting read.