REFORMING AMERICA: Will it take a revolution to get real change?

[Zhade]

Simple yes/no poll. Comments welcome.

Note to mods: I am neither condemning nor condoning the concept of a revolution. I am not endorsing violence or violent acts.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

1. Yes but--

I doubt you and I would like the change we would likely get.

[rinsd]

23. Agreed...

Revolutions tend to be funny that way.

[Jim__]

62. Which is why you don't want a revolution.

I agree, most of us won't like what we get. We have a vote in this country. We CAN change this country through the vote. It takes lots of hard work, lots of convincing of people who don't want to be convinced. But in the end, it's the only way to get what you want. A violent revolution will not bring about the situation you're looking for.

[IrateCitizen]

66. Why must it be assumed that revolution has to be violent?

See my post #63 at the bottom of the thread.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Either a revolution or France, Germany, & Spain will have to invade us

in order to restore our democracy. (I know, I know, this country isn't a true democracy. But I still would like to utilize democratic principles in order for the representatives and administration to be accountable to its citizens.)

[Rowdyboy]

3. Sprayed keyboard with coffee!

France invading America? Sorry, I respect and admire the French for their government, art, culture and food. Their military capabilities, however, are roughly equal to that of the Italians!

The combined armed forces of France, Germany and Spain would have difficulty controlling Newark or Detroit, much less the whole country! Don't hold your breath...

[Bandit]

21. Yes and Iraq is a cake walk also

We are sooo mighty that no one can even come close. What hogwash. We can't even get Osama Bin Laden in a country of nothing but mountain people. No military at all, none in Iraq either but they are doing a job on the Mighty USA.

[Eye and Monkey]

46. Perhaps they could just send some baguettes and a few cheeses?

You know, war as a sort of food-fight.

[mouse7]

50. Wrong: Get Arab countries to switch oil transactions to the Euro.

If Arab countries switched their oil transaction from the dollar to the Euro, there would be an instantaneous economic depression in this country that would make the Great Depression look like a mediocre quarterly earnings report in comparison.

Europe DOES HAVE the ability to change the government of this country if they get pissed off enough.

[sweetheart]

4. The revolution of bankruptcy

Will do, as it has in the collpase of innumerable empires of
recent ages. (britain, france, germany, hapsburg, spain, etc. etc.)

The trick with these flag-cult assholes, is to smile and be nonviolent.
Without violence, their entire modus operendi is overturned and
the money on their weapons is wasted.

A key to bankruptcy is to increase the military budget.

At least we're on track.

[eurolefty]

5. I agree

I believe the U.S. will bankrupt itself on military spending just like the Soviet Union did.

(I'd prefer strong U.S. economy, it would be better for all of us.)

[sweetheart]

6. welcome to DU, eurolefty

:party:

We need more Finns around here. As you've been living nearby, did
you see the signs of the USSR overstretch in your youth?

[eurolefty]

10. thanks, nice forum you've got

As you've been living nearby, did you see the signs of the USSR overstretch in your youth?

I'd say I saw as much as any tourist could. It was a totalitarian society after all, so information was not exactly flowing freely.

But still, even in the early 80's it did look to me as a system that was going to collapse. For example, when we were there we used to hire local teachers as guides/drivers/translators and they told us that they could not survive on their wages alone. Military seemed to be the only sector of society that was doing somewhat O.K. economically back then.

BTW, when I was growing up I was a huge Jimmy Carter fan. :) I couldn't understand his words, but on TV he sounded like a nice man who would not bomb us.O8)

Everybody was scared of nuclear war back then. And of course we kids thought we would be pre-emptively hit with American missiles in case there was some major conflict between the US and USSR.

(Edit:Looks like I'm too tired to type in English.:) )

[forgethell]

9. Remember, though,

the Soviet Union bankrupted itself trying to maintain parity with the United States. The US is wealthy enough to maintain a powerful military and still provide a comfortable standard of living for its people.

[IrateCitizen]

12. No, it isn't.

The middle class of the United States is crumbling as we speak. We are rapidly moving back to a society of wealthy landlords, masses of serfs and peasants -- with a small professional/merchant class. Historically speaking, this sort of arrangement has not generally made for a happy populace.

This year's deficit alone is somewhere around $500 billion. Our trade deficit is much the same. How much longer do you think it can continue? We hollowed out our industrial base in order to give favorable trade terms to Japan and South Korea and placate them for permitting a large US military presence on their soil. The resulting shift to a finance economy has resulted in businesses simply seeking the highest rate of return -- which has meant even more capital being moved out of the country. Our economy is less and less about actually making things, and more and more about simply trading money. Such arrangements are not inherently stable.

The average household has credit card debt of approximately $8000. People are going into debt to just pay for basic necessities -- housing, transportation, etc. Real estate in most major metropolitan areas is a major bubble. How much will it take to set off a chain reaction wave of foreclosures and depression of housing values?

The main difference between the US and USSR wasn't that we were able to provide a massive military and decent standard of living for our citizens, and they weren't. The main difference is that we were wealthier than they were both resource-wise and economically, which simply drew out our decline longer than theirs was.

[Zhade]

27. And, let's not forget the $7,000,000,000,000 federal debt.

NT!

[mouse7]

51. There is money for strong military, but filthy-rich need to pay up.

The filthy rich get their fortunes defended from being taken from them by the US Military. They should be paying for the true cost of said security.

[IrateCitizen]

59. But that would destroy their entire profit margin

If the rich truly had to burdent the costs, don't you think that they'd decide that the costs weren't worth the benefits?

Note: by costs, I'm referring not only to financial costs, but to actually having to send their sons and daughters to fight and DIE to secure their profits.

[dpibel]

64. Elephant? I don't see no steenking elephant

Edited to fix the tragic consequences of posting before I proof.

Isn't it amazing how this is a forbidden topic in American political discourse?

We're encouraged -- nay instructed -- to wax righteously outraged at the hideous waste of money on "welfare." We can discuss whether or not we should continue to waste money on Amtrak. We can snort over those crazy research boondoggles.

We're not permitted to understand that the entire budget for all forms of assistance (AFDC, educational subsidies, food support, and the like) represents about a month of military spending. The Amtrak subsidy is worth about a day. All the science boondoggles put together don't total more than 15 minute of military spending.

But, in order to be electable, a presidential candidate must promise to continue the endless escalation of the military budget (although the candidate may take the radical stance that the escalation might concievably take place at a marginally slower rate).

I find I can startle people a lot by mentioning the patently obvious fact that 50 cents of each of their income tax dollars disappears down the military rathole. One of the cutest misdirections is lumping together income tax with payroll tax, and making pie charts based on those figures. It both overamps the "social programs" piece of pie, and makes the military spending wedge look like a mere 25-33%.

[Zhade]

70. $11,000 a SECOND. That's all I have to say.

Actually, with the increase in "defense" spending, it's probably even higher now.

We could pay for basic necessities for every single person on the planet with a 15% reduction in the Pentagon's budget. But nooooo, that would be socialism.

"Let them eat war!" cried the Imperials...

[forgethell]

57. Huh??

"The main difference between the US and USSR wasn't that we were able to provide a massive military and decent standard of living for our citizens, and they weren't. The main difference is that we were wealthier than they were both resource-wise and economically, which simply drew out our decline longer than theirs was."

We were wealthy enough to do both, they weren't. This was years ago, and things may have changed, but it doesn't change the facts that they were unable to compete with us. The United States will not last forever, any more than any other nation. But it is not going to go downhill tomorrow, either, even if * is re-elected. Of course, you may not want to live here if he is

[IrateCitizen]

58. When you can't counter facts, simply repeat your false assertion

It's interesting to note that you excerpted only the HYPOTHESIS in my post, and completely ignored the data that I used to help back up my conclusions.

Then, you went on to simply restate your initial (flawed) opinion, without any sort of factual backup.

While such tactics may prove beneficial when you are simply looking to feel "right", they do little to advance the cause of intellectually honest debate. Now, if you are truly interested in the latter, I would appreciate (for not just my sake, but that of the entire board) if you would go back and challenge the assertions I make in my argument in order to back up my hypothesis, rather than the hypothesis itself without any sort of backup or context.

Thank you.

[IrateCitizen]

72. Guess I was right in my assertion.... (nt)

[eurolefty]

19. We'll see what happens in about 10-15 years

The US is wealthy enough to maintain a powerful military and still provide a comfortable standard of living for its people.

To me it looks like your national debt is skyrocketing. So, the economic path (i.e., huge military spending) that has been chosen by your politicians does not seem viable in the long term.

[IrateCitizen]

20. You forgot about trade deficit and consumer debt, eurolefty

Both of which are skyrocketing in addition to national debt.

Our nation is literally hemmoraging money in order to keep this massive military afloat. It can only do this for so long -- I think your 10-15 year mark might be pretty accurate.

[bobbieinok]

40. wasn't Prussia called a military supported by a state??

[dpibel]

65. Biggest game of keeping up with the Joneses in history

The Joneses park their new boat in their driveway. You buy one so big you have to keep it at the marina. They remodel their kitchen with rainforest mahogany; you do yours with marble counters. They add a thousand square feet to their McMansion; you add 2K and a guesthouse.

Finally, the Joneses file for bankruptcy.

That does not mean your debt is cleared. They ran out of credit before you did. But you're still hovering on the feather edge, trying to keep up with those monthly payments.

[Zhade]

24. HA! I love your sig line. Very clever.

:)

[ConcernedCanuk]

45. Welcome to DU eurolefty

.
.
.

Hope you find this forum as informative as I do.

Enjoy your stay!

:toast: . :toast: . :toast: . :toast: . :toast: . :toast:

Quite the perceptive sigline you have there too!

Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way round.

[IrateCitizen]

7. You summed it up quite nicely, sweetheart!

The trick with these flag-cult assholes, is to smile and be nonviolent.
Without violence, their entire modus operendi is overturned and
the money on their weapons is wasted.

The only thing I would add to this is the need, when confronted with a violent backlash, to become more resolute in the face of state power.

For instance, if you have a crowd of 100,000 and the police arrest 1,000 -- you have to come back into the street with 200,000 the next day. And 300,000 the day after that. Therefore, the state's sanctions will be undermined and their base of power effectively eliminated.

Have you ever read Gene Sharp's Social Power and Political Freedom? It touches on these concepts in some great detail, and I think you'd appreciate it.

[Zhade]

22. I'm also of the opinion that Peak Oil will play an enormous role.

One of three things will happen:

1) The War Machine will eventually grind to a halt, or at least be significantly slowed down;

2) The Pentagon and DARPA will reveal they have some fantastic new source of energy that, alas, can only be utilized for "defense";

or

3) We'll see tanks and planes equipped with lots and lots o' solar panels! :silly:

In all seriousness, though, I do believe this will be a huge factor. When the American sheeple are forced to go without heat so that our Imperial Army can march into Syria, Iran, or downtown San Francisco, there will be violent clashes between citizens and the government. It's inevitable, I think.

[IrateCitizen]

26. Forget about going without heat -- it will reach a head when...

... all the retirees in AZ and FL are forced to go without air conditioning!

[Eye and Monkey]

47. Would that create a Repo-cracy?

[IrateCitizen]

8. Yes it will -- but not the kind most are thinking of

As Chalmers Johnson writes in his conclusion to the book The Sorrows of Empire -- the only way that the United States can stop its slide into militarism and decline (and the sorrows of bankruptcy, tyranny and war that accompany that decline) is if citizens re-establish control over the nation's institutions and COMPLETELY dismantle the Pentagon and Intelligence apparatus.

Sadly, I don't see such an event happening anytime soon....

On the flip side, if this doesn't happen, then it is inevitable that the United States will essentially collapse under its own weight. But the calamities that will go along with those of us unfortunate enough to be caught in the debris will be quite trying, indeed.

[truthspeaker]

11. Ask me in November

Three possibilities:

1. Kerry wins. Kerry's no saint, but he's more vulnerable to pressure from the Democratic base than Bush is.

2. Bush wins legitimately. I'll conclude Americans don't want their freedom and high-tail it to Canada.

3. Bush steals the election. If this happens it's time to fight. Nonviolently at first, but if that doesn't work it's showtime.

[Zhade]

29. "he's more vulnerable to pressure from the Democratic base than Bush is"

But is he? Really?

Considering his recent voting record, I don't agree, unfortunately.

Of all your options, I consider #3 the foregone conclusion. Theft, or a refusal to leave the White House.

[Bill Todd]

13. Only a revolution within the Democratic party is necessary

That's why I can't understand why so many apparently intelligent people are so anxious to jump aboard the Kerry bandwagon right now, while Kerry and the party are still spewing out the same-old, same-old platitudes. The way things are going, the general campaign will be almost completely negative, because neither candidate has much to offer the electorate that they actually want (other then Bush with his mad-dog positions on terrorism and taxes and Kerry with his environmental record).

Such elections result in low voter turnouts, comprising largely the base (thanks, DLC and co-conspirators, for having eliminated a candidate with a far broader reach than that). Throw in Nader to skim off the votes of people who prefer to vote *for* someone rather than just against the worse of two evils, and you've got a prescription for a Bush win, possibly a decisive one.

The party still has time to regroup and present a vision for America that repudiates the tired (and for the past decade excruciatingly ineffective) approach championed by the DLC. If the people disgusted with Bush really want him out, they'll demand this now rather than line up behind Kerry and the party in their current incarnations.

- bill

[Zhade]

30. Dead-on post. Great clarity - and your first post, too!

Welcome to DU - we're always glad to have clear-thinking people like yourself aboard! :)

[mouse7]

53. Better idea is forming a real voting progressive caucus in Party

The left needs to gather it's strength as a block within the Democratic Party, and create a voting progressive caucus within the Party. This group would have it's own conventions prior to state and national conventions and vote as a block on all party rules, platforms and candidates for public and party offices.

You want to see change? Get 40 people together and walk into your county Dem committee monthly meetings with 40 people voting as a progressive block on every vote on all party business.

If we had the discipline to do that, The party would be back on track in a single 4 year election cycle.

[TX-RAT]

14. Yes

I think history proves that.

[Justpat]

15. Good points here so far

I have been thinking about this since the Clinton impeachment
debacle.

As already noted, it takes tremendous group resolve to pull it off.
Passive resisitance will only work if a large percentage of the
population agrees that things must change.

The conservative nuts talk about "starving the beast", meaning to
cut funding for all social programs and hurl them into the scrap heap.

They need to be informed that the starvation process
can work both ways. We can starve the right wing beast that has
taken over our government by refusing to pay taxes. Such ideas
are dismissed by almost everyone as total quackery. But I feel that
we have come to a point in history where we must decided whether
or not we truly wish to continue as a free people living under a
democracy - or accept the form of government we have morphed into
under the Patriot Act.

My husband and I have lost everything under in the last three years
under Bush's agenda. We lost our life savings and our health insurance. I am one of those people who have nothing left to lose
and boy, am I pissed.

[Neecy]

18. good points

The only way to put a dagger in the heart of the capitalist beast is with a General Strike. Unfortunately, things have to get FAR worse than they are now (and will get, should Bunnypants steal this election, too). The only way for real reform isn't violent, it's simply to lay down your tools, your pen, and walk off the job. The only way not to be treated as proles and as cannon fodder is to stop the wheels of industry in their tracks.

Won't happen, but it's better than riots in the streets.

[dpibel]

41. Hey! Yew Outside Agitator

Yew ain't wunna them damned red Wobs are ya?

Prolly go around singin' Joe Hill songs, too.

Don't you go paraphrasin' ol' Joe Ettor, neither. None of that cross your arms and bring the whole thing to a standstill.

Seriously, I've long been an advocate of mass economic action. But when you bring it up, even around here, people go all sad and start talking about people losing their jobs, and destroying the economy and such.

My response: Why are you so worried about people losing their jobs? People are losing their jobs anyway. Why worry about the economy grinding to a halt? It's dying as it is.

Might as well have those things happen to some good end.

[Zhade]

42. "Might as well have those things happen to some good end."

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Some people seem to think there's going to be a white knight riding in to save America. Well, here's a tip: there won't be.

WE have to take back America. There's no savior out there just over the horizon. In fact, placing all our hopes in candidate X over the years has done nothing but institutionalize our own helplessness.

It's all going to hell anyway, regardless of which crook we pick to weave the handbasket.

[Zhade]

31. Well, remember that the American Revolution only had about 17% approval.

At least, that is my understanding. I could be mistaken.

I am extremely unhappy to hear that you have been so adversely affected. That is terrible!

We're all in this together. I hope everyone realizes that what happened to you and your husband can happen to anyone in Imperial America.

[Beam Me Up]

16. There are different kinds of Revolutions

The most fundamental revolution needed is a revolution in consciousness...a change in our understanding of who and what we are and what our relationships and responsibilities are to ourselves and one another.

Last Saturday before going to the demonstration I posted a long excerpt from US Astronaut Russell Sweickart describing his experiences in Near Earth Orbit. He very eloquetly expresses the "Revolution in Consciousness" I'm speaking of.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1257672

[Zhade]

32. Absolutely true. The indoctrination of America must end.

I've seen many people who I love and respect taken in by the corporate media propaganda and government lies that we've all been fed since birth. I myself was once "in the Matrix".

Even here, at DU - this wonderful assortment of people - the propaganda on some issues (Haiti and Venezuela, for example) has taken root. It's very alarming.

[mhr]

17. The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed ......

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

[everythingsxen]

35. Yes indeed...

Though my sig line has added different quotes and changed some over time, it has always included that one by Jefferson. No other quote has been my guide more.

[strategery blunder]

38. Another applicable Jefferson quote

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing....It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government....God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

[everythingsxen]

39. Heh

Damn I love Jefferson. That man was brilliant.

[LSdemocrat]

25. A second Great Depression would do it

Personally I think we are one the verge of a second Great Depression at some point in the next ten years, caused by the massive debt bubble in this country which will burst as soon as interest rates start rising again.

At that point, I believe, we will have the chance to install a second New Deal, with the centerpiece being a single-payer health insurance plan.

[everythingsxen]

28. Irony alert

I think this was summed up best by George Lucas in Attack of the Clones quoth Padme - "The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it."

In a larger piece of irony though, as I searched for that quote I found this site:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/Bush-Palpatine.html

Can you tell the difference between your President and your Emperor?

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

33. It's pretty clear it's not working, unfortunately.

And he's not MY president. He's an illegal occupant of the White House.

:evilgrin:

[everythingsxen]

36. We don't know that for sure

I may be big on my talks of how bad things are and I will be the first to resort to doom and gloom answers...

However, Democracy may yet prevail. When the election comes this year, we will see...

Of course then you start to say things like "Well the corporations that control Bush might control Kerry as well..." and thats where things get really messy.

Some day there will be true democracy though. By the people, for the people and of the people.

[rucky]

34. Naw...the Cons have had their day in the sun

it's a trend that's reversing fast.

[rocktivity]

37. There all all kinds of ways to revolt

and they don't have to be married to violence or even to getting attention. For instance, if you come to DU to get your "real" news and watch Faux news mainly for laughs, you can consider yourself a revolutionary for cutting yourself loose from mainstream media dependency!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Beam Me Up]

43. I'll second that

I don't watch television AT ALL, not even for laughs. Hey, Madison Avenue and Wall Street, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT! One less consumer on the commercial tit.

[FlemingsGhost]

44. Note to mods: I * AM * condoning the concept of a revolution.

It won't be in the traditional manner, however.

"Revolution" will give way to political evolution. In the same spirit that moved our political leaders to systematically usurp the power from the people, the citizens of this nation will find a way to take it back.

In fact, I believe we are living the embryonic stages this very moment...

[Trajan]

48. Wanna know what the 'Revolution' will look like ?? ..

Think: Palestine .... except on a grander scale ...

Attempts to overthrow a government are, generally speaking, rarely a successful campaign ... and usually bloody to some degree ....

I understand agitation or non-violence ... but frankly: ... Revolution is hardly a decent road to Utopia ... Granny and Junior will find it REALLY difficult to enjoy much personal security if all hell is breaking loose everywhere ...

The word carries connotations that arent favorable to us, and brings a more negative tense to our message ... An honest to goodness 'Revolution' is a bona fide sedition which is sure to cause ALOT of problems, probably more thn one already has ...

This is hardly the kind of talk one would use on the campaign stump ....

Count me out of the 'Revolution' talk ....

[FlemingsGhost]

49. Really?... delete your post then, Trajan.

"Count me out of the 'Revolution' talk ...."

Too late. You've already weighed-in on the subject.

For what it's worth, I wish you hadn't. Your vision shows a genuine lack of imagination. Please... make good on your promise, and refrain from participating in any further "'Revolution talk."

mkay?

[Trajan]

52. What makes YOU different ....

Than Rightists who desire the overthrow of government ? ..

WHAT difference does it make to MY kids and THEIR grandmother WHO the hell is firing weapons outside the door ?? ...

To wish revolution is to wish possible societal upheaval, in which case ANY sort of result may occur ... not necessarily the one YOU choose ...

WHY would anyone here wish war in our own streets ? ..

Why would anyone here wish to act with a martial spirit ?? ..

Isnt the militarism of the right WHY we despise them ? ... Hell: you havent exhausted ALL possible peaceful means of changing government policies: you are simply leaping to the worst case, hardly mindful that perhaps there is some interim approach that might effect the same end, WITHOUT grandma's head being skewered on a stake ....

Frankly: Anarchy is a less desirable result than an imperfect republic ... Any one with an inkling of historical knowledge knows that revolution, like war, should ONLY be a last resort ...

And: I wont remove this post, since this is how I feel ...

I wont be intimidated from this position ... how is THAT for freedom ? ... eh ? ...

[dpibel]

54. Why is revolution per se violent?

I think revolution means a radical change in the system of governance. It's true you can find instances -- the American, French, and Russian revolutions come to mind -- where revolution was violent and bloody.

You can also look at the Indian independence struggle. While certainly involving violence, it did not involve the streets running red with blood, and a total breakdown of societal norms. Similarly, the US Civil Rights movement which was pretty revolutionary (it resulted, after all, in major changes in de facto and de jure segregation). Again, while marred with violence, it was not chaos on the scale you are suggesting is the necessary predicate for revolution.

More recently, Poland and Hungary succeeded in throwing off a repressive regime with hardly any violence at all. That was a matter of mass, coordinated, peaceful confrontation.

You may say that the latter examples only worked because the oppressor, the Soviet Union, was crumbling. That adjective may well apply to the United States. Things aren't going all that well here, y'know.

To be honest, in my moments of (your choice) greatest realism or greatest cynicism, I've always argued that, should there be a rerun (or a bigger and better version) of the Great Depression, modern Americans would demand totalitarianism. I certainly believe that, if we wait for things to really break down, your vision of chaos and bloodshed will surely come true.

So doesn't it make sense to discuss radical change (a less inflammatory way of saying that "R" word) before things get out of hand. I haven't noticed anyone here advocating a quick dash to the barricades. If I'm missing the point of the original poster and those who have responded, and we're all operating on your assumption that it's either marginal reform or all-out war, then I apologize for my starry-eyed romanticism, and will fade forthwith into the woodwork.

But I'm of the opinion that (as already mentioned by an earlier poster) the true economic power in this country lies with the consumers, not the producers. It's a wonderful bit of work that's been done convincing the populace otherwise. But that propagandization doesn't make the concept true.

If the majority in this country determined to withhold their economic power, things would change rather quickly. I really doubt that even our well-conditioned military would be up for the task of ordering people to shop or be shot.

Do I think such a scenario is likely? I do not. Overcoming a lifetime of near-cultish indoctrination that one could never do better than live in America as presently constituted is a very difficult matter indeed.

But I think the alternative -- whistling past the graveyard and applying baling wire and chewing gum while the whole thing comes apart -- will lead just as surely to the result you so fervently decry.

Try to organize people to work together for radical change, with its attendant risks; or keep them fat and happy, with the risks attendant on that? I'd just as soon go for the former.

[IrateCitizen]

60. You're not alone in this one, dpibel!

Try to organize people to work together for radical change, with its attendant risks; or keep them fat and happy, with the risks attendant on that? I'd just as soon go for the former.

As would I, simply because it is the best hope for staving off complete collapse of societal norms.

Most people don't realize that power in an society -- whether it be a democracy or a dictatorship -- flows from the people to the rulers, NOT the other way around. And if you look at every sector of our society -- governmental, economic, militarily, etc. -- each and every one is characterized by power centers that are fully dependent on the acquiescence and cooperation of the masses in order to survive.

People like to say that we're dependent on corporations for our jobs and lives. To that, I say BULLSHIT! THEY are actually dependent on US many times more than we are dependent on them. The trick is to opt out of buying all the shit you don't need and hoarding your own possessions against those of your neighbors -- and instead cut back on your material "wants" and organize people into cooperative groups.

The main reason we're so dependent on corporations for our livelihoods is because we're all so damned selfish. Imagine what kind of impact people could have if they actually shared resources to pull each other through the difficulty that would result from taking on the power of such an entity. Imagine the kind of cooperative economy that might come out on the other side of it.

But no, it's much easier to simply ACCEPT the indoctrination that we've all received and go on, living our lives, trying just to be fat and happy. Well, the crash is going to come one way or another -- so at least we might as well try and prepare for it in hopes of establishing something BETTER on the other side!

[mhr]

55. To Answer Your Question - As Popeye Said

"I cans stands so much but can't stands no more.'

Unlike you, many of us have little left to live for.

Our American dream is slowly and surely being stripped from us before our eyes.

If your American dream still exists, then fight for reform.

For many of us the only option left is revolution!

Reform is much too slow and most of us will be dead waiting for the changes to occur.

'nuff said.

[Zhade]

56. "WHY would anyone here wish war in our own streets ?"

To be fair, no one here is wishing that. You simply threw that out there, while it has no basis in fact on this thread. No one is even calling for a revolution, let alone a violent one.

No one is wishing for anarchy.

Your viewpoint is certainly one you're free to express, but I do think you jumped the gun on the poster. There was no wishing for war of any kind.

[vetwife]

61. Civil disobedience

If they, whoever they be...would start a revolution...they could not win. they would be outgunned, outmanned, and out of luck. The intelligence is far beyond our own grasps of things that the DOD
does possess. Anger makes one feel powerless and I can identify. I just know it would be like one state in the confederacy of the civil war era trying to take on the entire Union soldiers. It would mean death and prison.
I do agree that the UN would start by making sanctions against the US but who has the military might of THIS superpower? The International countries know this. They sit in awe of what is happening here. This is all unraveling and the first twine was pulled in the 2000 election. The masses will have to come together and that is not going to happen . This country will be divided even after the election in Nove,ber. I fear for ths nation. Tis a bit like Rome don't you think? Just before the Fall?

[IrateCitizen]

63. I don't think you understand the tenents of nonviolent noncooperation

Such an effort would, due to the overwhelming capacity of force on the other side, HAVE to be nonviolent in order to work.

Please see dpibel's posts on this thread, because they are definitely hinting at the origins of such an effort.

Why such a concept is beyond the capacity of most people to comprehend is because it is something that flies in the face of everything that we've been conditioned to believe as basic truth. For one, it eschews the idea that violent force is the most effective tool toward achieving significant change. Second, it is dependent on vast networks of cooperation over selfish accumulation in order to see the way through the tough times to come. Third, it realizes that the true source of power within society lies not in institutions themselves, but rather in the cooperation with those institutions by the majority of the populace. If you take away that cooperation, the institution will simply crumble.

Now, I'll provide a model. Let's say that you have a general strike in a big city. One of the first responses of the government would be to crack down on that strike through oppressive coersion. The immediate reaction of most people is to do one of two things -- either to submit to the coersion and resume passive cooperation, or to take up arms against it. What we don't realize is that there is a THIRD way, which is to intensify noncooperation.

It is undeniable that, should troops be called in to quash the rebellion, their actions WOULD be violent. But that violence can only continue for so long in the face of nonviolent resistance. I mean, on a human level, you can only expect a soldier to give so many buttstrokes to the heads of people who are not doing anything to resist such actions without going insane. The individual soldiers will then start defying the orders of their commanders. This, in turn, will result in the commanders instituting harsh measures for disobeying orders. But, once again, soldiers can only participate in such actions for so long without turning on their commanders.

Thereby, the entire base of power is completely undermined. Does it involve suffering and sacrifice? You betcha. But it involves, over the long haul, considerably less suffering and sacrifice over the long haul than a violent response or acceding to the state's demands would take. Furthermore, it sets up the capacity for a DECENTRALIZED power structure from which tyranny through violent coersion would be much less likely to arise in the future.

Like I said, it involves challenging the things we've been conditioned to believe as basic truths. But it CAN work. In fact, I would propose that such actions are really just about the only true option we have for a reasonable chance of future success.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. That was the genius of Gandhi's movement. eom

[rdfi-defi]

68. "sets up capacity for a DECENTRALIZED power structure...........

such actions are really just about the only true option we have for a reasonable chance of future success."

ic, your posts always hit the nail on the head

[Zhade]

71. Brilliant post!

NT!

[Zhade]

69. It is exactly like Rome before the fall.

I agree with the fact that they have overwhelming force.

That doesn't guarantee victory on their side, however. The Iraqi resistance seems to be holding its own against the illegal invaders in Iraq. Not that I'm glad that there are deaths on either side, mind you.

I'll tell you one thing, though: suspension of the Constitution would be grounds for revolution, up to and including violence, because the social compact would have finally been completely and totally broken.

Let's all hope that we never get to that point.