“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …”

[Cyrano]

As many of you know, those words are the opening lines to Charles Dickens’, “A Tale of Two Cities.” Before Dickens’ tale ended, the French wheeled out a guillotine and beheaded the haves, and anyone else who owned silk clothing, or a horse-drawn coach.

What followed was called the Reign of Terror. And then along came Napoleon whose wars bankrupted France.

Today, it is the best of times for the haves and the worst of times for all the rest of us. But not much bodes well for us and where we are today as a country. Even if we exile the current “haves,” what then? How long will it take to rebuild the society they’ve destroyed over the past few decades?

As hard as things are now, we are in for even harder times. And in the meantime, we have to stay on our guard to not come under the heels of those who would attempt to take control and further grind us into the dust. Worst of all, they will come as our “saviors,” not our oppressors. It’s an age old game that’s been played for millennia.

But then, all of this assumes we can overthrow our current oppressors. I’d really like to hear your opinion on what our chances are of becoming a free people. Or at least as free as anyone can hope to be among our species.

[Goldstein1984]

1. "...we are in for even harder times."

My opinion is that people are not suffering enough to overcome their fear of the consequences of challenging the status quo. The system is intentionally set up (the marketplace) so that the nonviolent acts of dissent that would challenge the ruling class--general boycott and general strike--will hurt the poor worse than the rich.

So, if there is a return to democracy in our future, with nonviolent dissent unlikely, things will inevitably get bad enough that violence will result.

Won't the ruling class see the threshold of suffering approaching and modulate it to maintain control? No, greed doesn't work that way. They'll reinforce the national security state, recruiting working class people into the police forces and giving them a lower middle class salary to give them a stake in maintaining the status quo. But that won't be enough.

Here is what I believe is a people's ace in the hole: Most of the enlisted class of soldiers are serving out of economically-induced patriotism--the economy, not belief in the wars, is driving recruiting. They rationalize their enlistments with "serving their country" platitudes, but the platitudes will quickly evaporate when they learn their families back home are suffering and under siege. When the non-violent option evaporates and the violent alternative occurs, they will side with their fellow citizens, not with their leaders. Or enough of them will that the military will be too busy fighting itself to control the masses. As far as the police go, there simply will not be enough of them when the threshold of suffering is crossed.

On edit: Fixed spelling typo

[Cyrano]

2. If only. What about companies like Xe (formerly Blackwater)

The haves possess all the power they require to keep us peasants in our place. I wish I knew how to level the playing field, but I don't have a clue.

[Goldstein1984]

3. There are a lot of veterans who have the same

training and probably the same firearms. They'll side with the people, and there are still too few government and private security forces to control the masses once the masses are driven to the point where they no longer respect the law or fear losses. Practically speaking, the next time you see a G20 or WTO protest on the news, ask yourself if you think that little police line would hold if the crowd suddenly abandoned nonviolence and did something beside go limp when the tie straps come out.

I get the opportunity to talk to a lot of people from a lot of sub-cultures, and I'm finding that the topic of dissent, and even the topic of revolt, is becoming less controvercial with time.

I think the tension is building. And I think the ruling class is too confident and too blinded by greed and power to see what's coming. They see something, but they underestimate what will happen when the pressure cooker blows.

Last year at this time, when I said I wanted six months of food in reserve, as well as a case of Irish whiskey and a stockpile of extra .22 ammunition for bartering, my wife thought I was going a little too far. This year, she is taking preparations further.

I think it's in the air.

[JoePhilly]

6. Not going to happen.

First, the ruling class is already prepared. They absolutely see what is coming. And they are already global.

They can live anywhere they want, they have homes across the globe. They have ZERO country loyalty. They are building "green zones" around the world (see the book, Shock Doctrine), and they understand that many areas, including parts of the US, will become "red zones".

Second, the US is too large geographically for protests to really work. The ruling class can operate from anywhere. Sell products anywhere. Invest anywhere. As the OP notes, most of the strikes will hurt the "locals" more than they will hurt the ubber rich.

I think we appear to be heading towards a time in which you are either a Royal, a Noble, or a Serf.

Historically, for the Serfs to "win", they needed physical access to the "Royals". Today, the "Royals" are shadow figures who can live anywhere on the planet. There will be no guillotine.

If we look at the US, one could argue that America is an example in which the Nobles and the Serfs were able to SEPARATE from the ROYALS, and start over, using the ocean as a buffer.

Yet ... 200+ years later ... the corporations and the Ubber rich are the new Royals ... they crossed the ocean, over and over, they hold the world map in their hands, and they can influence events anywhere they want. And they don't need to be called King.

I'm not sure what might change the future here ... I hope that the government our founders created can shake off the corporate influence that now threatens to suffocate it ... but that's not a sure things currently.

[Goldstein1984]

12. You may be right

I've read Shock Doctrine. Good book.

[JoePhilly]

4. I don't see that happening. The enlisted folks will not revolt.

The US Military has a very strong religious fundamentalist mentality. Not only does the US military allow fundie pressure, it leverages it.

The enlisted are expected to take orders without question ... often in a manner that can be compared to the fundies. The bible says it, I believe it. No thinking required. The enlisted are in a similar position. When told to "take that hill", you don't get to ask why.

As a result, the enlisted will not see their family's struggles as a reason to rise up against the ubber rich, but as a symptom of the moral decay of America, or as part of the grater need to kill more "terrorists" or whatever other group is convenient.

Bottom line: They will see their family's struggles as a RIGHTEOUS STRUGGLE, because that is what their leaders will tell them it is. And that will only make them more willing to use force to stop "general strikes".

[Goldstein1984]

5. I work in the military-industrial complex, and I've had some very

candid conversations with soldiers, airmen and Marines.

Without repeating some very incriminating conversations, I will just say that I think you overestimate both the influence of religious doctrine and obedience.

I will repeat the comment of my son, an NCO in the Army, when I asked him during a fishing trip if he would turn his weapon on American civilians. He said, "Fuck no. My wife and daughter are civilians. You and mom are civilians. But the person who gives me that order will suffer."

As a former Marine, I can also say that I never would have turned my weapon on American civilians. And I was trained in countersinsurgency, where the scenario was frequency discussed.

[JoePhilly]

9. Good to hear ...

And let me say upfront, that I don't intend to insult your service, or that of your son.

In my post I discuss 2 points ....

1) The post I responded to suggests that the enlisted folks are going to revolt when they see their families struggle. I do not see that happening. The official pressure is in the wrong direction, which means you need a new leader would have to emerge from the enlisted. Do you see that happening because of a financial threat (as opposed to a military threat)?

2) As for the military being used to put down "general strikes", I do understand your position, and I respect it. But if you listen to the right wing rhetoric, the left supports terrorists. We hate America, and want the terrorists to win. There are "real Americans" and not. And the not "real Americans" are against "American Exceptional-ism" and (unstated) Manifest destiny.

My point in #2 is that there is a focused effort to make some Americans NOT American, and to position the Military to help manage that. After all, how did Kent State happen ... it was the National Guard, but they followed bad orders. Or take WWII, many of the atrocities committed by German troops were instances in which regular people did terrible things, because an authority said to do it. Read a few right wing web sites ... the idea of killing liberals is not off the table.

OR we could discuss WWII internment camps ...

I have some friends who are also in the MIC, including a retired Army Ranger, LT Colonel. He tells me he pretended to be more religious than he was because of the pressure.

My main point is that the enlisted men and woman in the military are NOT about to revolt. Period.

[Goldstein1984]

11. No offense at all

I don't think the military will be the source of revolt, I just believe that if civilians revolt the military isn't going to be a useful tool of the government for supressing revolt. They will revolt against orders to use deadly force against Americans.

You are correct that there's a process in work to label liberals and intellectuals as un-American. That's why, even though I am a liberal and the stereo type forbids it, I am well armed and I keep a mindset that won't cause me to hesitate if the time comes to use them.

You are also correct about the influence of religion in the military, although I don't agree that it will be an influence on the ranks. My son is an atheist--all religions were taught to our children as mythology and fables. Jesus has no more impact on the members of my family than Little Red Riding Hood. My son had to keep his head down, both in Basic Training and when he was deployed in Iraq, because some of the more senior officers pushed the religion very hard. In fact, they succeeded in alienating soldiers who didn't share their zeal.

I spoke to my son again this evening, and I mentioned this thread to him. He asked me reassure you that there is a very strong current of dissent running just below the surface in the Army. As he puts it, soldiers are serious about taking care of other soldiers, but not so serious about the wars. Or, as he once wrote me in an email from Iraq, "Dad, when the wind is blowing from the east it stinks like oil; when it's blowing from the west it stinks like piss; now matter what way the wind is blowing, it stinks of money and corruption; if I were these people I'd be trying to kill us too."

[kctim]

7. Problem is

this is not the 'worst of times' for the majority of Americans.

Hell, we can't even agree with each other on what would mean the 'worst of times.'

[rug]

8. Madame Defarge on aristocrats:

"These fools know nothing. While they despise your breath, and would stop it forever and ever, in you or in a hundred like you rather than in once of their own horses or dogs, they only know what your breath tells them. Let it deceive them, and then, a little longer; it cannot deceive them too much."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. GMTA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9646363&mesg_id=9646374