CityOfAngels

First let me say this: After reading this, and you come up with "This guy is a fucking nut-case who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about!" in your head, let me just ask you to keep this discussion INTELLIGENT and impersonal. If after reading this you agree with me whole-heartedly, the same goes to you. I don't want this thread to become a constant harsh defense of both views, or in other words: "Crossfire/Hardball."

What's so wrong with a revolution? We did it in 1776; why not now? Look at us. We're forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. The electoral college just doesn't work for the people at all; and last election proved that. The Patriot Act is pure bullshit, yet it still affects us every fucking day. President Bush has been wiping his ass with the Constitution left and right and has gathered just about 50% of the country in defense of his lies and deception.

We all know what's wrong with Bush. We all know he won the Presidency in a fixed election. We all know he was given reports of Osama Bin Laden's intent to attack within the U.S. well before the September 11th Attacks. We all know he utilized the media to justify a conflict in Afghanistan and an all-out war in Iraq. He fucking used the deaths of the September 11th victims as a stepping stone towards the direction of his own nefarious plans.

Why did we attack Afghanistan? The September 11th Attacks. Why did we go to war with Iraq? Because they had "WMD." Isn't it just a little hard to believe that Bush receiving false intelligence about the man who tried to have his daddy killed that launched our nation into war with Iraq just after the September 11th Attacks (and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden, wherever the fuck he is) is just a coincidence? Fuck yeah it is!

We're on our way to a fucking empire state. Is that what you want? Do you want your life to be under complete control of Emperor Muff? I sure as hell don't! And I sure as hell don't want to support anyone who supports the destruction of sovereign nations and their culture.

So what's wrong with a revolution? Now don't get me wrong; I don't think we should take up arms against the state. We're more advanced than that. We don't have to go to war over bullshit, which is exactly what Bush wants us to do! But what people don't realize is YOUR VOICE IS MORE POWERFUL THAN A FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPON! If we all stand together and say, "Fuck this bullshit! I want to start anew! I'm tired of living in the Democratic Republican Empire of America!" We are the United States of America, people! We must stick to our name and STAND UNITED!

C'mon, people! We're too advanced for this shit anymore. Whatever happened to good ol' understanding? Why do we have to bomb every fucking thing that we fear? We fear what we don't know, people! We have the technology to get to know the many cultures of each country, but we're just sitting here on our asses saying, "We're coming to kick your ass!" That's just not right! It is OUR duty; yes, OUR DUTY AS UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION! If our President won't do it, then we need to find someone who will! Is that person Kerry? Probably not. But we sure as hell already know that it isn't Bush!

The electoral college is outdated. We're informed enough to decide what we want to think. It's time for the power to change our country to be given to the people. Our votes don't mean shit until they mean everything! Don't let the media brainwash you. The government is our tool; it shouldn't be the other way around!

Please, people! There's no better time than now! Raise your fucking voices and say, "ENOUGH!"

__________________
The words "love" and "life" go together. It is almost as if they are one. You must love to live, and you must live to love, or you have never lived nor loved at all.

Kadath

Er....

I wonder if Halx will be forced to turn over your personal information to the government. Which really only proves your point, I guess. Anyway, I feel like we aren't being oppressed enough to make people get off their asses for a revolution. Maybe if someone took away our guns or increased our taxes or turned off the TV.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Journeyman

A revolution in this country is as easy as garnering enough votes to seat a third party into power. With that in mind, sure, I'm down with the Libertarians stepping up. I voted for Kerry for president (not because he's the lesser of two evils, but my reasons have been stated in other threads), but because of the mentions that the Libertarian party got from certain members in this forum, I looked over their policies, found them to be more in line with my own views than the democrats, and decided to vote Libertarian all the way down the line (senate, house, and I think some minor state government positions to boot).

ARTelevision

Revolution is hell on earth and to be avoided except in cases of the most extreme need. We are very very far from that. At this point in our history it is incumbent upon us to study history, appreciate what we have, and work collectively and constructively to improve it.

__________________
create evolution

Ustwo

While you are of course correct, I still want to put the lawyers up against the wall. Perhaps we could do it more as a civic service rather then a revolution.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Nancy

Hmm I'm not sure whether or not you need a revolution but you certainly need something.

Doesn't the thought of one man with all that power freek you people out? Aren't you tired by the fact that you can only choose between two men to rule America? Wouldn't any of you prefer it like the Government/political structure in some European countries?

__________________
I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy.
I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.

roachboy

revolution.

well, if you think about it, were there to be a revolution in the states right now, it would probably come from the right because the right is relatively coherent on its own terms, and amenable to mobilization.

it would be easy enough to imagine---just map the thug characteristics of much right discourse onto an embrace of brownshirt tactics and there you have it. groups that would actually carry out "programs" like those dear to ustwo. the result would be an explicitly authoritarian, fundamentalist protestant nationalism--no more pesky diversity of opinion, no more dissent--a fetishism of the military--lots of flags--and endless war against an invisible enemy who was everywhere an nowhere---that would justify extraordinary social brutality covered over by a discourse of markets-as-rational....

it would be a logical and more brutal extension of bushworld.

and that would be, as art said, hell on earth.


if by revolution, you refer to something that would come from the "left"--you run into problems straight away....revolutions do not simply happen--and they do not happen at points of maximum poverty
(this theory of revolution was a function of marx's later work, not of a history of revolutionary movements in general--the correlation is false--i can provide alot of information on this point)

revolutions are made--they require considerable political and organizational work.
the anarchist notion of local strike-general strike-revolution presupposes political conditions that simply do not obtain in the states.

which is a shame, frankly.

on what nancy said above:
i do not see anything revolutionary at all about a more social-democratic system.
i also do not see how any capitalist country can long survive without some version of social democracy in place.
there are lots of reasons--to mention just one, the redistribution of wealth is accompanied in social-democratic regimes by a discourse of social justice. the result is greater social stability, the incorporation of greater segments of the population into the legion of consumers--greater and more fleixble job training--a balance of pwer that does not favor atomized and powerless working people selling everything about themselves to holders of capital...there are still plenty of opportunities for wealth generation...and this over the longer term.

but to know about this, you would have to move away from the american right's knee-jerk tendency to confuse social democratic and stalinist systems.
and you would have to see that american conservative conceptions of economic well-being do not even make sense on business grounds.
in short, you would have to not be an american conservative.

i would like to still believe in a social revolution from the left that would sweep away everything about the enormous machine that is the "american way of life"--but it is not going to happen soon---the problem lies elsewhere than dreaming about revolution as if it were something like a messiah that would simple turn up, a result of "objective contradictions" as if they existed, as if capitalism had not made adjustments to disrupt them

(adjustments which the american right wants to dismantle--so much for imputing any knowlegde of actually existing history to them--they prefer fiction, myth--in the long run, they will choke on it--the only question is how much agony they will inflict on others as their politics implode)

and as if these "contradictions", if they did exist, would have some kind of transcendent meaning such that the work of revolutionary politics was unnecessary.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ARTelevision

I'd like to differ on one point of roachboy's analysis. While I do not agree with much of what you say, roachboy, I want to make this comment now:

The United States is a capitalist/socialist country, very similar to the capitalist/socialist countries of Europe. Aren't we talking about matters of degree here?

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

i do not see how the u.s. can be understood as a variant of social democracy.
maybe if you take off from the new deal and then use that to erase the implications of the post-reagan period, that is if you consider the ideological shift ushered into power under reagan, and the practical effects of that shift to be superficial. i do not know what grounds you could muster to justify that.

i see the u.s.--particularly now--as developing an alternative model---one that is self-defeating at the level of its understanding of the public, of public function, one that is dedicated to eliminating the feedback loops provided by organized dissent, one that tries to substitute consumption for political freedom and worse, one that blocks a serious look at the history of capitalism in general by trying to make it ideologically impossible. self-blinding, arrogant and self-defeating, the version of capitalism being elaborated around bushworld will not last long. i just do not know what will happen when it begins to implode as a function of its own incoherence.

and i am not sure that i want to be around to see it.
this for the reasons outlined in the previous post.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

phredgreen

you want revolution, you need to mobilize people. for what you're talking about, you need congress to get flooded with requests to remove the outdated electoral college system, replace our silly all-or-nothing election system with something more sensible like instant runoff voting so a vote for a third party isn't a vote to benefit or deter a major-party candidate, and finally, creating a national standardzed voting procedure, something simple, effective, and most importantly, something secure and accountable.

at this point, people don't have the representation that they deserve... our congress has become less than a body of men who represent the respective interests of their constituents. if people write, call, email, and visit their congressmen, and remind those fuckers that they represent us, it will make all the difference in the world. this needs to be a nationwide effort... the people must be represented.

as for our elections system, it is one that encourages one of two people... it almost pushes away anyone/anything outside of that very narrowly defined track, and that is a crying shame for the american people, whose diverse interests and ideals number more than just two representatives. without a system that allows different viewpoints to be equally represented without creating a situation where "voting outside the box" does very little but create frustration, the people will never truly be represented. with instant runoff voting, you will see a voting system that, over time, will create an opputunity for third-party candidates to be taken seriously and have the issues they represent taken seriously. until then, the idea of a third-party representative of the people on a federal level is almost a joke.

finally, we have a crisis of epic proportions in regards to our fractured and broken voting system... thousands of counties, all with their own system of voting... some with absolutely no accountability and questionable ethics. until we create a standardized, accountable, and most importantly, secure national voting procedure, we're gonna continue seeing fiascos like we did during the 2000 elections.

we have a long way to go... the only way to revolutionize the system is for people to take their rightful place in the system and remind our elected officials that they represent us, not special interests and partisan nonsense.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

irateplatypus

good post phred, but that seems more like a modification and renewal than a revolution.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Willravel

Upon reading this thread, I get this picture of an Arnold soundbite, "I am going to terminate this revolution!" He is a great actor, on screen and in office...

Okay a revolution. Where would the line in the sand lie? I would guess that there would be those who support the loss of more freedoms in exchange for relative safety, and those who think that too many freedoms have been lost and are feeling like they have lost the power to change our contry through legal methods. One can assume that the government will back the first group, and many militant groups would back the latter.

What would spark the revloution? I would guess more Waco-like incodents. Situations where the government trounces on rights and takes no prisoners. I'm interested to see what happends as more people find out about 9/11, as this may be one such spark. We will see the already wide ravine between this group grow and grow.

Who will fire the first shot? Actually the first shot happened a long time ago. I don't know exactly when it happened, but I think it was before Nixon. The real question is when and how will it escalate? I think it will escalate gradually, as it ahs been. Information will come to light about the Murrah Building and the 9/11 attacks. It's already there, but most people don't know about it. I'm guessing that things like that will continue happening. The escilation will come after there are another few Wacos.

What will the war be like? Well it will be like terrorist vs. empire at first. Think StarWars. The large military group will be trying to destroy all opposition in the rebelion, as it's own citizens fear grows. Bombings of military, political, and media locations will be heard on the news (chich will of course be controlled by the milirtary, which is controlled by the empire).

Who will win? Can't say, but I'll bet an outside force will have something to do with it. I'll bet an outside group will assist the American rebelion in some way. That is unless the rest of the globe is in trouble. It's possible that an American civil war at this point would radically shift the power in the world. China might make a play for controling all of southeast asia. Russia might finally nuke all of the 'terrrorist states' that have been bothering them for years. It's really a scary world. Of course it's all speculation.

Bottom line, it would be better to try and fix it from the inside. Consumers unions should be formed in order to finally take control from big buisness. It all comes down to leadership. We need to start producing trustworthy leaders in America, before we are sufficated by corruption and self interest. We need to fight voter apathy, and start to control the media, or go around it using grass roots media. Free Speech TV is a good source of information for people (channel 9415 on Dish Network, I'm not sure on DirecTV). A revolution would be to drastic, and would claim far too many lives. Who would lose theri lives? The lower and lower middle class. We have enough of that already.

Of course, that's all IMO.

host

Halx is restricted by the new Bush regime laws from notifying anyone who
posts here, or is a member, that a request for information about a member has
been made to him by our government. I recall that the ACLU is currently
contesting this affront to our bill of rights in a case called "John Doe v. Ashcroft"
<a href="http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=416">John Doe is prohibited by law from revealing his identity to the public, even as he confronts the federal government over the very section of the Patriot Act that forces him to remain anonymous.</a> "John Doe" owns a small ISP that
received a request from federal investigators for information about one of
his customers. He and (this applies also to Halx) is prohibited from revealing
that the government made a request for information, making it difficult to
fille a lawsuit in objection.

Since Halx is prohibited from alerting us to any intrusion on this site by
government investigators (and you can assume that a thread like this one
will be at least passively monitored), I've wondered, if he decided to shut this
website down abruptly to protect himself and his forum membership from
further risk of privacy invasion from our own government "thought police",
if the occupying powers would coerce him into continuing to "operate as
usual" so that they can pursue their investigation of the forum membership,
or wrest control of the forums from him and.......hmmm......maybe they
already have........(librarians have refused to cooperate in providing titles
of books that their customers take out on loan, to the government.)
I don't see how so many seem to have no problem with these new affronts
to our formerly guaranteed liberties and rights!

Stompy

If that was the case where he couldn't notify us, I sure hope he would do it anyway and shine light on the shit that's going on.

That's what I hate about the "we're gonna do this, but it's illegal for you to tell them we're doing it". Imagine if you had a president whose whole purpose was to shine light on the truths that they keep. He breaks "the law" and reveals to us all the govt lies.

Sure, he'd be in jail, but it would have a big impact on how the people view their govt.

If I was running a forum, I'd totally rat on the govt if they came snooping around regardless of consequences. Who the hell do they think they are to tell me otherwise?

__________________
I love lamp.

FoolThemAll

I'd say nah. I'd listen to the soundtrack, though. The non-Rage Against the Machine tracks, anyway.

If the revolt were to come from the right, I'd be more receptive, but I'd have to get earplugs.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Ustwo

I think any CIA/Homeland Security/Man in Black, who spent more then five minutes reading the TFP politics board would classify it has 'Harmless'.

Likewise assuming that there is some giant government agency that is filtering everything posted on the internet looking for keywords, what would be your objection? It would be remiss of the government not to monitor potential channels of terrorist communication. It may disturb you that the government can so monitor, but they are doing nothing wrong as the information is accessible freely. Should the TFP start to be used by clandestine groups who’s goal is to kill Americans, I would hope that the government would be up to the monumental task of filtering out the non-pertinent information in order to prevent such attacks. If Halx must, by law, not reveal the fact that he has been contacted by the government in such a situation, it is only to enhance the chance of catching the perpetrators rather then to deprive halx of his rights. This is common for any investigation, and only the fact that its 'the internet' do so many free sprits feel the indignation of being told they can not do something. If you would prefer that Halx not only hides the information from the authorities, but also informs those being investigated of the authorities interest, you are asking that Halx to quite potentially betray his country and allow people to die for the false premise that somehow the internet is above the law itself.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Lebell

Agreed.

Add to the fact that most of those now chanting "revolution" don't believe in gun ownership and that they are too small a majority.

Hell, if one of them came down my street chanting that, I would be more likely to shoot them than to join them.

Aside, during the American revolution, 1/3 supported the Revolution, 1/3 were Torries and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone. Unless you can get somewhere close to these numbers, I don't think any revolution has a chance.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mephisto2

It's often said that revolutions are perpetrated by a minority on the majority.

As lebell says, the majority of people in the US didn't support the original US revolution. The Russian revolution was certainly instigated by a very small number of radicals. The same applies for the French revolution, and the Irish War of Independence.

Interesting discussion.


Mr Mephisto

dy156

very interesting thread, and good points by ustwo, mr. Mephisto, and lebell. I know it was specifically stated that this did not need to become another "hardball" thread, but a quote from MSNBC Hardball seem highly appropriate and topical. At least one Democratic Kerry supporter is against revolution, even the American revolution.

hardball article, transcript
about 1/4 way down the page...

(props to WSJ best of the web today for pointing it out to me)

Don't always agree with Carter, and don't agree with the comparison between fighting in Iraq and that in the American Revolution, but...
At the risk of getting too political or too personal, the fallacy of the idea of starting a revolution because someone is upset about the United States going to war in another country just really needs to be pointed out.
The great thing about a stable elected government is that there can be a bloodless "revolution" every four years if the people decide that it needs to be done. While I appreciate the strong sentiments, a revolution above and beyond the election would be bloody, and people interested in peace are not likely to wage it.

Completely as an aside...
By the way, Carter, you historian, you, was the revolutionary war really that comparatively bloody? Is maybe the reason the United States is where it is in relation to India, Canada and Australia maybe because, at least in part, of the American Revolution (and the war of 1812)?

Ustwo

The most bloody war until recently?!?

Source for a better format : http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

I'm sorry but Carter is a total dumbass. He obviously has no fucking clue what he is talking about, and quite frankly its scares me this man was ever president. Talking civilian deaths its makes even less sense.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Arroe

This is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life. Right now I'm majoring in Political Science and let me say one thing: if there is a revolution because of Bush I would probably be VERY afraid of those who started the revolution.

The Russian revolution was to shift the government from a monarchy to a republic. By the time the revolution started there was already a Provisional Government and the new government was already beginning to form. People in Russia were not being fed well, there was poverty, and Russia was very late in getting rid of a monarchy system of government in Europe. The Russian Revolution(s) was/were in 1917.

French and Irish Revolutions were both to stop EXTREME oppression. Please, can anyone tell me how their life has become seriously oppressed since Bush took office? You guys are making a fucking mountain out of a mole hill.

A revolution would result in probably hundreds of thousands of casualties. And the revolutionaries will definately lose. Why? You are facing a government that (believe it or not) is very strong, and very intact. There is no real government corruption. If you call what we have corruption, you really should learn a thing or two about history and government. Just because you disagree with a President does not mean that you have to revolt. I am positive that NO senator or representative would support a revolution, Republican or Democrat. A revolting force will face steep opposition and would probably be outnumbered by anti-revolutionaries several thousand to one.

Unnecessary comment removed.

Kadath

Note to Arroe: Putting "no offense" before a rude statement does not make it okay. Also, kudos for majoring in political science, but don't for a second believe that makes you any kind of authority on anything.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Willravel

I second that motion. It's all fine and dandy to dissagree, and on some of your points I agree, but trying to belittle people and acting like an superior intelectual isn't what TFP is about.

Jizz-Fritter

Majoritarian elections is the safest bet, but then some people believe it's best for change to be a gradual process, taking decades, generations, etc.

__________________
"Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." Dick Cheney

powerclown

To have a successful Revolution, one would need the backing of the military establishment. Rockets trump rifles. Hellfires trump handgrenades. Bradleys trump Berettas. Abrams' trump axes. Helicopters trump Hondas. The general population is in no position to uprise and overthrow a Taco Bell, let alone an entire country. It would end at the National Guard level in a week, 2 weeks tops.

Anyway, in 2 weeks President Bush will be receiving the Military vote. They have pledged their support for him; he has their official backing, and for a very good reason I believe. Furthermore, in a decade, George W. Bush will be gone and forgotten, and there will be another US President to get hysterical about.

irateplatypus

ahh... but the soviet union fell to a democractic revolution with all of those weapons at their disposal. certainly no one would be able to match an organized military response... but history shows that not to be necessary.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

MSD

Trust me on this one: if the thought police come for TFP, most of the staff will be among the first against the wall. After that, our few foreign people will let you all know what's going on.

As for revolution, it's too late at night for me to give a full analysis, but our political system is designed in such a way that it cannot become so corrupt that it no longer resembles a democracy. The simple fact is that, like it or not, there arre more guns than people in this country, and if anti-government sentiment became widespread enough to lay the foundation for revolution, the government would have no choice but to change or be destroyed. This reality is what first inspired me to consider my extreme anti-gun stance, consider the potential outcomes of an unarmed country, and say, "This is stupid."

Simply stated, if a significant portion of the population feels that revolution is an acceptable means of fixing the political situation, it cannot be stopped. Until then, it is just a pipe dream and the fantasy of a bunch of idealistic extremists who are most likely suffering from a messianic complex.

roachboy

arroe: well there we are. flawed analysis historically generating flawed politics in real time.

the russian revolution can be much more adequately understood as an urban coup d'etat grafted onto a peasant revolt. the cllapse of the military played a central role in enabling this convergence. there were any number of views about what a post-revolutionary system would look like--nothing like the unity you talked about in your post existed--the bolsheviks had the advnatage of a clear political line, repeated over a course of years, and clear boundaries seperating their organization from the outside (as over against say the social revolutionaries)...in this case, what emerges clearly is the importance of prior political work--were a revolution to happen, people would orient themselves around existing political options--which is an implication of saying the revolutions are made, they do not simply happen.

it is hard to think this way from a poli sci viewpoint, which tends by its nature to view power as exercized from the top down, in an administrative manner. to the exclusion of more socially oriented view of power and how it is exercized. the same limitation obtains with reference to politics. it is a limited and limiting disciplinary viewpoint from which to operate, and certainly does not function to give your position any legitimacy.

the french revolution is more complex, but the basic scenario is that the state collapsed as a function of financial pressures (the floating of bonds to pay for intervention in the american revolution following by a defaulting on the bonds) which lead to an artistocratic revolt, which lead to a basic reorganization of the structure of the monarchy, which was accompanied by a further implosion of the power of teh state--it was from inside the mechanisms that were being put in polace as a function of the aristocratic revolt that the revolution started....there was little in the way of prior political agitation along explicitly revolutionary lines--rather there was a series of positions, organized around political clubs, that tried to exercize power within the national assembly--the gironde, later the jacobins....further, there was a huge difference between politics in the urban centers and in the countryside....it was not a simple revolt of the population against an oppressive system. it was far far more complicated than that. its complexity and the subsequent ways of thinking about it (shaped by attempts to take the french revolution as the origin of the modern reovlutionary movement) issued into the ways in which revolutionary movements came to undertstand how they could operate--within this, it is as a reaction to the french revolution that political work (the articulation and dissemination of a politicalline prior to any actual revolt) was fashioned.

i do not know what irish revolution you are talking about--i assume you mean 1916. i do not see how it is comparable to the french situation at all.

as for the possibilities of revolution now in the states, i think that you might be right about what would happen if you only take into account a superficial view of conditions that obtain in the present--i think that any revolution that might happen in the shorter run will happen from the right...but that could change with teh development of new kinds of revolutionary movements, new languages for elaborating critique and for mobilising people against the existing order.

history is open. people make it. the existing situation is a fleeting as your breakfast was, in the bigger view of things. nothing is stable. nothing is eternal. ultimately, power resides in the people--whether they choose to exercize it or not is a seperate matter.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lebell

Thanks everyone who did not answer a flame with a flame.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

flstf

NO GOVERNMENT LASTS FOREVER.

Every government that has ever existed on Earth has eventually been disbanded in one way or another. Except those young ones that exist now like ours.

It seems to be the nature of things that they cannot exist for more than a few hundred years before falling. I don't think we Americans are so superior that it will not happen here as well.

There is very little choice in our elections. The Democrats and Republicans are both beholden to special interests and both corrupt. People move back and forth between government jobs and big business, lobiests, etc..depending on which party is in power. Both parties are for big government, big spending and big taxes, and both want to see it stay that way. The parties that offer something different like the Libertarians have no chance in this system.

I believe eventually the whole economic system will die like a rotten fruit on the vine. I am amazed that people will actually give me goods for the soon to be worthless paper (money) I give them. When it gets bad enough, people will revolt.

We already have a fairly large split in our country between the big government coasts and the "Live Free or Die" (sorry NH) heartland. Folks in Montana, etc.. don't want their guns controlled, etc..though the majority of folks who live in the big cities want to do so.

I guess the way things are now I think a vote for the Democrats or Republicans is pretty much a vote for bigger and more intrusive government, and a vote for the Libertarians is wasted. Since we don't have a "None of the Above" selection, I think a no vote is the best choice. At any rate I believe the government will eventually fail no matter how we as individuals vote. It's like one of the natural laws or something, LOL.

mrdarcy

What would I say to a revolution?

Hi revolution!

__________________
[Insert pithy comment here]