Do you agree, voting is better than armed rebellion ?

[kentuck]

If we did not have the opportunity to vote and believe that our vote was counted, what would be our recourse? From what I have picked up for the last 4 years, there would already have been an armed revolt against Mr Bush if we had not known there was going to be an election on November 2nd, of 2004, with the opportunity to throw him out on his ear without resorting to violence or armed conflict. Because, I would fear that if we did not have the vote, Mr Bush would be a knock-heads dictator. Hopefully, we can send him packing on election day and prevent any violence.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Yeah, when people talk about a revolution...

...we can remind them that we get a revolution every four years. Usually they whine about the system or whatever, but it's really just that they have to get more people on their side that they just don't want to do.

[Warpy]

3. I remind them that violent revolution

is messy, uncomfortable, disruptive, and historically does not work, as all the string pullers in the background change uniforms and go on as before.

However, when the vote is not respected by the rich and the powerful and it is obviously being subverted and repressed, violence may be necessary, if only to remind them that there are a whole lot more of us than there are of them.

[ParanoidPat]

2. It is said "The pen is mightier than the sword".....

.....could that be why they're trying to eliminate paper ballots? :wow:

I'll give up my pen when they pry it from my cold dead fingers! :evilgrin:

[murdoch]

4. voting, rebellion etc.

Voting for a representative is a weak strategy. If the US ever elected someone from a party that really represented working people militantly, like Chile when Allende was tossed out, we'd become a dictatorship.

As far as rebellion, well revolution and rebellion are loaded words. One could say the workers in the US broke into rebellion in several cities in the 1930s. Anyhow, while I think everyone should own rifles and such, workers only win rebellions or revolutions or whatnot by persuasion, organization building and whatnot. Violence is sometimes necessary, especially in a defensive manner, but it almost always plays into the hands of the powers that be. If an option exists to be nonviolent or violent it usually pays to be the former.

Think of this - like they sometimes do in European countries, say the government comes out and says they're hiking the age of Social Security up 5 years, slashing benefits and so forth. Hearing this, a percentage of American workers, maybe 30%, 40%, or 50% decide to not go to work for a bit. The country would grind to a halt. Public transportation would not run, stores would be closed, corporate media would become more amateurish. No voting, no armed revolt, just a good chunk of the working people withdrawing their labor. It would be a hell of a lot more effective than 5-10% of the population running around with rifles, shooting at tanks and F-15s.

[Vincardog]

6. I second that opinion we need to call a general strike now. Let the

'Powers that be' know we have the votes and support before the election. Let them be afraid to try to steal this election. The revolution is to make this a Government FOR the people not one OF the people.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi murdoch!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LSdemocrat]

5. Yeah, voting doesn't involve killing someone who disagrees with you.

That's a plus.

[DIKB]

7. Exhaust all possible options

before resorting to violence. "Words said in anger can be forgiven. A life taken in anger cannot be given back."