When Change Is Not Enough: Seven Steps to Revolution

[Ian David]

When Change Is Not Enough: Seven Steps to Revolution
If history is any indication, we may already be on the road to violent revolution. Conservatives finally created enough misery to make it possible.

"Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future. Posted February 22, 2008.

There's one thing for sure: 2008 isn't anything like politics as usual.

<snip>

There's something implacable, earnest, and righteously angry in the air. And it raises all kinds of questions for burned-out Boomers and jaded Gen Xers who've been ground down to the stump by the mostly losing battles of the past 30 years. Can it be -- at long last -- that Americans have, simply, had enough? Are we, finally, stepping out to take back our government -- and with it, control of our own future? Is this simply a shifting political season -- the kind we get every 20 to 30 years -- or is there something deeper going on here? Do we dare to raise our hopes that this time, we're going to finally win a few? Just how ready is this country for big, serious, forward-looking change?

Recently, I came across a pocket of sociological research that suggested a tantalizing answer to these questions -- and also that America may be far more ready for far more change than anyone really believes is possible at this moment. In fact, according to some sociologists, we've already lined up all the preconditions that have historically set the stage for full-fledged violent revolution.

<snip>

Way back in 1962, Caltech sociologist James C. Davies published an article in the American Sociological Review that summarized the conditions that determine how and when modern political revolutions occur. Intriguingly, Davies cited another scholar, Crane Brinton, who laid out seven "tentative uniformities" that he argued were the common precursors that set the stage for the Puritan, American, French, and Russian revolutions. As I read Davies' argument, it struck me that the same seven stars Brinton named are now precisely lined up at midheaven over America in 2008. Taken together, it's a convergence that creates the perfect social, economic, and political conditions for the biggest revolution since the shot heard 'round the world.

And even more interestingly: in every case, we got here as a direct result of either intended or unintended consequences of the conservatives' war against liberal government, and their attempt to take over our democracy and replace it with a one-party plutocracy. It turns out that, historically, liberal nations make very poor grounds for revolution -- but deeply conservative ones very reliably create the conditions that eventually make violent overthrow necessary. And our own Republicans, it turns out, have done a hell of a job.

Here are the seven criteria, along with the reasons why we're fulfilling each of them now, and how conservative policies conspired to put us on the road to possible revolution.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/77498/

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Revolution, like violence, is the last resort of the incompetent

The Great Society, the New Deal ... even parts of the War on Poverty show that progress is possible. Revolution can't be controlled and isn't constructive.

[bryant69]

3. Yep

Revolutions have a long history of making things worse.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Stranger]

4. And I don't think the OP is saying that it is a first choice.

It is made inevitable by a certain series of events and becomes the only and last choice. Thus the Kennedy quote.

I am often amazed -- AMAZED -- by the the sheer incompetence of the Right Wing's resorting to the same dirty tricks over and over again, almost following a recipe or an archetype.

Think back to Tricky Dick and Watergate. Only now, things are far, far worse in the U.S.

[Ian David]

5. Shall I lend you a mask and snorkel to go retrieve the tea off the bottom of Boston Harbor?

You can then return it to The Dutch East India Company with our sincere apologies for the whole misunderstanding.

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. I'll head to Amsterdam anyday. Give me an excuse n/t

[Ian David]

8. Amsterdam is closing their Red Light District. Apparently, it's Giulliani Time over there. n/t

[mac2]

2. There is a long list of candidates for President

yet the corporate media only allows the top two (or their choice) to be heard or win. The international corporations support their favorites. They have more power because of their wealth...Jefferson feared this would ruin our democracy and it is.

http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha

The organizations who meet behind closed doors (Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, CFR, G8) should be exposed and the American members who go (bankers, journalists, the super rich, royals, and politicians). No "secret meeting of elite" without press, etc. is democracy. I'm pretty sure, it may even be illegal to represent us without election or appointment (by Congressional approval) to other countries.

Our Presidents and past Presidents are on our tax dole. Yet they do this behind our backs.

That act would be revolutionary since they've been gaining power since the middle of the last century. Anyone wanting power or office goes to them. We are being ruled not by elections but by "selection" by a world oligarchy.

Democracy can only function in the open. We give them power by ignoring it.

[ThomWV]

7. Thank you - that was an enjoyable read, pretty good argument.