You say you want a REVOLUTION???

[SidneyCarton]

In response to the several posts made recently advocating revolution, I believe a short history lesson is in order. Much like the freepers have their fair share of armchair General Pattons, we seem to have a few amateur Che Guevaras who, having read a few books on the subject, feel themselves amply qualified to lead a guerrilla insurgency that will eventually lead to the overthrow of the powers that be. While such efforts have worked in the past (Cuba, DR Congo, Angola, etc…) and will doubtless work again in the future, what is so often over looked here is the damage that violent revolution tends to do to democracy and democratic institutions. Consider the following if you will:

1789-France
Yes, the French Revolution gave us the “Declaration on the Rights of Man,” overthrew a government so corrupt it seemed to invent the term, and gave birth to a whole generation of Liberal ideas in Europe. Yet we all know that the revolution had its dark side as well. The regime that gave us the “rights of man” also gave us the Guillotine, the “Reign of Terror” the “Committee for Public Safety” and Massacres at Marseilles, Lyon and Nantes. The so-called “Nantes Tribunal” was particularly horrific, killing in excess of 40,000 people and filling the Loire River with blood and bodies. By 1783, many of those who had originally spoken out for freedom of speech, conscience or assembly, had been carted away and guillotined, with the barest semblance of a trial, on the mere accusation that they were “Enemies of the Republic.” This revolution literally “ate its children.”

1917-Russia
The Russian Revolution is far too complex to digest in a single paragraph. Suffice it to say that once unleashed, the forces of extremism (both right and left) soon suffocated democracy and plunged the nation into a five year civil war that killed more Russians than had been slain during the First World War. In the end, the government that resulted from this bloodbath was far from democratic.

1918-9-Germany
Strangely enough, at first glance it would seem that democracy survived this revolutionary episode. Closer examination shows however that the German Social Democrats essentially made a Faustian bargain with the military and proto-fascist elements, who received a virtual free pass to kill with impunity so long as their victims were Communists. The reluctance of the Weimar Government to effectively deal with the forces they used to stave off further revolution lead to its demise under the Third Reich.

So what’s my point? To paraphrase Clausewitz, plans are only valid until the first shot is fired. To advocate revolution is to gamble that you can overcome the forces of reaction, and then clamp down on other radicals prior to their overcoming you. Under such circumstances, the forces with the greatest organization and willingness to use violence tend to have the best success. If such is true, then we should be in no hurry to start a revolution, for the right beats us hands down in both categories.

Ok, flame away, my reactionary hide is protected by my asbestos lined underwear.

[AndyTiedye]

1. This is Very Much Kicked and Recommended

:kick:

[gateley]

2. What would you have us do instead?

You make a valid, convincing argument. I cry for a revolution out of frustration, wanting to lash out, wanting to punish those who have done this to us, without looking at the long-term effects as you point out.

So what can we do?

[SidneyCarton]

7. Ok, here is my soapbox

We have registered a lot of new voters, so first off vote. Try and make the system work one last time. If this doesn't work, organize and prepare on a grass-roots level. Know who your friends are, do what you can to be self-sufficient and be better organized than the government. If a time comes when insurrection is necessary, (and I hope and pray it never does) everything will depend on organization, organization of materials, of manpower and of communities. Those that are prepared will fare far better than those who are caught by surprise.

[gateley]

11. Do you mean by "make the system work one last time" -- voting in Obama?

By the way, I'm with you on the community organization which in another word, is survival.

[SidneyCarton]

13. Yes, voting for Obama is exactly what I'm talking about.

If McCain wins, things are likely to become rather interesting, particularly with Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Unless she's as big a hypocrite as Bush, having a dominionist that close to the nukes is really scary.

[gateley]

20. Just clarifying -- and again, I'm with you. nt

[SidneyCarton]

18. I think I would do well to clarify this...

I am not saying to organize in order to overthrow the government, but in order to be prepared to survive in chaos and effectively resist attacks on both life and liberty.

We have been trained during the last several years to be afraid, to jump in paranoia from crisis to crisis. This is a recipe for our effective subjugation and annihilation. In order to resist this, each of us need to know who we can trust and have the resources on hand to take of ourselves and our own, as well as look after our neighbors (and help them look after themselves) in the case of a crisis/disaster, be it man-made or natural/financial.

[gateley]

19. I personally didn't interpret your "organize" opinion to mean gearing up for

a revolt.

[SidneyCarton]

21. Yes, but for the benefit of "Agent Mike" and his friends at the NSA...

...I figured I'd let them down easy before they came by to render me.

[gateley]

22. Gtocha. :-D nt

[lala_rawraw]

30. who is actually saying that we should overthrow the gov?

[Glorfindel]

3. The real revolution in this case would be a return to constitutional government

The arrest, trial and punishment of the criminal B*shistas, and the bringing to justice of "the malefactors of great wealth" (to quote my favorite Repuke, T. Roosevelt). We are currently suffering the consequences of the "Reagan Revolution," a slow-motion, ongoing catastrophe that has brought this country to its knees. Yes, I would love to see the tumbrils roll and the guillotine busily engaged in its useful employment, but I think I will not see it in my lifetime, and probably would not like the long-term consequences if I did. (Not that I have to worry about really long-term consequences at my age, but still...)

[SidneyCarton]

8. I see your point.

I see this less as a revolution and more of a restoration. But your point is clear nonetheless, I would settle for Karl Rove suffering the fate of Lord Ishido at the end of Shogun.

[Cleita]

4. Also revolutions against police states will be met with violence.

I give you the Hungarian revolution of 1956, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
and more recently the protests in Tianaman Square in China in 1989, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989. We need to do what they do, resist and fight them legally. There are lots of ways to do this. It will take organization and the will to do it, but it is something they will have a hard time fighting and squashing. Remember, part of the protest movement of the sixties was dropping out of society. It took the form of founding communes and becoming somewhat independent of mainstream society. We need to go back to that if by some horrid twist of Diebold fate we get McBush in the White House.

[SidneyCarton]

9. Exactly.

This is especially true as the neocons are the same people who trained the Argentines in their "dirty war" in the 1980's. Under such circumstances, armed insurrection merely gives crypto-fascists the pretense they so badly desire.

[Warpy]

5. I've said for a very long time that revolutions

are messy and uncomfortable and rarely work.

However, civil unrest and violence are often needed when peaceful means don't move the ruling class to make necessary changes.

Civil unrest and violence can turn into revolution, though, so they must also be used sparingly.

The problem with most revolutions is that the enablers of the ruling class simply change uniforms and resume control once the smoke has cleared.

[NeedleCast]

6. Well Said

K&R

[LanternWaste]

10. I would imagine...

I would imagine that those who clamor the loudest for revolution are those who have smallest idea of what actual violence really looks and feels like, having viewed IT through the television set, or the occasional personal accident and little more.

To be honest (and callous to a degree), I'm of the opinion that most "calls for revolution" would be rescinded immediately after those involved realize that gaming console systems have to be left at home and there's no beer provided.

Even were there valid justification for it, we're much too comfy behind our HD plasma screens and air conditioning to do anything other than type about it... but dammit! WE'LL TYPE IN CAPS!!11!!

Although I'm not naive enough to believe "all you need is love", neither am I too cynical to believe that violence is the ultimate authority.

[SidneyCarton]

12. Precisely.

Much like the neocons, those who would scream the loudest for the violent solution are those who are least acquainted with violence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Good analysis. K&R

The French and Russian revolutions were social revolutions. The masses were motivated by the worst sort of repression and the worst kinds of economic trials. Starvation doesn't equate with being temporarily out of a job or losing one's car. The Germans were similarly suffering after a horrible war and vengeful enemy who imposed draconian levees on them to pay for it. The peoples' demands weren't for political change as much as it was for bread and vengeance on those who had, or were, killing them. In each case the revolutions became uncontrolled and a "strong leader" stepped in to restore stability. Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety, Stalin, and Hitler.

The American Revolution, on the other hand, was almost entirely political and, with the exception of the South where feuds were settled with what amounted to barbarism, the violence was relatively contained.

The "guerrilla" revolutions of the 20th/21st centuries are almost all civil wars and usually very bloody.

What I fear isn't "revolution" but disorder and violence that will cause instability that will used by "leaders" who promise stability.

[SidneyCarton]

15. Exactly, disorder merely provides cover for massive theft, of both wealth and liberty.

[drmeow]

16. The only difference between

a civil war and a revolution is which side survives (notice I didn't say wins). Civil wars are some of the most brutal wars. Having lived in Lebanon at the start of that civil war, I'll tell you this - it ain't pretty. And outside political powers/forces all too often get involved in civil wars/revolutions (again - see Lebanon). Who'll be funding the rebels/freedom fighters if this country slips into civil war? Who's going to be providing arms?

I don't call for revolution - but am very afraid we might end up in a civil war.

[SidneyCarton]

17. Yes, I share your fear.

Our last Civil War/Attempted Revolution (It's all a matter of perspective) cost approximately 720,000 lives. It was, however a regional conflict. If we were to have a Civil War today, it would be based in ideology, with major racial/religious undertones. Such a conflict would lead to the slaughter of millions and permanently hobble our nation. This outcome must be avoided if at all possible.

[John Kerry VonErich]

34. My Civil War theory

I believe to everything there are politics. I never believes that religion starts wars, but the politics that comes from it, AKA fundimentalists. I just think there are enough (but not me and others, you know who you are, not included) people this pissed off that pride can be swallowed. We all know what the opposition can do. The further along this election cycle the more I fear the inevitable.

[tuckessee]

23. Very nice post.

The last thing we the people need is violence of any kind.

It would only benefit the state and provoke reactionaries.

Every progressive, Democrat, leftist, true American, etc. should pledge non-violence.

Let the Civil Rights movement be the inspiration. Peace, calm, truth & determination in the face of colossal adversity.

[Festivito]

24. It may only be made look like the El Che's start it.

The more reasoned and effective, the more the corrupt a section of the rich will buy their way into civil strife.

Take the Canadian police, who for their share of spoils, sent agitators into protests to create egregious acts. They were caught separating such agitators from having had marked the bottoms of their shoe soles. The police were forced to apologize.

Canada has a media and we don't. They won't have to apologize here.

We may not have a choice. The same people who will take power will start the violence.

[SidneyCarton]

25. You make an excellent point.

For this reason I have stressed preparation. Those who are prepared will know when to fight and when to flee should violence begin. Those who traipse blindly along, expecting all to be as it ever was, will be shocked and swept away in the chaos. Be ready and you will not need to be shocked, or afraid.

[Left coast liberal]

26. Very good points.

But, I can identify with the DU revolutionaries.

We are sick and tired and don't want to take it anymore.

So, what do we do? Continue to be sheeple?

Frustrating to say the least.

Keep up the good fight, patriots.

[crispini]

27. Kick and R

Good points.

[aikoaiko]

28. No, but I get a kick about the etymology of revolution

Strictly speaking, a single revolution puts someone back to where they started, but politically, a revolution means changing into something very different from whence you started.

[SidneyCarton]

29. Good point, fascinating how that works.

[readmoreoften]

31. And what revolutions have you participated in, my armchair reactionary?

Without the French Revolution, there would be no human rights as we know it. Millions of people would have died. How many died in poverty under feudalism?

Without Marx, there would be no student loans, no scholarships, no progressive reform. The acceptance of Keynes in this country as opposed to Friedman was in large part due to the fear that workers would turn to Communism if they were not given a decent standard of living. Once Communism was gone, the unions began to decline: no real fear.

Without the Soviet Union's care, how many Spanish children would've been killed by the Fascists instead of raised so well with so much love that many never found themselves able to return to their families?

It was the Communists under Mao who stopped the practice of foot-binding and female slavery. They promoted that women were equals and could even be leaders and commanders. How many women would've died and girl children been drown in China?

The 1918 Germany reference is like blaming the Democrats for their bargains with Republicans. SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AREN'T REVOLUTIONARIES. Doesn't apply. You cannot blame Revolutionary Communists for the faults of the Social Democrats who sided with Fascists who sided against them. It contradicts your point. it's totally disingenuous.

How many people did the US/Pinochet kill in Chile after it murdered Allende?
How many people have the counterrevolutionaries in Latin America killed to promote capital development?
How many people have died in Iraq for oil profits?
How many people in Africa die from experimentation and the withholding of medicine for pharma profits?
How many our our slaves die while picking our coffee, while picking the food to feed the people who pick our coffee, while mining our tin, while sewing our clothes, while desposing of our broken circuit boards?
How many people are dying in our blackhole gulags?

Bringing up death counts in left-wing struggles is bullshit unless you're going to count the deaths produced by capitalism and discuss capitalist death camps. You might want to include Nazi Germany in that mix-up since Coke invented Fanta to quench the Nazi Thirst and IBM regulated the proto-computers that organized people into Jew, Homosexual, and Communist and even had onsite operators at concentration camps. In areas where the French Resistance was able to destroy the IBM machines, the death count dropped to 25%.

Those revolutions didn't stop the plutocracy from raping the world, but imagine if there hadn't been those significant road bumps. They plutocracy just keeps killing

I would happily become a part of any "peaceful reform" movement. In fact I have my whole life: it's called the Democratic party and it's not working out very well at the moment for stopping the encroaching fascism and continuing kleptocracy. I've also been a labor activist. Hasn't been working out so well.

Your last paragraph is correct however. The fascists outrank us in violence and organization and that is still what it takes to win. There will be no glorious revolution. The world is teetering on the brink of total madness and brutality. But is the fascists who have been putting us in that position, not the left. It is the fascists that make democracy impossible because they destroy it repeatedly.

Perhaps when all is violence, the only words remaining to hold onto are still equality and justice.

[SidneyCarton]

32. Ok, you bring up numerous points... where to start?

I might begin by asking you how many revolutions you have participated in? How many "oppressors of the proletariat," "arch-reactionaries" or others have you put up against the wall in the interests of building a better world over a mountain of corpses?

I cannot deny that good things come of revolutions. I acknowledged the good that came of the French Revolution. I will willingly state that without Stalin's leadership of the Soviets on the Eastern Front, the Nazis would have overrun the earth. That said, my OP merely asked if those who pontificate blithely and blindly on the topic of revolution were willing to pay the awful price in blood necessary to effect change at the point of a bayonet.

As to your questions, may I proffer the following answers:
1. Best estimates for the death toll under Pinochet range between 6-7000. I accept that that number is likely higher.
2. The total death toll for the counter-revolutionary activity in Latin America runs between 50-100,000.
3. Over a million Iraqis have been slain in our war for oil.
4. Cite me a statistic on this if you know, I'm not sure how we could even calculate our guilt here.
5. If you think that I'm ignorant of the blood on my hands and collectively on the hands of the industrialized world, you are mistaken. Other than adding to that incarnadine sea through further bloodshed, have you any other options to make things right?

As to my point on Nazi Germany, you totally misconstrued my argument. Whether this was due to a lack of clarity on my part, or ideological myopia on yours is open to discussion. I did not blame the Communists for their radicalism, the 1918 German revolution is a good example of the difficulty of controlling a revolution once it gets underway, and that in the end, still greater bloodshed is necessary to stop a revolution than was necessary to start it.

So here is my defense of my position. I do not expect to change your mind, as you have made it perfectly clear that you already have the answers to all of life's questions in your hot little hand. Just remember, its easy to start lining people up against the wall, its hard to stop.

[Two Americas]

33. straw man

No one, or hardly anyone, "wants a revolution."

People may want justice, and may in desperation be driven to extraordinary means. But those means are not the end.

We may want to consider these words after reading your post:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Your post is reactionary and it is highly deceptive and dishonest.

Those advocating fighting for justice should not be portrayed as advocating violent revolution, let alone as advocating it as an end in itself. Those resisting the calls to fight for justice, as you clearly are, should not deceive people by claiming that they only seek peace and are innocently opposing violence.

[SidneyCarton]

37. Some here have been moronically advocating revolution.

They are probably 14 and blogging before bedtime, but they nevertheless are advocating it. Those advocating fighting for justice have gotten no criticism from me. You want to impeach the President? Be my guest, you have my full support. You want to bring members of the Administration to justice? I have no problem with that. You want to hold Congress accountable to the People? Great. Show me where in my OP, or any of my responses I advocated bending over and letting the Powers that Be screw us silly.

If my post pisses you off this much you either did not understand me, or you've already decided that anyone who disagrees with your monomaniacal vision of change must be flamed without mercy. If I am deceptive and dishonest, you are a rabid zealot looking for heretics. Forgive me if I don't tie myself to the stake for your ease and enjoyment.

[Two Americas]

38. not true

You are saying that people advocate revolution as an end itself, and that this is something important enough that we must guard against it.

If that is happening - people desiring revolution as an end in itself and advocating that - it is so rare that is hardly justifies mentioning, let alone what you are saying in your OP.

[SidneyCarton]

41. People think that Revolution is a panacea, that will heal all the ills of society

And all they need to do is go out into the streets. That you do not is a credit to both your maturity and your foresight. What I'm saying is not that people see revolution as an end in and of itself, but that they blithely speak of it, without stopping to consider the costs of effecting change through violence.

The freepers have a similar problem, they want war with everyone. They never stop to think about those who will have to do the killing, much less all those who will end up being slain. They just fall back on the idea that there is no problem that can't be solved with a little depleted uranium. (when they aren't openly advocating the use of enriched uranium that is.)

All I am asking people to do is consider the consequences of their actions, to choose using something other than bile and outrage. To weigh their actions with the fate of future generations in mind. If in the end there is no choice than to rise up, I will rise with everyone else, and will likely be slaughtered with them. But prior to our rising up, i think it wise to have some idea what we're doing, and how we would do it. All too often it seems that people think no further than "storming the barricades" and having accomplished that objective, they are shocked and dismayed that freedom and justice don't automatically fall into place like manna from heaven. That tends to be when the killing really takes off. That is when the violence becomes an end in and of itself, and that is the fate I would rather avoid if at all possible.

Edited for grammatical errors.

[Two Americas]

46. huh?

All progress for social justice has come as a result of a struggle. That may involve marching and resisting. It always has.

Who on earth is saying that "revolution is a panacea?" No one, that is who.

No one here is advocating violence.

It is a vicious lie to continue to make this charge against those who disagree with you.

[SidneyCarton]

47. Then what, prey tell are you advocating?

And do you have the discipline necessary to carry it off? Or are we merely alternately beseiging each other's castles in the air?

[Two Americas]

49. I am being too hard on you

I understand your concerns about violence and social unrest, and you are right that some people are being naive.

But really, advocating strong political action is NOT advocating violence. You are using the same argument that apologists for slavery used, that tyrants throughout history have used - that oppressed people must not even consider resistance or fighting for freedom and justice, because that would be "causing violence." It is very reactionary to push that line.

Talk to the wealthy and powerful - tell them to stop advocating violence, tell them to stop perpetrating violence on the people here and around the world.

Stop talking to your friends and allies as though they were little children, with condescension and contempt. It is insulting and demeaning.

The only people I have seen advocating violence around here have obviously been trolls.

[SidneyCarton]

50. Then let me be clear, once and for all.

I do not consider strong political action to mean advocating violence.
I do not consider concerted grass-roots political action to threaten national instability.
I do not consider political activism, even when it brings uncomfortable truths to light to be harmful to democracy.

And my OP was not directed at you, your activities or your ideals. If you are working to make the serious (and considering the events of the past week) all too necessary changes to our nation in order for us to live in a better and more just nation, then I salute you for your efforts.

If I have offended, I am sorry.

[SidneyCarton]

53. I note in your post in this forum that you are in favor of a national work stoppage day

I have no problem with that either, I do realize that traditionally such an act is seen as a precursor to revolution, but such a concerted act also argues for strong organization and a distinct set of goals, this makes sense.

[Two Americas]

58. we can't control events

We can't control what is going to happen. We can't select "peace" as though it were a consumer item on the shelf. Strikes are precursors to revolution? We can't know that. Oppression and injustice are the causes of revolutions, not resistance to oppression and injustice. It is those who resist the fight for justice, or urge people to go slow, or to accept their lot, that make revolution more likely.

Before the Civil War, there were many who criticized the Abolitionists with the same arguments you are using. "Don't talk about emancipation, you will cause a slave insurrection and that will lead to violence" was the argument. But it was not the Abolition movement that was causing a higher probability of violence, the cause was slavery itself. The arguments against the Abolitionists betrayed and ignorance of or a willingness to accept the violence inherent in slavery.

In similar fashion, I think that many people are ignorant of or in denial about just how bad things are, just how much damage is being done, just how many people are suffering. From that bubble, the world that too many relatively well-off Americans - including many Democrats and liberals - are living in, it could seem that there is a greater danger from the rabble than there is from the ruling class. That is taking the side of the oppressor and against the fight for justice.

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

We have many people here doing everything they can to make peaceful revolution impossible, to frustrate those who are calling for justice, to dismiss them and ridicule them, and to accuse them of fomenting violence. Of course no one says "I am opposed to justice," because that wouldn't work. People would reject that overt argument. Instead they say "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT...." and then proceed to place as many obstacles as they can in the way, to create so much confusion that no communication can go on, and to do so much fear mongering that no one can think straight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. The other day I posted actual examples from refugees from glorious revolutions

People don't want to get it, because in theory a revolution will bring all the great things they desire

I've talked to people who went through some of our recent glorious revolution... and it may still happen, the civil war that is... but if and when it does, I know what we are getting into... most folks don't

I agree with you

[susanna]

36. I love asbestos-lined underwear!

However, you don't need it with me. I completely respect your well-reasoned and factual historically-based opinion. As an aside, I wouldn't wear it as it's itchy. ;-)

As you note, revolution often brings needed change yet also unguessed martyrs; and it has always been historically so. Your paragraph re: Clausewitz is ultimately the most important one, IMHO. "A gamble that you can overcome the forces of reaction," indeed. And there is the rub.

on edit: spelling

[Oak2004]

39. Yes: Revolutions are an (often bloody) gamble

Keep in mind -- when you say you want revolution, what you are saying is that you want a war, and you want that war to be on your doorstep. You want artillery shells falling on your kid's school. You want a sniper taking potshots outside your grocery store. You want armed groups breaking your door down in the middle of the night, to demand your last food, your property, your warm body in their front lines, or to haul some family member off as a supposed collaborator, never to be seen again. You mean you want news of the death of a friend, relative, or colleague, to be a daily occurrence. You want gasoline to be scarce, electricity and running water nonexistent, police, fire, and ambulance service to be rare. You want the few functioning hospitals to be full of children dying from drinking sewage-laced water. You want to become numb to the experience of stepping over bodies on your way to find whatever necessities you can scrape up.

And for all that suffering, you are guaranteed nothing.

I would not argue that revolution is to be avoided at all cost -- clearly there are times so desperate, injustices so great, that revolution is the only option. But revolution is, or should be, an act of desperation, not one option chosen out of many.

[SidneyCarton]

43. You make my point quite eloquently, this should be its own OP.

The key point here is that for all that suffering, (And to those who doubt that there is suffering, I recommend you read "A Small Corner of Hell" by Anna Politkovskaya) "you are guaranteed NOTHING."

Hence this is not a gamble to be taken lightly.

[voteearlyvoteoften]

40. We shall overcome

Nov 4 2008

[SidneyCarton]

44. Heres Hoping.

[tama]

42. Another?

First, I'm with Russel Means: European revolutions should be judged on how they affect non-European peoples. I don't know what you call them, but so far recent Zapatista and Bolivian events and lots of other things in Latin América are OK in my book, as was what Gandhi tried to do.

Second, how revolutionary is the meme that revolution has to be violent blood bath and/or taking over this or that governement?

[SidneyCarton]

45. You raise some excellent questions here.

I have no issue with the current revolutionary experiments in Latin America. The leaders there (Chavez, et. al.) seem to be doing a good job of effecting change with a minimum of bloodshed and disorder.

That said, the level of violence present in any revolution seems to depend to a great degree on the level of violent resistance or repression resorted to by the reactionary powers that be. Consider the current situation in Bolivia for example. In the beginning of Morales' government, the reactionaries grumbled and obstructed, but did not actively, violently oppose. However, as secessionary tensions rise and the threat of the reactionaries forcibly dissolving the nation of Bolivia, Morales has had to resort to force to hold his country together, and has been met with equal violent force on the part of the reactionaries, who have employed mercenaries to assist them.

In the United States, any popular insurrection that actually threatened the status quo, particularly the moneyed status quo, would be crushed mercilessly. The corporate powers would provide the bankroll. If the government proved too weak to adequately resist revolutionary forces through military and law enforcement powers, the reactionaries would make use of Blackwater and other paramilitary forces. Furthermore, do not underestimate the power of media control under these circumstances, remember the power of hate radio in Rwanda. We have already seen a few disaffected individuals take the vitriolic rants of Limbaugh, Savage, etc. to heart and try to strike against the "enemy within" surely under such unstable circumstances a few words from "El Rushbo" would be sufficient to send many who would merely resent revolutionary changes in this country (regardless of how much they would benefit from them) armed and into the streets. We would swiftly have a ideological/partisan civil war on our hands in this country, one that would cost the lives of millions, exacerbated by the fact that the citizenry of this nation are far better armed than the Bolivians or the Venezuelans.

[Frndlychap]

48. The Guillotine was short-lived

I don't think the impact of the guillotine in the world outweighs the benefits of the rights stemming from the French Revolution. Just my opinion.

[SidneyCarton]

51. Yet figuratively the guillotine has cast a long shadow.

And the glorious achievements of the French Revolution will always be stained by the blood of those innocents slain in order to achieve them. Much like the growth and progress of our nation will always be marred by the crime of genocide against its Native inhabitants.

[SidneyCarton]

52. Crap. I hate it when they get tombstoned before I can respond.

[OneGrassRoot]

54. LOL...

Got to the end of this thread and, surprisingly, had a chuckle.

For all the well-reasoned, thoughtful discussion here about violent revolution, can one not entertain revolution on a smaller, more subtle scale which may not attract the immediate attention of those who could crush us? Something which erodes the influence of hate radio, for example?

Can we not discuss revolution in the sense of holding the powers that be accountable, without others interpreting that word as a literal, blood-lust call for violence?

I haven't seen the troll posts of which you speak, but the word "revolution" obviously resonates with me, but not in a violent sense.

Shit, it could be an American revolution to simply turn off "Dancing With the Stars" en masse.


Edited for typos

[SidneyCarton]

55. Unfortunately I did not consider the possibility of a "velvet revolution"

An omission that I have been duly chastened for up thread by Two Americas. While I worry that such a change is less likely, I would find it most welcome, and support anyone with a workable plan to enact such change.

But I don't think I can convince Mrs. Carton to turn off "Dancing"

[OneGrassRoot]

56. ;) n/t

[The Leveller]

57. The Haitian Revolution of 1791-1803

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution1.htm