So you think you can revolt?

[rhett o rick]

It is a popular response in DU to suggest that we still have the revolution card to play. I don’t think so. I think it is romantic to think that the downtrodden will rise up and cast off the chains of oppression and reestablish our Democratic Republic, but not likely. First of all let’s look at who is going to be on whose side in this revolution. Let’s break the population into four classes.

The tea-bagger/uninformed voters/gullibles or whatever,

the apathetic middle class that don’t want to be involved as long as Dancing With the Stars(?) is still on,

the informed, educated, liberal, professionals

and the ruling class/corporatists.

So while some of the educated, liberal class pretend to support an armed revolution, the tea-baggers are actually making the motions. And they actually have guns and of course are easily lead. So this is how I see the revolution happening. The tea-baggers, backed by our corporate overlords (the ruling class) will revolt. But they will revolt against the liberals. They will undo whatever is left of our Constitution in the name of “freedom”. Can you spell Patriot Act? They will readily embrace Dick Cheeney as their new Democratic Dictator (or unitary executive as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would call him). John Yoo will be their high priest.

Now go ahead and mock me, I am used to it. I survived high school so this is nothing. But if you honestly think there is a way an armed revolution can take us back to a Constitutional controlled Democratic Republic, please tell me, I am honestly interested.

[mynameiswhat]

1. First off i would like to say that there are people from the right, middle, and center.

in the tea party, like it or not. And as much as i dislike the tea party, all they do it talk about the constitution and how they wanna follow it to a t. do you think the tea party would destroy the constitution?

[Lint Head]

15. Because we have freedom of speech, as defined in the Constitution,

I will refer to them as tea baggers. The tea baggers do not realize there are more amendments in the Constitution than the 2nd amendment. Tea Baggers would not know the the reason for the Boston Tea Party if it fell on them like a piano from a 40 story
building. Tea Bagger is not the 'N' word. It is a term that the so called "Tea Party-ers" first used themselves.
Taxes are lower under Obama. The tea baggers need to get a clue.

[mynameiswhat]

18. ok first off there is no need to explain why you call them tea baggers.

Second, i like how you are assuming that every person in the tea party is stupid and dont know histoty.
Where did you comment about the 'N' word come from?

[Lint Head]

22. Here tiz.

Washington Times Compares 'Tea-Bagger' To N-Word http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/washington-times-compares_n_564229.html

The entire tea bagger movement is to protest high taxes. That is the reason it was started. A little Googling tells enough. More research is easy to do. They are protesting high taxes that do not exist. Protesting something that does not exist is idiotic not to mention insane. The Tea bagger movement was also a wholly corporate set up promoted by Faux Snooze.

[mynameiswhat]

66. Maybe the raise in cig taxes? I also think we will have to pay higher taxes for HCR.

[TwixVoy]

17. No they would NOT follow the constitution

these tea party freaks don't even KNOW what's in the damn constitution.

I had an encounter with one the other day who started telling me how we should refuse the census. I said "So I thought the tea party supported the constitution?" he said back to me "We do 100%". Then I said "Well the constitution mandates the census" His response? "What? No it doesn't"

Fucking morons all of them.

[Lint Head]

23. Me too. I have met a few and to a person they are clueless regarding

US and world history and political subjects in general.

[socialist_n_TN]

27. Yep. You two guys have the right of it

Teabaggers are in favor of the parts of the Constitution that THEY believe in. The rest of it, they ignore like the 14th Amendment.

[TheKentuckian]

60. Middle and center? Is that like Q "What kind of music do you like?"

A "Both kinds, Country and Western"?

TeaPubliKlans are ideologically extreme Reich Wingers conservatives. You got to be kidding me that you even want to play act that the Tea Klux Klan is anything but far, far, far right of the Republican party and the independent members are mostly folk who over the years decided that Republicans were too liberal for their tastes and/or embarrassed by BushCo. and abandoned ship.

[leftstreet]

2. I NEVER see 'armed revolution' brought up here. But you just did

Interesting

UnRec

[William Z. Foster]

9. agreed

This is a way to smear critics and the left - portray them as dangerous, or as advocating dangerous things. It stinks to high heaven.

[rhett o rick]

39. You've never seen a thread where it has been discussed to get pitchforks and go to the streets or

get out the guillotines?

[William Z. Foster]

58. watching us are you?

Your criteria is stricter than the most paranoid and authoritarian secret police for detecting and tracking and ferreting out dangerous radicals.

Pitchforks and guillotines are allusions, historical references.

"Go to the streets " you have a problem with? That is interesting.

[rhett o rick]

45. How about these?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8445501&mesg_id=8445512
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8445501&mesg_id=8448432
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8445501&mesg_id=8450271
and this is just one thread.

[leftstreet]

53. Three historical references in one thread? That's all ya got?

Please

It's condescending (and bigoted) to suggest that working class people can't organize resistance without using violence.

It's elitist bullshit propaganda

[William Z. Foster]

59. creepy

And what exactly is your problem with the left?

You object to the American revolution?

You object to La Marseillaise?

Or are you trying to "prove" that by referencing those things, people here are dangerous subversive radicals hoping for revolution.

People are looking for change. That is what those two historical events mean. Do you have some problem with that? Why don't you be honest with us instead of trying to entrap people?

[obxhead]

3. Not to mention the TRAINED armed forces that would be ordered

to stand in defense of the corporate controlled system a revolt would be against. I don't see pitchforks and shotguns standing against bombers and artillery.

[William Z. Foster]

12. that has always been true

This is just fear mongering, History is replete with successful struggles for justice and freedom against better armed tyrants.

But no one here is advocating any such thing, and the malicious insinuation that people are is a dishonest way to discredit our strongest and most important voices.

This lie must be rejected - "well if you are advocating radical change, then you must be talking about horrible violent things."

The horrible violent things are already happening. Resisting that is self-defense. It is a fight for freedom. If the authorities are completely unwilling to bend or abdicate, and use massive violence against the people, than what people are calling "revolution" could happen. No one is advocating that for its own sake, and all here are seeking a peaceful outcome.

The advocacy for violence here, the encouragement and apologies for violence, are all coming from those spouting conservative talking points, from those defending the murderous and destructive status quo, not from the left.

[obxhead]

20. Yes, I stand corrected. All one has to do in fact is look towards

Afghanistan to see what a small force of unequally armed people can do against a significantly stronger force. Those conflicts always have one thing on their side though, solidarity. We as a people are far too fractured to pull it off in the current circumstances anyway.... too busy stepping on our different neighbor to buy that next shiny piece of plastic made somewhere else.

It's a broken system, but we are broken as well. Just look at the teabaggers for instance. Marching in the streets against their own best interests.

[William Z. Foster]

21. thanks

We (the working class) are fractured, because the intellectuals in this country - all of us - are bought off and co-opted as nowhere else and as never before. This board should be a hotbed of social criticism and creative energy. 40 years ago, it would have been. Instead most threads involve much time and energy spent beating back talking points and right wing arguments from those defending the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and using every smear of the political left in the book.

[LoZoccolo]

4. We have a revolution every two years; people need to take responsibility for it.

True responsibility, as in, getting more of what you want, not making a token vote. See the process through all the way back to consensus-building, primaries, strategy, and yes, compromise.

[TheKentuckian]

61. Oh, that is clearly some happy bullshit! The same fuckers are in charge after every election

The difference is in who's rhetoric will be used to fleece the little folk.

[LoZoccolo]

67. Then keep doing what you're doing and see what it gets you. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

79. will do

Speaking for myself, I will keep doing what I am doing and encourage others to as well, and yes, we will very definitely be seeing exactly what that gets us.

[William Z. Foster]

81. even you don't believe that

I would be very surprised if you yourself believe what you just posted. If you did, I am certain you could make a much stronger case then you do. But you don't even make much of an attempt to support those statements. They are talking points, in service of you true agenda - attacking the left at all times any way you can. It must be an odd experience to be promoting an agenda that you can not be honest about, because if you were people would almost universally reject.

[LoZoccolo]

84. We don't have elections every two years? The incumbents never lose?

I think those things are pretty well-established. I didn't think I needed to re-iterate civics class on a political message board

[William Z. Foster]

89. uh huh

Thanks for the lesson. We have elections every two years? I had no idea.

[LoZoccolo]

86. I also have no idea how encouraging people to take responsibility for getting what they want...

...serves to preserve the status quo.

[William Z. Foster]

90. it doesn't

Who said that it did?

The question is not one of people "tak(ing) responsibility for getting what they want." Before I dismantle that statement, I will point out that when people advocate that we fight for justice they are not going for what they personally "want." More often than not, that entails doing things and making sacrifices that may not at all be what would be easier, safer, or more enjoyable personally. Characterizing it that way is a dishonest way to malign and discredit what people are saying by trivializing it. That opens up the door for you to make insinuations that they are "whining" and "pouting" and "stomping their feet" all sorts of other clever personal attacks and attempts at character assassination. So let's nip that little ploy in the bud.

Now for the dismantling, the utter destruction of your carefully crafted little talking point that I promised. In your view, who else from history was just going after what they personally desired, and were failing to take responsibility because they fought outside of the partisan electoral political system and refused to restrict their thinking and their action to those narrow confines? The Abolitionists? The organized Labor advocates? The Civil Rights activists? They all ignored your advice.

[LoZoccolo]

96. 1. That all depends on what the definition of "want" is.

2. You make my argument for me; the political process starts way before elections. By the time people are complaining about the choices in the voting booth, they've generally passed up or failed at a lot of opportunities to advance their cause at least a little. Building consensus is a part of participating in democracy.

But the fact remains that it is possible to depose every elected official within six years through the electoral process. But you have to do the work.

[MichiganVote]

5. There are plenty of apathetic educated liberal and conservative professionals.

Your assumptions are silly and stereotypical.

[Starry Messenger]

6. You left out the working class.

I don't recall anyone ever mentioning armed revolt, I just wanted to point out an oversight.

[rhett o rick]

46. The working class is divided. The tea-baggers and the educated workers. They wont be on the same

side. Plez explain who will be on whose side?

[Starry Messenger]

50. Who says the "tea baggers" are working class??

There might be some workers who identify with the ruling classes, but that could be true for members from every sector of society. What is an "educated worker"?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/17/tea.party.poll/

According to the survey, roughly 11 percent of all Americans say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. Of this core group of Tea Party activists, 6 of 10 are male and half live in rural areas.

Nearly three-quarters of Tea Party activists attended college, compared to 54 percent of all Americans, and more than 3 in 4 call themselves conservatives.

[rhett o rick]

68. I made an attempt to figure out how a revolution would take place. The population can be broken down

into different groups. There is nothing sacred about my break down. The group of uniformed voters is huge and are not only tea-baggers and they are most likely to actually start a revolution. They already bring guns to their demonstrations.

If you have a different idea as to who would align with who to start a revolution, I am honestly interested.

And personally, I dont for a minute believe that 75% of tea-baggers attended college, I am guessing that came from the corporate media. They use that statistic on Faux.

[Starry Messenger]

73. A teabagger terrorist threat is not the same as a "revolution"

Don't buy into their silliness. They support the status quo. It's just like the "Brooks Brothers riot" dressed up in tricorner hats and more obvious racism.

[William Z. Foster]

55. that is what they want you to think

Don't accept the Fox news and CNN narrative about all of this.

Right before slavery was successfully ended, there was a rise of a movement, the Know Nothings, similar to the tea baggers. They were angry, they weren't sure what they were angry about but they were angry. Catholics, or immigrants or someone were the problem, they thought. Someone must be blamed. There was a core group of bigots there, but most people were just swept along because there was no other place for their anger. Then the Republicans emerged, and successfully made the case that it was the slave power that threatened all and was the cause of the problems, and the Know Nothings faded away.

Similarly, were there people on the left making the case that it was Wall Street, the corporations, Capitalism, causing the problems the tea baggers would fade away.

As for who will be on which side in the coming political battles, it has nothing to do with beliefs, but rather with power and economics.

On one side - owners, investors, bosses, landlords

On the other side - the rest of us

[William Z. Foster]

7. yes, of course

It is inevitable. Not because any of us "want" it, but rather because we may well be hurtling toward a situation where it is that or destruction - foisted on us, not by our choice. Fight or die - that is what it may well be coming down to.

You couch this in a strange way though - as though "revolt" were some switch one could flip off or on.

Do I think that we can organize as working class people? Do I think we will fight and resist? Do I think we can win? The answer to all of those is "yes." Was that your question? If not, what IS your question exactly? Or is it really a question?

You phrase this in a disingenuous way - as though people WANT violence or upheaval, as though they are following some imaginary plan or agenda driven by ideology or doctrine for the purpose of fomenting violence or upheaval. That is the classic reactionary and right wing way to discredit and dismiss and and all movements for social justice, and to scare people away from them.

People do not "want revolution." They want freedom and justice and equality. They want a planet that will sustain life. They want an end to economic tyranny. Dismissing that as "you want revolution" and then saying that it is impossible is a cowardly way to oppose any such movement for freedom and justice and equality, for a planet that will sustain life, for an end to economic tyranny.

[Bonobo]

8. History tells us it will happen.

I am a big history buff.

I see no reason to think that history is dead.

The ruling class ALWAYS thought that they had things under control.

Until the revolution happened.

[rhett o rick]

37. And what happens after the revolution? Napolean? I didnt say that there havent been revolutions

but how many have resulted in better circumstances?

[Bonobo]

44. Depends on which side you're on I guess. nt

[William Z. Foster]

56. which side are you on?

All of them have resulted in better circumstances. You are enjoying the benefits of work by those who sacrificed so much. You have no idea.

You question the cause of the French Revolution?

[rhett o rick]

72. You seem to delight in twisting my words and intentions. You imply me saying things I dont.

I am very curious of you motivation. I didnt question the cause of the French Revolution. I used it as an example of how revolution didnt lead to Democracy. Someone else pointed out Ferdinand Marcos, another example, or maybe the Russian Revolution or Mao's revolution. Do you think "all of them have resulted in better circumstances"?

I am against violent revolution. I think things would turn out worse for the people. How do you feel?

[William Z. Foster]

78. how I feel

Old.

If you think that things turned out worse for the people, then you are questioning the cause of the French Revolution. That is not twisting your words and intentions nor implying that you are saying things that you aren't saying.

Saying "I am against violent revolution" in response to those calling for resistance to tyranny and injustice is like saying "I am against breaking the law" in response to those calling for assisting fugitive slaves escape to freedom before Emancipation. Actually, what people were saying then in response to the Abolitionists was "I am opposed to a violent slave insurrection. How do you feel about that?" Many Abolitionists, and slaves, may have felt that a slave insurrection would have been preferable to a continuation of slavery, but that did not mean they were advocating a "violent slave insurrection." They were advocating an end to slavery. The people saying that they were "opposed to a violent slave insurrection" and accusing the Abolitionists of "advocating a violent slave insurrection" were not really opposed to a "violent slave insurrection," they were opposed to the Abolitionists and were opposed to ending slavery. Of course they denied that. They said "don't get me wrong, don't twist my words, I am opposed to slavery, BUT..."

If this analogy is completely lost on you, then it is entirely appropriate to ask "which side are you on?"

[rhett o rick]

99. I am only responding to you again because.....never mind

Have a good life, just leave me alone.

[jp11]

10. The only revolution I look forward to is the one that brings uninformed/gullibles and the apathetic

to care and enlighten themselves or see the truth.

[rhett o rick]

42. If you can figure out how to get the gullibles to see the truth, you will have something.

They dont want to know the truth. They dont want to know about climate change, it's too scary for them.

[provis99]

11. won't work? Tell that to Ferdinand Marcos. n/t

[rhett o rick]

70. So you think the government set up by Marcos was a Democracy?

Marcos is a good example of what I am trying to say. I am trying to give a message to those people, whomever they are, that armed revolution is not guaranteed to lead to Democracy. We need to find a way and I dont see it. We have many discussions here about how the ruling class is gaining more and more power, but rarely discuss what we can do about it other than "vote" or "get out the guillotines. We need real solutions. My biggest fear is that someone will start violence and our corporate overlords will assume more and more power.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. Is this a reaction to the "socialism" thread?

It looks to have gotten a good bit of support and all of a sudden you come on talking about "revolution". It's suspicious. Unless you think that the only way to get the capitalists to give up power IS through the barrel of a gun.

Who in their right mind would WANT revolution? But as other posters have said, there's always the possibility that it's either live on your knees and bow to the corporations/capitalists or die fighting. I hope it doesn't come to that. Do you?

[leftstreet]

16. Probably. This always happens

:eyes:

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[socialist_n_TN]

19. Thanks

I've enjoyed my brief time here.

[William Z. Foster]

25. yes, of course

This nonsense - "for those of you advocating violent revolution blah blah blah" - is a classic right wing trick to discredit the left and scare people away from it.

The trick is to get people to associate in their minds "violence" and other scary things with any and all left wing opinions, with any dissent or social criticism.

Those who really are promoting violence are those who are defending the current state of affairs so vigorously and relentlessly, not the leftists.

When people say "the radical changes you advocate might as well be the same as advocacy for violent revolution" they are saying that they would support violence against us if we do not shut up and go away. It is an implied threat. They are projecting their own urge to violence onto us.

Almost all movements for social justice start out peaceful, and it is the authorities who become violent in order to prevent any change and to suppress the movement, egged on by the reactionaries and applauded by far too many "moderates" and intellectuals. Eventually that can lead to a violent response from the working people, in self-defense.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. So our answer I guess would be

"No, we're not advocating violence, we're advocating equal justice for all. Do you think that's advocating revolution?" I guess I should say, that would be MY answer to the RW assumption.

[William Z. Foster]

33. turn the tables

Why be on the defensive? Go right after them. They are opposing any and all efforts to achieve social justice - that is the truth. Make them justify and defend their stance. Then keep talking about what we want to talk about, not what they are trying to draw us of into talking about.

[laughingliberal]

48. +1 nt

[rhett o rick]

38. I dont wish for revolution, but I see no other alternative. But I am saying that revolution

cant succeed. The ruling class will use a revolution to clamp down more and eliminate more freedoms. Unless they, the ruling class, need us they can do what they wish with us. With cheap labor from abroad, all they need from us is our money and they have most of that.

[Mind_your_head]

14. No, no one will ever hurt you or desert you.....promise!

http://chodecircus.com/area51/

[OHdem10]

24. We make a serious mistake classifying teabaggers.

Teabaggers are: White, Male, Protestant, more educated and
above average income.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Revolution is a romantic idea

for many folks. I foresee a civil war in our future, a hot one. And what happens during and after, cannot be predicted.

As to me personally... well... you really do not want to ask that from people... I am damn serious... freedom of speech... whatever. When anybody in this country gets out of line... you will have the full force of the state fall on them... it won't be pretty... and it has happened before. If after that people still have it in them... it will get increasingly ugly. That is all...

[RandomThoughts]

28. The concept you make is two tier justice.

Your claim is that a group that claims authority can act with violence and then claim protection from violence. I don't see it that way.

There is a constant asking for civility, but when one group has its view challenged, it uses violence. In that their claim for civility is lost.

I do not believe in violence, but do understand that people that live by violence...

Well you know the rest...


The force of a state can only have effect if also justified by better action, other wise it turns in on itself and only hurts itself. Downward spiral. And that includes the many forms of government, social, and financial.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Alas I am talking history

not theory.

See the Harlan Coal Mine war is a good example of what i am talking off. Then there is the Vet's march on DC, Kent State...

I am not saying it is right, just stating what happens... and what happens is that whenever we have had revolts, the Government has responded with force.

Now in some cases people challenged the established order has worked. See the Civil Rights Movement and the American Revolution, but nine times out of then, it doesn't.

IS this just? We can argue all day, if it is... or whether people have a right to revolt in the course of human events. I believe people have that right. But this is not romantic, nor just, and once the dogs of war, civil war, slip it gets very ugly. And the forces that led to that moment cannot predict the end of the process.

[RandomThoughts]

31. The prediction is not that tough.

It is also in history, and seen in many events.


I think on this song, and do know there are two sides. Posted the song many times, but it does say much.

Dire Straits - Ride Across The River.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hHfCMh-G-s

Although I think of it in another way, always think with learning, because claims of special have to think on better actions, so I do not think in terms of special, since I also know that many are added in or removed, hence making such thoughts from self.

Dire Straits - Ride Across The River.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hHfCMh-G-s


And where the game ends, and why it is best not to play the game.

[William Z. Foster]

30. no it isn't

People are not advocating revolution, nor seeing it as a "romantic idea." This is a lie, a classic trick by reactionaries and conservatives to discredit the left.

People are advocating justice, freedom and equality, an end to economic tyranny, a planet that we and future generations can call home and live in.

Those who take that and characterize it as "advocating revolution" are really saying that they would support violent suppression of any movement for social justice, because it is violent suppression that that would or could lead to violence, and that is the only thing that could lead to violence.

Claiming that the left is advocating revolution, as though that were the cause itself, the all-inclusive explanation for anything and everything left wingers say, is a vicious extreme position that people are espousing for the sole purpose of maligning and smearing the political left and scaring people away from it.

[RandomThoughts]

36. good post.

I think the term revolution has many meanings, and think like you post that through constant work on ideas of peace and justice in society, then society can improve.


Depends on how people see the word revolution, and what it means.


Although I think some of the corrections needed in society fit the term revolutionary, and some might even think I am in the group you mention. But it is obvious that things need correcting. Although I dont believe in vicious, nor maligning nor smearing, nor scaring.



Although I think on words people use to label some people with in a different way, ever seen this Outer Limits episode.

Outer Limits, Human Operators.
http://video.tvguide.com/Outer+Limits/Human+Operators/2156531

(If you watch the episode it helps to think in terms of love not sex, to understand it)

I agree it is not about killing, it is a flaw in that episode, and doing the same thing ship does, and that may be the point. Although the word could mean something else if you understand.

[pinboy3niner]

49. Stop making sense!

Like you, I haven't seen the notion of rebellion advocated seriously on the Left. We do hear it from the Right, especially after the teabagger/wingnut heroes have portrayed the President and Democratic congressional leaders as an existential threat to America.

I DID recently overhear a Glenn Beck fan telling someone that "the time has come to take up arms to take our country back and restore the Constitution." The guy had at least 8" and 80 pounds on me, but I couldn't resist asking him if he knew that, according to the Constitution, taking up arms against the elected government of the United States is TREASON. I told him that if a military coup installed a dictator who suspended the Constitution, that would be a different matter, but as far as I knew, we still had a duly-elected government. The look on his face told me that, at that moment, I was more evil than Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi combined.

Any notion of revolution nonsense on the Left comes from individuals spouting off on message boards--not from anyone in any position in the Democratic pary or the progressive movement.

[KonaKane]

34. Revolution is a romantic fantasy. Here's why it won't happen...

Cable TV, microwaves, iPods, internet, open gas stations and grocery stores etc. If you think people are willing to take even a momentary disruption in any of these things, your dreaming.

[Amonester]

47. All these things might be 'temporary' (or not. We don't know).

They will be if... only a minority can afford them in a few years, months, or weeks from now.

Will the end road of predatory capitalism be like Soylent Green?

If so.... I have no doubt 'something' will happen. 'It' always did in such (or worse) oppressive societies.

[William Z. Foster]

52. it is a red herring

Talking as though there were a bunch of people running around fantasizing about or romanticizing revolution is just a convenient way to smear and discredit the political left wing.

People are advocating justice, freedom and equality. Some are saying "whatever it takes," yes, not because they want violence or chaos, but because they recognize that violence and chaos is what we already have at the hands of the rulers and the wealthy few they answer to, and because the situation is intolerable, will not get better, and we have nothing to lose.

The rich people are already staging their violent revolution and causing total chaos - overthrowing and destroying everything that we need and is important to us, remaking society in their own image, obliterating cultures and communities and peoples, robbing us of all of our power and wealth. The question is this - will we resist in self-defense, or will we submit and surrender?

[KonaKane]

80. Nonsense, William.

First of all, I don't talk down or discredit the left wing. I AM left wing, so that would be ridiculously counterproductive.

I'm not against any sort of uprising, I'm just letting you know the sober reality of a relatively comfortable people in an increasingly uncomfortable time. As long as people have their creature comforts to a degree they would not like to see disrupted, any idea of revolution is purely in the realm of fantasy. The only thing that could tip that is if the vast majority suddenly felt like they were lacking the basics, and saw very little to lose. THAT is what fuels revolutions. In the end, people could really give a shit about high principles and ideologies. It's "salt, bread and peace" in the venacular of the peasants during the Russian Revolution, that will sway the day.

One of my favorite spoken word artists, Jello Biafra, hit it on the head. He once said "Nobody takes to the streets if the government wants to take your books. But let them try to take your BEER...."

[William Z. Foster]

83. ridiculously counterproductive

We are all doing things, and have been for a while, that are ridiculously counterproductive.

Why do people want to skip over all of the steps required for building powerful organizations to fight for social progress and leap right to revolution, and then say that since revolution is supposedly impossible or undesirable therefore we should not move in the direction of resistance and militancy at all? That is, clearly, ridiculously counterproductive.

The general public is out of work, losing their homes, without access to health care, facing regressive taxation at every turn with worse to come, struggling to pay for food and fearful and angry. The comfortable people are those claiming that those of us calling for a more militant fight for social justice are desiring revolution, as though for its own sake, and are living in the "realm of fantasy."

You say we are a "relatively comfortable people in an increasingly uncomfortable time." That is illogical. How can the "time" be uncomfortable without people being uncomfortable? What that really says is that some people are still comfortable, while many and perhaps most are not. I would say that the people here, and the people controlling the liberal organizations and the party at all levels are relatively comfortable - educated, white collar people from the upper 10% income bracket, many who are owners, investors, landlords, bosses and managers - and they are the ones claiming that left wingers are "advocating violent revolution" and then ridiculing that straw man they have set up as "fantasy" and the like.

[KonaKane]

85. The comfort factor

You said:

"You say we are a "relatively comfortable people in an increasingly uncomfortable time." That is illogical. How can the "time" be uncomfortable without people being uncomfortable?"

Think about it. It means that a collision IS coming, but nothing concrete about how that will take shape. People are still generally comfortable, but the circumstances around them are changing. There is no lack of logic in that scenario.

[William Z. Foster]

91. I see your point

Thanks.

[Cleita]

35. Americans are actually showing a huge amount of restraint.

I believe we are the nation with the most armed civilians in the world and yet except for a few posturing KKK types at rallies, there haven't been any shootings even among frustrated and angry crowds who are showing up with signs to picket and show their displeasure at whatever agency, business or politician is pissing them off. I'm sure this has to have local law enforcement worried. It has me worried.

[rhett o rick]

40. Would you agree that most of the people that are armed are leaning toward the tea-bagger's

side? They arent advocating revolting against the corporatist overlords but against the liberals.

[TheKentuckian]

62. I think that would be a reach. Everyone on the left isn't anti-second Amendment

I make Charlton Heston look like a gun grabber.

[socialist_n_TN]

71. Yeah, I own a couple of guns too

It's not just the right that's armed. In addition, I know a LOT of pretty deadly unarmed techniques.

[KonaKane]

82. As a matter of fact, more of us are armed than people even know

I owne several, and stay practiced at the range.

[Cleita]

75. They've been propagandized by the corporate media to vote against

their best interests. I don't know how we spread our message, which is the truth, to reach those tea baggers until we get back our media. But if we could then I think you would see them coming over to the side of the reality and common sense. Those jerks running around with open arms strapped on them are nothing more than white supremacists who have also been propagandized in the name of nordic Jesus to hate everyone who isn't like them.

[benEzra]

101. About half of gun owners expressing political affiliation are Dems and indies...

based on a couple of NSSF and Gallup polls I've seen. I'm not interested in any sort of revolt, but don't for a minute think that the right has a monopoly on civilian ownership of weapons.

[rhett o rick]

102. I'd be real interested in seeing a link to those polls. nm

[benEzra]

105. Sure! Here are a couple.

The most recent data would be from the Nov. 2005 Gallup poll "Gun Ownership and Use in America." They work it from the front end, e.g. percentage of registered repubs, Dems, and indies who own a gun, but I have also seen it worked from the back end, i.e. what percentage of gun owners report repub, Dem, or indie affiliation.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

According to those figures, Repubs are somewhat more likely to personally own a gun than indies and Dems (41%, 27%, 23%), due in part to the way a few urban areas with very low lawful-ownership rates bias the figures against Dems, but if you apply those percentages to the number of registered repubs, Dems, and indies nationwide, I believe Dem and indie gun owners equal or slightly outnumber repub gun owners overall (because such a small percentage of the population is repub). In less urban swing states, I suspect Dem and indie gun owners probably outnumber repub gun owners by a significant margin, but don't have any data broken down by state. Also, to my knowledge the study does not correct for underreporting, so those numbers may actually be somewhat higher than reported for those in less gun-friendly areas or demographics.

Editor and Publisher reported on a different Gallup poll in early 2005 and gave slightly higher numbers:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000745373

I believe that link is now dead, unfortunately, but the text is here:

Press Image of Gun Owner Not Far Off, Except for All Those Women

By E&P Staff

Published: January 04, 2005 10:00 AM ET

NEW YORK A Gallup Poll released this morning reveals that the average American owns 1.7 guns, with the average gun owner possessing 4.4 of them. The press is quick to promote stereotypes of the average gun owner as a white male, most likely Republican, living in a rural area or the South. But how well does reality match the image? The new Gallup Poll shows that the stereotype is not that far off, but with several twists.

For one thing, one out of three American women say they own a gun. That's not much below the overall mark of 40% for all American adults.

As for other elements of the stereotype: More than half (53%) of Republicans own guns, compared with 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats. Whites are more likely than nonwhites to own (44% and 24%, respectively), according to Gallup.

Karl Rove's stereotype of Dems as gun-fearing and gun-hating is most assuredly not the case. Obviously some are (just as some repubs are, coughBradyCampaigncough) but enough Dems and indies own guns to make support for new gun bans a losing proposition for Dems, as the Third Way zealots found out the hard way in 1994 et seq.

[12string]

41. revolution

When corporate America creates enough hungry people in this country the shit will hit the fan.When you can't feed yourself or your children and they have eliminated or gutted the ENTITLEMENT and social safety net programs to the point where people are starving,American Idol,and all the celebrity death gossip in the world won't appease the masses.Unfortunately it will probably put far too many citizens in peril from each other before our corporate government finally gets the Marie Antoinette treatment it deserves.I think they will push it until there is no way to avoid some truly violent times.History will repeat itself.

[Ozymanithrax]

43. Revolution is an act by a group or class of people...

Americans have been individualized until they feel no relationship to anyone and are no longer part of any class. After individualizing people so they have no relationship to a group, they are brought into consumerism, where they live to fulfill the needs that corporations create for them.

Revolution has been re-educated out of us. We live in a command economy where corporations dictate what we want and then we pauperize ourselves to get it.

[William Z. Foster]

51. excellent

Agreed. You said it.

This is why we must resist all of the privatization ideas, the ideas based on consumerism like "buy this or that," the "personal choice" and "personal responsibility" themes, and all of the rest of those personal individualized "solutions" to social issues, all of which require public programs. Public programs can only come from mass organizing and bringing outside pressure on the government, the parties and the politicians.

No politician or corporation is ever going to "do the right thing," and no matter how much we as individuals "do the right thing" no change can happen, because the power balance remains the same.

The "right thing" is to organize and force the politicians to do the right thing and to overthrow the power that corporations have over every aspect of our lives.

It is about power, it is not about choices or beliefs - always has been, always will be.

[RandomThoughts]

54. It may be more about what people are willing to do to be told they have power

Or feel they have power, but if they know what the do is wrong, they become an advocate for an ideology.

If someone wants power instead they can claim free will and think and feel. Or that is my view on power concepts.

[William Z. Foster]

57. it exists in objective reality

Power exists in objective reality, it is not about how we feel. It means control over resources, and so over other human beings. We fight for extending democracy into the economic realm rather than merely the political, or we do not. If we do not, a few will control all resources and so be able to direct and control us. They will have power over our lives, we will have no power over our own lives.

Everything that now gives us power over our own lives, from a decent wage, to affordable housing, to access to a public park, to public education, to access to health care is under assault by the few who want all power over us. We fight back, or we surrender.

[RandomThoughts]

64. My point is this.

Each person has power over their thoughts and actions.

For a person to have power, they have to get other people to agree to do what they say should be what gets done.

Control over resources requires people thinking that some group should have that control.

So power is getting people to agree to a system that says someone has some claim to something.


However weapons and tech can make some people have more ability to speak to more people, or even use force on more people. So some people can have a leveraged effect on what they do have, and that creates the runaway imbalance.

Another reason why any society that needs tech that can get 1000 people to do what 1 person says is on a downward spiral, because the imbalance gets worse till implosion. Hence tech advances require an equal advance in people thinking in terms of better justice. So people have to advance individual thought on justice and compassion at a level to stop that leveraging.

As the ratio of control increases for an individual, the imbalance and speeds of effects increases.

However tech if not in an authoritarian structure can also do the opposite of that, hence the difference between a free internet, and TV controlled by a few companies, and if things move the internet to that same authoritarian structure, then things implode.

But the only things that implode are things dependent on that system so decentralization helps also.

[TheKentuckian]

63. It happens over and over and will happen again given time

It is entirely natural.

[Jamastiene]

65. I've never heard anyone on here advocating armed revolt, but

you assume the right are the only ones who own guns and know how to use them. That is just not so.

Regardless, I think you have a very valid point about the huge amount of apathy all the way around. My personal observation is that it would probably take an E.L.E. to get people off their sorry asses to revolt effectively.

[rhett o rick]

69. Have you read posts where people state that it is time to get our pitchforks and shovels or get out

guillotines? Or time for another 1775? I have seen lots of them because I usually respond.

[Jamastiene]

74. Yes, but I usually do not take them seriously.

Liberals just aren't known for our violence. So, I guess that just makes me tend to not take it seriously. It's not like pitchforks and torches can really go up against the SS or the US military. So, people have GOT to be kidding when they say that. That's just how I look at it. :shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

106. More liberals have guns than pitchforks, for certain. It's an expression

[Cleita]

76. The pitchforks and torches or shovels statements are just metaphors.

In the old Frankenstein movies the peasants came after the monster with pitchforks and torches. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's just saying we should be getting active in going after the criminals who have taken over our country by legal means and old fashioned protests if necessary. I hope the guillotines statement is also a metaphor about cutting off the heads of the entities who are ruining us, like for instance BP. Cutting off the head of BP would actually mean arresting and putting on trial those executives who are operating in the USA and making them accountable for their criminal negligence.

[William Z. Foster]

88. it is nothing new

In the 1850's people accused the Abolitionists of "advocating a violent slave insurrection." Obviously, this was a way for a person to oppose the movement to slavery without having to admit that they were.

Incidentally, back then would we have called for arresting and putting on trial those slave owners guilty of exceptional abuse or exploitation, or would we have called for the end to all slavery?

Similarly, should we now be calling for the heads of a few executives from a few companies guilty of extraordinary abuse, or should we call for an end to the system that makes these abuses inevitable and that is inherently unjust and destructive?

[Cleita]

92. We should be calling for an end to the system, but unfortunately that

requires a few heads (metaphorically) to get the nation clamoring for reform. Getting those Board of Director members and CEOs under grilling at a hearing by a government committee or a court, I don't care which, and publicly televised or broadcasted, will bring the abuses out in public and no bribed officials whether in Congress or elsewhere will be able to ignore it. Then they will have to do something.

[William Z. Foster]

93. other way around maybe

We should be calling for a few heads (metaphorically) and get the nation clamoring, but unfortunately that requires some who are calling for an end to the system.

It always works in that direction, and never the other way around. Hearings will not get people clamoring for change, it will lull them into thinking that the hearings are change and that all is well and nothing more need be done. Hearings never lead to change, they are a last ditch effort to stop change.

For the educated, and those in the upper tier of the working class, especially in this country, the abuses are some shocking revelation and exposing them seems very significant and important. But this is not true for most of the people here and around the world. They already know about the abuse - they are living it. They are not wondering whether or not the bosses are abusing them, they wonder when the intellectuals in the working class - us - will stop being "shocked" and the like to discover that the ruling class is working against them, shocked that America ain't what they thought and hoped it was, and when will get down from their aloof perch, roll their sleeves up, get to work and join the struggle. That is the only mystery.

[Cleita]

97. It worked pretty good in the past.

Criminals should be brought to justice within the framework of a legitimate legal system, otherwise you are saying there is no justice. I'll admit there hasn't been in recent times or Bush/CheneyCo would all be visiting each other in the prison yard and we wouldn't have their minions running around trying to dissemble our present elected leaders with as many lies as they can make up as if they had any credibility. It's destroying the credibility of the crooks and liars that is crucial here. It's obvious that this Hayward guy from BP doesn't understand the magnitude of the crisis his company has created under his stewardship. He's looking at it as a PR problem and something that's going to cost the company a lot of profits. He has to be exposed as the corporate ninny he is and the Board of Directors of BP has to be made accountable. Bringing all these rats out into the light is necessary for this to happen. There is just so much more to this, as well. The whole global oil industry is involved, not just BP and they need to be stopped before we don't have a planet to call home anymore.

[William Z. Foster]

98. it didn't though

Reform came through workers having the power to shut it all down. Legislation and hearings and prosecutions came later, were an effect of that, and would never have otherwise happened. As the power of Labor has waned, we see that the legislation and hearings and prosecutions cannot stand on their own, and are gradually and inevitably eroded away when there is no longer any threat from organized Labor.

[marions ghost]

77. VIRTUAL pitchforks and torches

(and oh yeah, shovels for all the sh*t)...and virtual guillotines for imagineering the fall of the oligarchy. SYMBOLS, SYMBOLS, SYMBOLS.

It's a LOT less messy than that old-fashioned assaulting at the barricades thing...!

Don't take everything so literally, r o r.

[L0oniX]

87. The military whom you all love so dearly will murder us.

[Swamp Rat]

94. No, but I certainly would like protection from corporations that are killing us in Louisiana

If the downtrodden ever do rise up against the much better armed corporate oligarchy, it will not be because we 'want' to revolt, but because there is no other choice.

Either die, or fight for survival. We are getting closer and closer to realizing this in here SE Louisiana.

[Dr Morbius]

95. There will not be a revolution anytime soon.

I don't recall who wrote this; might have been Stalin. might have been Che Guevara. Whoever; it bears the ring of truth. I quote it from memory.

The bulk of the people will inevitably find themselves in one of two situations: they have nothing, or they have little, and want more. People who have nothing have nothing to lose; they are the ones who revolt. But those who have a little are afraid of losing what little they have; although they have little to lose, little is more than nothing. And accordingly these are not the people who revolt. These are people who conform and behave out of fear of losing what they have. Only those with nothing left to lose join in revolutions.

Now, most Americans have more than a little. Few of us realize how good we have it; consider what life would be like without a washing machine, for example. We have lightning fast internet and flatscreen televisions and devices no bigger than a pack of cigarettes which can connect you with virtually any repository of entertainment or knowledge in the world, that you can slide in your pocket. We eat so much we're the fattest people in the world. We waste more energy than half the planet uses. We have a LOT to lose.

Americans might grouse and might "demonstrate" and someday might even organize a general strike. But we won't revolt unless we lose what we have.

[rhett o rick]

100. I totally agree. I just get sick of those among us that, instead of discussing how to fight back,

fall back on the, get out the guillotines fantasy. We need to fight back, and those that pretend we have the revolution card to play are counter productive.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. You must be reading another board.

I've never seen anyone suggest revolution or armed revolt. At all. You seem to have a real agenda running here.

[Old Troop]

104. Armed revolt. Which of your neighbors will you kill first?