Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

[Lancer]

Do the rich always become so rich that they get their heads lopped off? Do the downtrodden always end up so trodden upon that they express their displeasure by lopping off the heads of the rich? Do the commies always figure that they can suppress the masses because of this inevitable cycle, assuming it is inevitable? Will Batman ever escape from the usual diabolicle trap he's ensnared in?

Is Robin gay?

[GePap]

Re: Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

Originally posted by Lancer
Do the rich always become so rich that they get their heads lopped off? Do the downtrodden always end up so trodden upon that they express their displeasure by lopping off the heads of the rich? Do the commies always figure that they can suppress the masses because of this inevitable cycle, assuming it is inevitable? Will Batman ever escape from the usual diabolicle trap he's ensnared in?

Is Robin gay?

Robin is gay. The evidence is simply too massive on that.
And Batman will always escape, to be back at the same Bat channel, same Bat time.

As for the more interesting question:NO, revolution is not inevitable. The solution is creating a legitimacy for the difference, creating an idea in people that difference in wealth is right, and moral, and that disagreeing with it unnatural, immoral.

All systems work on consent. ALL SYSTEMS. If in a dictatorship no one listened to the dictator, they would have no power, period. Any system gets its power because a significant number of people believe they will actively benefit and thus work for the system and in the system, and the majority accept their fate as either the way things are, or think it too bothersome to cfhange it.

That is the reason revolution is rare. Let me add that a coup or a change of regime does not equal a revolution. If the government keeps changing but the same group of people remain rich, that is not really a revolution.

[Lancer]

There is no end to greed though, nor is there an end to people as long as the population keeps growing. That combination means less for the people and more for the greedy, yes? Until the disparity becomes too great, the greed to much and the screwed too poor, and the revolution sweeps all away to start again with the leaders of the revolution oppressing the people, getting rich, etc...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
There is no end to greed though, nor is there an end to people as long as the population keeps growing. That combination means less for the people and more for the greedy, yes? Until the disparity becomes too great, the greed to much and the screwed too poor, and the revolution sweeps all away to start again with the leaders of the revolution oppressing the people, getting rich, etc...

I don;t think "greed" runs the system. A few people are genuinely greedy. Most people want status, and as far as wealth gives them status, they seek wealth. But there are other measures of status that can substitute for wealth.

As for population growth, if things are so malthusian, those n power could always start wars with others in power to cull the herd a bit.

[snoopy369]

No.

(to the OPQ)

[Vince278]

Doesn't the earth complete a revolution once a year?

[DRoseDARs]

Re: Re: Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

Originally posted by GePap
All systems work on consent. ALL SYSTEMS. If in a dictatorship no one listened to the dictator, they would have no power, period. Any system gets its power because a significant number of people believe they will actively benefit and thus work for the system and in the system, and the majority accept their fate as either the way things are, or think it too bothersome to change it.

But that assumes a dictator does more talking than shooting...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Vince278
Doesn't the earth complete a revolution once a year?

Actually, no. I believe that it completes a calendar year just slightly sooner than a physical revolution. I didn't read through all this, but here's the Wiki on the subject.

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

Originally posted by GePap


Robin is gay. The evidence is simply too massive on that.
And Batman will always escape, to be back at the same Bat channel, same Bat time.

As for the more interesting question:NO, revolution is not inevitable. The solution is creating a legitimacy for the difference, creating an idea in people that difference in wealth is right, and moral, and that disagreeing with it unnatural, immoral.

All systems work on consent. ALL SYSTEMS. If in a dictatorship no one listened to the dictator, they would have no power, period. Any system gets its power because a significant number of people believe they will actively benefit and thus work for the system and in the system, and the majority accept their fate as either the way things are, or think it too bothersome to cfhange it.

That is the reason revolution is rare. Let me add that a coup or a change of regime does not equal a revolution. If the government keeps changing but the same group of people remain rich, that is not really a revolution.

Who are you, and what did you do with GePap?

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

Originally posted by Lancer
Do the rich always become so rich that they get their heads lopped off? Do the downtrodden always end up so trodden upon that they express their displeasure by lopping off the heads of the rich? Do the commies always figure that they can suppress the masses because of this inevitable cycle, assuming it is inevitable? Will Batman ever escape from the usual diabolicle trap he's ensnared in?

Is Robin gay?

I asked myself the same question just last night (the above question!).
I came to think of it because watching how - surely among other reasons under the globalization pressure and not only the moral category of "greed" - the elites almost systematically destroy the fundaments of employee protection etc.
A friend of mine works for the Catholic Church on "working contract" basis, which in so many fields has completely substituted the regular employee-employer relation. And what's worse, they won't let him actually sign the contract (sic!) because they even want to be more free to fire him whenever they feel like it. ("There's many historians of art out there who'd be willing to take your job").

To me it seems that lacking the fear of Communism as a rival system makes capitalism revert to 19th century methods. It's not inevitable but if there's no convincing democratically sustainable counter-movement, I nfear society spirals down and one day, masses of working poor will flock to revolutionary movements (whether genuinely left or the left-right cocktail of fascist movements) and then: heads off.

[Provost Harrison]

Re: Re: Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

Originally posted by GePap


Robin is gay. The evidence is simply too massive on that.
And Batman will always escape, to be back at the same Bat channel, same Bat time.

As for the more interesting question:NO, revolution is not inevitable. The solution is creating a legitimacy for the difference, creating an idea in people that difference in wealth is right, and moral, and that disagreeing with it unnatural, immoral.

All systems work on consent. ALL SYSTEMS. If in a dictatorship no one listened to the dictator, they would have no power, period. Any system gets its power because a significant number of people believe they will actively benefit and thus work for the system and in the system, and the majority accept their fate as either the way things are, or think it too bothersome to cfhange it.

That is the reason revolution is rare. Let me add that a coup or a change of regime does not equal a revolution. If the government keeps changing but the same group of people remain rich, that is not really a revolution.

And the fact that they are invulnerable to guns and bombs as well? You really should think through your position a little better my friend...

[Provost Harrison]

Yes, there definitely needs to be a better balance of forces...otherwise this division is going to worsen and the worker is going to find himself with less, financially and in terms of employee rights...

[General Ludd]

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be neccesary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

"God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion! [Shays' rebelion]... What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Zevico]

-Robin- is gay? What about Batman's nipple costume? If that doesn't scream "in the closet" I don't know what does.

[Lancer]

"I asked myself the same question just last night (the above question!).
I came to think of it because watching how - surely among other reasons under the globalization pressure and not only the moral category of "greed" - the elites almost systematically destroy the fundaments of employee protection etc.
A friend of mine works for the Catholic Church on "working contract" basis, which in so many fields has completely substituted the regular employee-employer relation. And what's worse, they won't let him actually sign the contract (sic!) because they even want to be more free to fire him whenever they feel like it. ("There's many historians of art out there who'd be willing to take your job")."

Wernazuma III, it's actually state law in Oregon that an employer can fire an employee at will as long as the employer breaks no law in the process, such as discrimination laws.

Employee rights are all going the way of the dinsaur in the honorable name of competition. If they pay their workers $3 a day, how can we compete? We have to cut pay or close the plant. Yet, they aren't selling whatever they are making to the poor bastard making $3 a day. By screwing over the middle class the upper classes are destroying the market for their goods. At the same time, the top brass seem to constantly be voting themselves new percs.

It all seems very short sighted and bottom lineish.

Heads will roll!

"Yes, there definitely needs to be a better balance of forces...otherwise this division is going to worsen and the worker is going to find himself with less, financially and in terms of employee rights..."

Provost, 'better balance of forces' can stand the test of time? After heads roll, what better system could be put in place?

General Ludd...what an excellent quote to have on tap, well done! ...

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be neccesary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

"God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion! [Shays' rebelion]... What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

- Thomas Jefferson