Is A Revolution Possible In America?

[BeBMan]

Re: Is A Revolution Possible In America?

Originally posted by Sprayber
We did it once but do we still have the fire or the cause for revolution. Times aren't good but not bad enough for revolution as it is, but what would it take to shift us to that point or are we all too comfortable and afraid of losing what we have to get to that point. Commies talk about it as they sip on their coffee and young people sport anarchy logos on their T-shirts but I don't expect much from them.

Wouldn't you need some kind of real (like: better) alternative to what you have now for a rev, and that most people agree on this as a good idea?

Also, are we speaking about a real rev (incl use of force) or some girly non-violent rev like the one Tehban spoke about. Or like the non-violent changes in Eastern Europe incl EastKrautland done mostly without putting people against the wall.

[Jon Miller]

In some ways I agree Rah (not on the poor being lazy, complacent is the word I would use), it has to get really bad for the poor to do something about it. I think it is because in this current system they all dream that some day they will be rich... while they work 2 jobs and struggle to get by.

JM

[Space05us]

When tv, radio, and computers stop working and people read more. Then we might see a revolution. In the mean time everyone is preoccupied with Britney Spears' mental break down and Angelina Jolie's baby production.

[BeBMan]

Being involved in Angelina Jolie's baby production

[Zkribbler]

A revolution is replacing one government with another, e.g. the French Revolution. What we Yanks had in 1776-1781 was a rebellion. At the time, "rebellion" was a bad word, so we blushing called our rebellion a "revolution."

But I believe the opening post means what it says: Can we kick out the crooks now in charge and replace them with a whole new set of crooks?

For a rebellion, you need two things: the will and the means.

We don't have the will. Regardless of all of Bush's short comings, he is still seen as the legitimate President of the U.S. Likewise, Congresscrooks are also seen as legitmate. Absent a vast change in perception, you're not going to be able to rouse 99.9% of the population against them

Obtaining the means would not be as hard as most people believe. In the American Revolution [sic], we -- uh -- "borrowed" cannon from the British. In the French Revolution, the soldiers sent to reinforce the Bastille turned their guns on the fortress instead and led to its capture.

And BTW: Happy Bastille Day!!

[chequita guevara]

This is from a liberal perspective as a cautionary tale, but it's pretty good nonetheless.

When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps To Revolution
By Sara Robinson
Created 02/20/2008 - 6:01pm

Summary:

It turns out that the energy of this moment is about who we are, and where we are, and what happens to people's minds when they're left hanging just a little too far past the moment when they're ready for transformative change. Here are the seven criteria for revolution, the reasons why we're fulfilling each of them now—and how conservative policies conspired to put us on the road to possible revolution.

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

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

The corporate media (with their unerring eye for the obvious point) is fixated on the narrative that, for the first time ever, Americans will likely end this year with either a woman or a black man headed for the White House. Bloggers are telling stories from the front lines of primaries and caucuses that look like something from the early 60s — people lining up before dawn to vote [1] in Manoa, Hawaii yesterday; a thousand black college students [2] in Prairie View, Texas marching 10 miles to cast their early votes in the face of a county that tried to disenfranchise them. In recent months, we've also been gobstopped by the sheer passion of the insurgent campaigns of both Barack Obama and Ron Paul, both of whom brought millions of new voters into the conversation — and with them, a sharp critique of the status quo and a new energy that's agitating toward deep structural change.

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

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

It turns out that the energy of this moment is not about Hillary or Ron or Barack. It's about who we are, and where we are, and what happens to people's minds when they're left hanging just a little too far past the moment when they're ready for transformative change.

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

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

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

[short list--cg]

1. Soaring, Then Crashing ...
2. They Call It A Class War ...
3. Deserted Intellectuals ...
4. Incompetent Government ...
5. Gutless Wonders in the Ruling Class ...
6. Fiscal Irresponsibility ...
7. Inept and Inconsistent Use of Force ...

Full article . . .

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Arrian
Too many of us have far too much to lose. Things would have to change pretty dramatically for there to be the right atmosphere for revolution.

-Arrian

Very true, and none of the aggrieved parties has too much power. I mean there's a lot of unhappy people, but their causes are disparate; and most of them are probably waaay short of open revolution.

Also, are we speaking about a real rev (incl use of force) or some girly non-violent rev like the one Tehban spoke about. Or like the non-violent changes in Eastern Europe incl EastKrautland done mostly without putting people against the wall.

It's just not a real revolution if you don't put some people against the wall after you're done, even if it's just Ceausescu and his wife

[PLATO]

Screw revolution...The South needs to secede again. The rest of ya'll can deal with northern created problems. The South can handle their own.

[Dinner]

No revolution is possible in the US.

[Theben]

Originally posted by PLATO
Screw revolution...The South needs to secede again. The rest of ya'll can deal with northern created problems. The South can handle their own.

bye

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Theben



bye

I wish it was that easy!!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by PLATO
Screw revolution...The South needs to secede again.

And take that lousy George W. Bush with you!!!

[Theben]

Just remember which way the mighty Mississip flows when we piss in the river con giusto...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Theben
Just remember which way the mighty Mississip flows when we piss in the river con giusto...

Well, I guess I could make a remark about how the north has been pissing on the South for over 150 years, but I think it might get lost on the Yankees.

And take that lousy George W. Bush with you!!!

Hey! Ya'll voted for him too!

[Darius871]

Originally posted by rah
Bread and Circuses

That's all it boils down to folks, thread over. As long as there's TV, pro sports, fast food, and cheep beer, there won't ever be a revolution. It's amazing just how little people truly expect from their lives.