A new Revolution in America, how could it happen?

Page 3 of 7 [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Mar 2009, 7:22 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw


Lord Obama of the Kraal. A true prudent predator. He is going to eat our lunch if we don't stop him at the next election.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

30 Mar 2009, 9:21 pm

Hmm Sorry Dussel, i must've been confused with some other important document (happens sometimes ><).

Oh and slight message to ruveyn... you added an h at your name on the post prior to your last one. :o



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Mar 2009, 5:00 am

The economic crisis has not yet reached the apex required for a revolution. There are cardinal signs that might indicate these emotional triggers are approaching and they have not yet appeared. Food and fuel are still within the financial capabilities if the mass of citizenry. When these are priced out of reach the signs will be obvious. Stalled and abandoned automobiles will clot the highways. First pigeons and squirrels will disappear as this costless source of nourishment is seen as an obvious alternative. Then songbirds and perhaps grasshoppers. Cockroaches are too bitter and very agile so they probably will survive.Then the pets, the dogs and cats will go. Only a few lucky families have pet cows and pigs and the supreme prize of a pet elephant is rather rare. When these easily available sources disappear there might be a bit of grumbling from the usually docile American citizenry but of course there is usually a convenient dozing grandfather or grandmother that might disappear into the communal pot. These people are frequently rather bony and tough and that's when the delicious children will go. The fundamentalists, of course, will see to it that all the fetuses will be protected so there will be no protest from them.

But one element has been neglected in this situation. Up to now it has been either aliens, the military, the police, or, occasionally, crooks that have been the objects of execution in computer games but this economy can now focus on bankers and CEOs as the enemy and once that appears it will quickly be transferred to reality and the revolution will begin.



abramk3lly
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3
Location: Brighton, MA

31 Mar 2009, 6:21 am

The thing about a revolution is, the side that's revolting has to win. Otherwise, we call it a civil war, rebellion, uprising, police action, or domestic disturbance, depending on severity and body count. That's why we don't refer to the American Civil War as The Confederate Revolution, or to Ruby Ridge as The Randy Weaver Revolution.

It would actually be really difficult for the US population to stage a violent "Revolution" against the US government. If a sizable majority of US voters are unhappy with the administration, we typically oust the bums during a national election, which happens every 4 years. If the unhappy citizens don't have enough popular support to win 270 electoral votes, their chances of winning an armed conflict against the happy majority PLUS the entire US arsenal is, well, somewhat impractical.
If the Administration started misbehaving (I mean, more than the last Administration did) enough to rile up the populace, and then tried to remain in power by suspending the election, then you'd have a real situation. Probably what would happen is that the leadership of whichever party was out of office would declare the administration to be illegal, there'd be some tense moments, and then we'd see the whole West Wing staff in handcuffs. It'd be very exciting, but still not a revolution - just a coup d'etat.
Now, if the citizens of Buffalo, NY became unhappy with the country as a whole and decided to form their own sovereign nation - perhaps a constitutional monarchy with theocratic overtones - and the rest of the Republic decided it just wasn't worth the effort to keep them, then THAT would be a revolution - just not an American revolution.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Mar 2009, 6:30 am

abramk3lly wrote:
The thing about a revolution is, the side that's revolting has to win. Otherwise, we call it a civil war, rebellion, uprising, police action, or domestic disturbance, depending on severity and body count. That's why we don't refer to the American Civil War as The Confederate Revolution, or to Ruby Ridge as The Randy Weaver Revolution.

It would actually be really difficult for the US population to stage a violent "Revolution" against the US government. If a sizable majority of US voters are unhappy with the administration, we typically oust the bums during a national election, which happens every 4 years. If the unhappy citizens don't have enough popular support to win 270 electoral votes, their chances of winning an armed conflict against the happy majority PLUS the entire US arsenal is, well, somewhat impractical.
If the Administration started misbehaving (I mean, more than the last Administration did) enough to rile up the populace, and then tried to remain in power by suspending the election, then you'd have a real situation. Probably what would happen is that the leadership of whichever party was out of office would declare the administration to be illegal, there'd be some tense moments, and then we'd see the whole West Wing staff in handcuffs. It'd be very exciting, but still not a revolution - just a coup d'etat.
Now, if the citizens of Buffalo, NY became unhappy with the country as a whole and decided to form their own sovereign nation - perhaps a constitutional monarchy with theocratic overtones - and the rest of the Republic decided it just wasn't worth the effort to keep them, then THAT would be a revolution - just not an American revolution.


The assumption is, of course, is that there is a real difference between the two major parties that are financed by the real groups that control elections. Evidently you can fool a sufficient number of people a sufficient number of times.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

31 Mar 2009, 6:51 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw


Lord Obama of the Kraal. A true prudent predator. He is going to eat our lunch if we don't stop him at the next election.

ruveyn

If you had watched the movie you would have realised whoever becomes president would be just as bad...



abramk3lly
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3
Location: Brighton, MA

31 Mar 2009, 1:47 pm

Sand wrote:
The assumption is, of course, is that there is a real difference between the two major parties that are financed by the real groups that control elections. Evidently you can fool a sufficient number of people a sufficient number of times.


Yes, that is the assumption.

The other possibility for revolution in this country is the Fight Club scenario. That's where working class Americans finally realize that the kind of wealth that holds the reigns of power is utterly beyond their grasp, no matter how hard they work. They also realize that the only real difference between the vast wealth of the uber-rich and their own mind-numbing debt is a bunch of paper and digital transactions. And that paper only has value if the 95% of Americans who don't benefit from it continue to believe in it. And then Capitalism as we know it will cease to exist, following the greatest cultural and economic revolution in a thousand years.

But that's probably not going to happen.



Dee_
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 398
Location: Ft. Worth, TX

09 Apr 2009, 1:55 am

I believe it is possible within the next six to 12 months to see thigns get out of hand here in the States. The way the economy is tanking and no end in sight... how long before it bottoms out?

Manufacturing base is gone...
we do not know our neighbors... let alone trust them..
too many people with the mentality of instant gratification and pleasures... no thought of long term planning and such
how many people do you know that have a degree of self suffecient or can get by without many things?

The middle class is soon to be no more... jobs have been lost for years now...

The tree is falling as we speak, just has not hit the ground yet.



Postperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,023
Location: Uz

09 Apr 2009, 2:03 am

Let them eat cake?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Apr 2009, 3:25 am

Dee_ wrote:
I believe it is possible within the next six to 12 months to see thigns get out of hand here in the States. The way the economy is tanking and no end in sight... how long before it bottoms out?

Manufacturing base is gone...
we do not know our neighbors... let alone trust them..
too many people with the mentality of instant gratification and pleasures... no thought of long term planning and such
how many people do you know that have a degree of self suffecient or can get by without many things?

The middle class is soon to be no more... jobs have been lost for years now...

The tree is falling as we speak, just has not hit the ground yet.


Our manufacturing base is far from gone. The U.S. is a leader in the development and production of sophisticated medicines and compounds. We have lost our pre-eminence in clunky low tech industries such as steel making. Steel can be made anywhere and it is. As Thomas Friedman likes to say, the world is flat. However in molecular biology and related industries the U.S. is either #1 or very near so. The U.S. is still a major producer of cutting edge electronic technology (the GPS, for example). The U.S. is a good place to go to get CT and MRI scanning devices and technologies. The U.S. is still a leading nation in the production of aircraft on the cutting edge.
If you want to buy a steel girder you can go just about anywhere. If you want to buy the worlds most powerful laser cutter or CAT scanner or PET scanner, come here to the States. If you want to be the world's best gene sequencers, come here to the U.S.

If the next " industrial revolution" is biologically based, the U.S. is a major player. If anyone can derive a solar technology using algae it is likely to be done here in the U.S..

A similar thing happened in the 19th century. The lead in coal based technology went from Britain to Germany.

The U.S. made the transition from relatively low-tech industry (coal and steel) to high value added technology and services, a long time ago. Our baseline steel industry went away 40 years ago. What remained were high-tech specialty metallics. Ditto for automobiles. The renaissance for the U.S. car industry if it comes at all will be in the area of electric and hybrid vehicles, not relatively low-tech heavy metal chariots.

One area where the U.S. has been a leader and still is, is in food production. We still feed the world.

ruveyn



Averick
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

09 Apr 2009, 8:38 am

Postperson wrote:
Let them eat cake?


LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

09 Apr 2009, 9:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
Our manufacturing base is far from gone. The U.S. is a leader in the development and production of sophisticated medicines and compounds. We have lost our pre-eminence in clunky low tech industries such as steel making. Steel can be made anywhere and it is.


Not really: Steel is not steel. There is a big difference between the steel put into concrete of your garage and the steel of a single M32-screw able holding an truck ... the first can be produced anywhere in the. the later only by a handful of steel mills.

ruveyn wrote:
As Thomas Friedman likes to say, the world is flat. However in molecular biology and related industries the U.S. is either #1 or very near so. The U.S. is still a major producer of cutting edge electronic technology (the GPS, for example). The U.S. is a good place to go to get CT and MRI scanning devices and technologies. The U.S. is still a leading nation in the production of aircraft on the cutting edge.
If you want to buy a steel girder you can go just about anywhere. If you want to buy the worlds most powerful laser cutter or CAT scanner or PET scanner, come here to the States. If you want to be the world's best gene sequencers, come here to the U.S.


In such areas the USA have the biggest competition with Europe. It is neither for Europe nor the USA easy to keep here the leading edge before the "dear friend" on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. But in some areas the US already lost, especially in the area of car industry, transport systems, investment goods for manufacturing industry. In others the competition is quite hard.

The USA has not only a trade deficit with China, but also with the EU - and don't blame Italian Salami and French Wine for this.

---

Besides this: Such a transition has strong effects on the labour force. You will need less people, but with higher qualifications. So even your economy as a whole is still doing well. unemployment will raise and this can be the source of social tensions. You can see this in the Ruhr Area in Germany or the in Loraine Region of France. This social unrest was basically suppressed by a social welfare system and a lot of public money. Such payments are a one-off payment, but must done over decades. If the US want to do so, they had to re-adjust their financial policy: In other words - Higher taxes.



Gabe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 36

05 May 2009, 8:19 pm

Impossible to say what a revolution in the US might look like. Only it's not likely to be peasants with pitchforks (or rifles); more like something along the lines of what happened in the USSR in the 90s:
1. Economic/Fiscal crisis
2. Failed attempts at reform
3. Foreign creditors cut off loans
4. Retrenchment from foreign military operations/client-states
5. Political upheaval, riots, mutiny; radical changes made in constitution
6. Increased Autonomy/Independence in distant provinces
7. Hyper-inflation, collapse of infrastructure and public services
8. Hope for change gives way to cynicism and corruption
9. Economy recovers after period of austerity
10. Political system stabilized after revolutionary interval (10-15 years later)

Maybe a worst case scenario, but certainly possible.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

06 May 2009, 10:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
The chances of a successful revolution is virtually zero. The government not only has more guns than private citizen, but they have tanks, planes, gas, flamethrowers and other nasty weapons.

During the American Revolution, the insurgents and the British regulars were equally armed (or nearly so). The Brits were ahead on training and discipline, but that advantage was whittled away during the course of the war, when the American troops received battle field training and discipline.

If you want to see what happens when lightly armed citizens go up against the tanks, look at what happened in Tsieneman Square in China or in Hungary in 1957. It was pure slaughter. Your 18th century minuteman or right wing extremist in camo has zero chance against a modern armed force.

In addition the number of Americans who really, really want to have a revolution is very tiny. In the American Revolution is was 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalist and 1/3 wait and see which way the wind blows. Very few Americans really want to overthrow the current government. They would much rather alter it through the elective process as deficient as that is.

Not if you get the military on your side. The roman military killed whatever rulers they did not like
ruveyn


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

06 May 2009, 10:54 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
The destruction of living standards of the working classes can be the catalyst for revolt, war is another, both are looking likely.

To assume that the working class is unarmed is naive, the vast majority of the Armed forces are Working Class. So any concept of armed revolt will by necessity require the mutiny of large portions of the military. Ruveyn is quite correct that if a civilian militia attempted to overthrow a government fully supported by the military they would effectively be committing suicide.

The goal of a serious revolutionary is to carry out said revolution with the absolute least amount of conflict. This can only be achieved by raising the political conciousness of the working class (in the case of Marxism). If this is done in a methodical and principled manner this group can shut down a country and bring a government to its knees without the firing of a single bullet.


one does not necessarily need a revolution, there cnan be seccession as well. Although this could lead to a revoultion indirectly.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)