What will it take to ignite the next American Revolution?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 31 2006, 07:51 PM) [snapback]341636[/snapback]</div>

I do not agree that it is desireable for people to start to choose which laws to break and which to obey. That would be the beginning of the end of civil society and we would soon descend into chaos, much like Iraq. I am not very idealistic about human nature - people are essentially selfish and the veneer of civilization is very thin. On the other hand, there are many things that can make this world much better than it is. There are actions people can take without breaking laws.

1. Refuse to sign up for illegal wars (perfectly legal)
2. Refuse to over-consume by buying monster houses, monster cars, etc.
3. Educate yourself by reading, reading reading. You will discover the corporate media is spinning lies.
4. Realize that the 2 mainstream parties are owned by the oligarchy. Work to create a third party along the lines of scandinavian social democratic parties.
5. Support the union movement. It is the only power workers have in the face of overwhelming corporate hegemony.
6. Support the environmental movement - alternative energy, conservation, population control.
7. Work for incremental improvements, not revolutionary change. Oppose all forms of violence, especially war.
8. Work against ignorance and superstition
9. Get a passport. Travel. See the world and learn about different cultures. The world is a varied and beautiful place. It cannot be divided into "good" and "evil".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 1 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]341871[/snapback]</div>

We actually have found common ground too. I am not sure what is happening to me but in the last two days I have found common space with several people I previously doubted I could stand with on anything

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 1 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]341885[/snapback]</div>

Great! I look forward to your agreement with me on the importance of refusing to fight in illegal wars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 1 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]341891[/snapback]</div>

I agree, we should never fight illegal wars. Are you referring to the War on Poverty :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 1 2006, 01:06 PM) [snapback]341904[/snapback]</div>

I also agree, we should not fight illegal wars..however, we SHOULD fight those who participate in illegal wars.

Now...what is your definition of an illegal war? One not sanctioned by lots of UN resolutions and Congressional acts? I agree.

 

Jared: When you say that people should refuse to fight in illegal wars, you are tacitly admitting that people must decide which laws are legal and which are illegal, and therefore which laws to obey and which to break. In the case of illegal wars, you have a national law requiring soldiers to fight whatever war their government orders them to fight, and international laws which may be argued prohibit a given war. The individual must decide.

Everyone decides for himself which laws to obey and which to break. If you are all honest with yourself, I'll bet everyone here has broken some laws from time to time.

In any case, you are arguing for actions involving reform of the system, while I was describing what would need to happen in a nonviolent revolution. Note that I said I don't believe this could happen in America now because the public lacks both the training and the motivation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 1 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]342295[/snapback]</div>

The war in Iraq is clearly illegal in terms of international law because it was not authorized by the UN security council. It was not authorized because the UN felt that, as bad as Saddam was, he could be prevented from developing WMD by sanctions and the weapons inspection team. They were right. I am not sure whether it is illegal in terms of US law, but it seems that the president has taken over war-making powers from congress.

Since the US now has an all-volunteer army, there is no need to break any law by refusing to join the army. If there were a draft, as in the Vietnam era, I would advocate breaking the law by refusing to participate in that war. I was speaking generally about it being better for people to reform the system rather than picking and choosing which laws to break - I agree, of course, that there are times when the only moral position is to break the law, but this does not mean that "everyone should decide for themselves which laws to obey and which to break". A rare and extreme occurence does not translate into a general principle.

In speaking of a "popular uprising", you did not mention a "nonviolent revolution". If you have something along the lines of Ghandi's nonviolent revolution in India in mind, then I have no objection. Most revolutions are violent, however. Even Ghandi's led to extreme violence between religious groups and to his own death.

What I really think is that we are far from being anywhere near a revolutionary stage. Most people take their picture of reality from the corporate media, and have a false conciousness about how the world works. People first have to educate themselves about the reality of who owns and controls the US and how this oligarchy always sets the political agenda to favour themselves while merely paying lip service to "freedom" and "democracy". An increase in education and awareness would automatically necessitate changes in the political structure, and by education, I am not referring to pledges of allegiance and singing the national anthem, but to developing real critical thinking. Democracy would be the last thing Bush and the neocons want, just as peace is the last thing the generals and their corporate allies want. War is, simply, just too profitable. Wars continue because they make the already rich even richer. As a general himself put it,

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious."

~General Smedley Butler

 

I have said repeatedly that (in my opinion) nothing short of a nonviolent revolution can turn around the direction this country is headed, and that at present, none of the conditions for nonviolent revolution is present, or even vaguely discernable on the most distant horizon. This is a major reason for my cynicism.

"Legal war" is an oxymoron. "Just war" is another. This, of course, is my opinion. If you search hard enough, you will find people here and there who disagree with me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 2 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]342690[/snapback]</div>

Whether or not "legal war" is an oxymoron (whatever happened to that list of oxymorons anyway - I liked it), we can certainly agree that "moral war" is an oxymoron. A case could be made, under very strict conditions, for moral self-defence. For example, the Japanese have surrounded Nanking [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre] and you are a Chinese trying to survive. Is is moral to kill Japanese - yes it is. There are no ambiguities - you really have to fight. The war in Iraq is not like that. Nor was the war in Vietnam. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. In fact, there is no evidence that Al Qaeda did the attacks or even has a real existence outside of the CIA, ISI and MI-6. Iraqi did not attack or threaten Americans any more than the Vietnamese did. On the contrary, we attacked them. Like the Vietnamese, the Iraqis love their country and want foreign troops out.

What do you mean by "non-violent revolution"? A revolution in political awareness and sophistication? That is essential, but probably not likely given the state of so-called education in this country. What is there to say about the educational system of a country in which half the people think cave men co-existed with dinosaurs? We need to do better than the Fred Flintstone model of education.

 

An American Revolution? :huh:

There will never be another. <_<

Chevrolet tired that, and it's failing them miserably.
http://www.chevrolet.com/

 

I don't think we would see this come to pass.
During the American Revolution, we were ruled by a distant government who wanted to keep us under their control without us having any say in the matter or in any of the laws levied on us. Remember "No taxation without Representation". We have the ability to have a say in electing those who represent us, and if we don't like what they are doing to get rid of them after 2, 4 or 6 years. (In the current case 8 years.)
If our political system reverted and these rights were taken away from us, then you might see something. Unfortunately, it would most likely be a Civil War, vice an American Revolution. The dividing line however may not be as (quasi) clearly identifiable as the Mason-Dixon line was in 1859. I don't think any of us want this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 1 2006, 12:49 AM) [snapback]341740[/snapback]</div>

Ditto~

 

jared2 quote

I do not agree that it is desireable for people to start to choose which laws to break and which to obey. That would be the beginning of the end of civil society and we would soon descend into chaos, much like Iraq. I am not very idealistic about human nature - people are essentially selfish and the veneer of civilization is very thin. On the other hand, there are many things that can make this world much better than it is. There are actions people can take without breaking laws.

Yes I think you are right about that

1. Refuse to sign up for illegal wars (perfectly legal) Since when can a soldier decide which orders they will follow and not. Much like having people decide which laws to follow
2. Refuse to over-consume by buying monster houses, monster cars, etc. That is an easy one, but what is a monster home? In 1950 the average new home size was around 1400 sq ft with 5 people in that house. Now the avg is 2200 sq ft with 3.5 people in it.
3. Educate yourself by reading, reading reading. You will discover the corporate media is spinning lies. I am not sure the problem is corp media but the fact that people belive what they want to and will listen to the new broadcaster that will present what tey want to hear.
4. Realize that the 2 mainstream parties are owned by the oligarchy. Work to create a third party along the lines of scandinavian social democratic parties. The Swedish model worked because there was a huge trade imballance with the rest of the world, now that the trade surplus is almost gone they are having problems and Norway is a major oild exporter to Europe.
5. Support the union movement. It is the only power workers have in the face of overwhelming corporate hegemony.Unions are the biggest "status quo' aqnd selfish groupes I have worked with. Unions don't want change unless it will line their pockets. When the company I worked for offered profit sharing to the craft employees the union said "we want garantees that we will get a set amount each quarter" and rejected it.
6. Support the environmental movement - alternative energy, conservation, population control. Each little bit helps
7. Work for incremental improvements, not revolutionary change. Oppose all forms of violence, especially war. That si the 1% rule. Improve 1% every day and soon you have something new
8. Work against ignorance and superstition Education, education, education

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 2 2006, 11:43 AM) [snapback]342708[/snapback]</div>

A revolution is the overthrow of one government and its replacement by a new government or system of government. I believe replacing the present leaders with new leaders will solve nothing. We need a whole new system, based on cooperation rather than competition, where people who cannot compete successfully are still included in the mainstream economic life, rather than dumped out on the street, as they are today.

Cooperation and inclusion rather than competition and exclusion.

Nonviolence is a philosophy which goes far deeper than the mere rejection of violence. Nonviolence is a method of resistance in which you carefully avoid doing any harm to your adversary, and you also treat your adversary with respect. It is founded on the belief that we are all human beings, and as such we all want the same things. It rejects the paradigm that some people are "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Nonviolence is neither easy nor safe. A nonviolent resister accepts the fact that he or she is as likely to be hurt as is a soldier, but she or he renounces vengeance or violence against his opponent. Violence is easy: you aim a weapon at the guy you disagree with, or the guy your government tells you is an "enemy," and you pull the trigger, or you order your army to invade. Nonviolence requires thought and creativity, matching an action to a situation. The Freedom Rides, the lunch-counter sit-ins, Gandhi making salt in defiance of the Salt Laws, are examples.

A nonviolent revolution is the overthrow of a government using nonviolent tactics such as refusal to pay taxes and refusal to obey the government on matters that would merely serve to keep the government in power.

As I've already said, the conditions for a nonviolent revolution do not exist in America, and I doubt they ever will. And since a violent revolution would only make conditions worse (and yes, worse is still possible) I absolutely oppose a violent revolution.

 

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, family, military strength, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Some political theorists have argued that all governments are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

An example meaning for those of us in the south .

Gee I have heard it said on more than one occasion since Carter that some one must be pulling the puppet strings on our presidents.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 3 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]343592[/snapback]</div>

Who threatens us with high gas prices? Saudi Arabia? OPEC? CITGO?