Revolutions And The People

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said that.

You see that little blue square with the white arrow by your name?

 

[daveman]

I never said that.

Yes, you did. I quoted you verbatim.

 

[midcan5]

I saw a few pieces that seemed relevant and linked them below a counter thought.

Are there revolutions in ideas? Consider the change from the world of spirit control to the modern sense of personal responsibility. The largest change would be the change from church to secular that took place over two hundred years ago and seems to still be happening. Many people still desire a central authority that remains unknown, Gawd, rather than the more obvious monarch, government, or what have you. If ideas matter more than the revolutionary act who manages ideas? If managed who decides on whether an idea is good or bad or even workable. Are we at an impasse today in America as MONEY is the chief source of ideas and its idea is only more.

Revolutions, Black Swans, and Historians | Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts

What Would Marx Say about Cairo? - By David Armitage | Foreign Policy

Did you sleep through the part of your history class that talked about the Magna Carta?

Since the Magna Carta was mentioned and this discussion was about change. See quote below and also see: http://www.usmessageboard.com/reviews/85148-reading-that-opens-the-mind-books-2.html#post4146123


"'Democracy,' although in use from Greek times as a term for 'government by the people,' only came into popular use at the time of the American and French revolution. In England, although there may have been democracy, at least in theory, since the Magna Carta, or since the commonwealth, or since 1688, it did not call itself a democracy and at the end of the 18Th centuries, democracy was more or less equivalent to Jacobinism or mob rule. 'Democrats at the end of the 18Th and the beginning of the 19Th century were seen commonly, as dangerous and subversive mob agitators.' Class in its important modern sense dates from about 1740." Peter Watson in book below.


Quote source [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/006621064X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780066210643): Peter Watson: Books[/ame]

part of above quote is from: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Society-1780-1950-Raymond-Williams/dp/0231057016/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Culture and Society 1780-1950 (9780231057011): Raymond Williams: Books[/ame]


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Divergence-Europe-Making-Economy/dp/0691090106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. (9780691090108): Kenneth Pomeranz: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Political-Economic-Origins/dp/080705643X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (0046442056434): Karl Polanyi: Books[/ame]


All the books above look interesting and useful to a historian or person who wants to know more about the development of the modern world. I have only read most of the first, time provides too little time in our busy (modern?) lives.

 

[Unkotare]

As long as gathering power through asset hoarding is valued in human society we will never have peace.

The best human societies have valued life, knowledge and compassion.

As sad as it is there are just too many humans who insist on valueing assets over life, knowledge and compassion.

I am gald to not be one of them.

What a shallow and half lived life those people have to endure.

They are so clueless they even think THEY are better off than those that value life, knowledge and compassion.

Why don't you go ahead and just vomit right on the screen, you pretentious shit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I saw a few pieces that seemed relevant and linked them below a counter thought.

Are there revolutions in ideas? Consider the change from the world of spirit control to the modern sense of personal responsibility. The largest change would be the change from church to secular that took place over two hundred years ago and seems to still be happening. Many people still desire a central authority that remains unknown, Gawd, rather than the more obvious monarch, government, or what have you. If ideas matter more than the revolutionary act who manages ideas? If managed who decides on whether an idea is good or bad or even workable. Are we at an impasse today in America as MONEY is the chief source of ideas and its idea is only more.

Revolutions, Black Swans, and Historians | Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts

What Would Marx Say about Cairo? - By David Armitage | Foreign Policy

Did you sleep through the part of your history class that talked about the Magna Carta?

Since the Magna Carta was mentioned and this discussion was about change. See quote below and also see: http://www.usmessageboard.com/reviews/85148-reading-that-opens-the-mind-books-2.html#post4146123


"'Democracy,' although in use from Greek times as a term for 'government by the people,' only came into popular use at the time of the American and French revolution. In England, although there may have been democracy, at least in theory, since the Magna Carta, or since the commonwealth, or since 1688, it did not call itself a democracy and at the end of the 18Th centuries, democracy was more or less equivalent to Jacobinism or mob rule. 'Democrats at the end of the 18Th and the beginning of the 19Th century were seen commonly, as dangerous and subversive mob agitators.' Class in its important modern sense dates from about 1740." Peter Watson in book below.


Quote source [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/006621064X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8"]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780066210643): Peter Watson: Books[/ame]

part of above quote is from: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Society-1780-1950-Raymond-Williams/dp/0231057016/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8"]Amazon.com: Culture and Society 1780-1950 (9780231057011): Raymond Williams: Books[/ame]


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Divergence-Europe-Making-Economy/dp/0691090106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8"]Amazon.com: The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. (9780691090108): Kenneth Pomeranz: Books[/ame]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Political-Economic-Origins/dp/080705643X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8"]Amazon.com: The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (0046442056434): Karl Polanyi: Books[/ame]


All the books above look interesting and useful to a historian or person who wants to know more about the development of the modern world. I have only read most of the first, time provides too little time in our busy (modern?) lives.

The discussion was about secular control of the government, not democracy.

 

[midcan5]

Al Gore and Joel Hyatt's Current TV broadcasts some of the most interesting and complex news today. Vanguard is always excellent. I had never heard of Gene Sharp till he appeared on Current. For me it demonstrates just how conservative and corporate managed media in America is today. Pablum is the usual stuff of our MSM, when it is not just pure BS. See links, interesting and related both to world wide change and our own OWS movement. Peaceful revolution - hopefully with values that includes fairness for all.

How to Start a Revolution on Current TV | How To Start A Revolution
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dictatorship-democracy-conceptual-framework-liberation/dp/1880813092/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation (9781880813096): Gene Sharp: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1XbyFv51k]Gene Sharp - How to Start a Revolution Teaser - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnkaradLXKQ]Gene Sharp, the Man behind the Uprisings - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragon]

I disagree that no revolution has benefited the people it meant to benefit. If you had inserted an "immediately" in there somewhere, I might have agreed.

To begin with, you chose a poor example to go into details -- America has never had a revolution. The so-called "American Revolution" was actually a civil war, not a revolution. In the end, it left the government it was fighting in place and stronger than ever, while achieving independence but no revolutionary change in the former colonies.

So let's look at the French Revolution instead. Did that achieve what it intended -- a democratic republic built around the ideals of liberté, egalité, et fraternité? Yes. It took over 80 years, but it did.

The immediate aftermath of the Revolution holds little appeal, to be sure, and some reject it on that basis (although the French certainly do not). But consider the sequence of governments France held between 1789 and 1870.

At the beginning of 1789, an absolute monarchy

From 1789 to 1800, an abortive attempt at a democratic republic that descended into chaos and was overthrown by a coup

From 1800 to 1815, an enlightened constitutional monarchy (the First Empire) with an extremely capable monarch who institutionalized many republican ideals even as he ruled absolutely

From 1815 to 1848, a constitutional (limited) monarchy, leaving many of Napoleon's reforms in place

From 1848 to 1851, another abortive attempt at republican government, which did rather better than the First Republic but was overthrown by a coup in a few years.

From 1851 to 1870, a Second Empire ruled by Napoleon III, effectively a constitutional monarchy

From 1870 on, a democratic republic. (The Third Republic lasted until 1940. It fell as a result of the Nazi invasion. A fascist regime was briefly in power, propped up by the German military. The Fourth Republic was established in 1945 after the German defeat, and the Fifth Republic replaced it in 1958. Except for the Vichy government, France has been ruled by a democratic republic since 1870 and there is no reasonable expectation this will change in the future.)

Now this was a long and torturous road for the French to walk before they could achieve their republican goals. But could the Third Republic have been achieved if the absolute monarchy of the Bourbons had never been overthrown?

The Revolution did not achieve success immediately. But it was a necessary step.

 

[Katzndogz]

All supposing that other avenues weren't possible! Unlike other nations that have progressed, the French are incapable.

I do not see a revolution in the US, but I do see a very necessary civil war.

So does Cornell West.

Cornel West: Ultimate Fight For Entitlements Will Be In "The Streets" | RealClearPolitics

If the left is to be stopped, it must be stopped with finality. A very necessary war in the streets might be the only way. We should welcome it.

 

[Dragon]

If the left is to be stopped, it must be stopped with finality. A very necessary war in the streets might be the only way. We should welcome it.

We outnumber you at least four to one. You'd lose.

 

[daveman]

If the left is to be stopped, it must be stopped with finality. A very necessary war in the streets might be the only way. We should welcome it.

We outnumber you at least four to one. You'd lose.

Leftist math is funny. No wonder you people fuck up every economy you touch.

U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading

 

[midcan5]

I disagree that no revolution has benefited the people it meant to benefit. If you had inserted an "immediately" in there somewhere, I might have agreed.
[...]
The Revolution did not achieve success immediately. But it was a necessary step.

Interesting points but consider the time factor, was it the revolution or was it a change in ideas or a failure of old ideas. But the revolution may have opened up the possibility for future change. The Russian revolution eventually changed or morphed into something else after Khrushchev, Gorbachev and others realized the old way didn't work. America had what I would consider a revolutionary change during the great depression, when again, the old ways didn't work. Good discussion.

Leftist math is funny. No wonder you people fuck up every economy you touch.

The depth of your knowledge is a recent Gallup poll? That pretty much sums it up for you? Must be nice to be so simple minded. I outlined republican [conservative] accomplishments here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

While we are all conservative in a manner of speaking, conservatism has never accomplished a single thing that was good for all people, say like social security. I have asked numerous times for a society based on conservatism - there is none. There could not be one, for if we were all conservative we'd still be living in caves, if we got that far. I say this often and no one challenges me. If conservatism is tradition, then the tradition must have come from some place and (my take at the moment) is that place is liberal progress after the Enlightenment. Call it change if you like, call it whatever, but we do not stand still if we are to survive as people and as a society.

Hirschman nails you guys perfectly. "He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."

The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman | Harvard University Press
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is rare today that I read something that sparks a large question mark in my mind, but consider this, no revolution has ever helped the people in need of change. Our own founding included slavery, and while in principle it was egalitarian, our history has shown another side. Did women even exist then. The French revolution soon deteriorated into a mass killing of the very people it was supposed to help. Jesus died before he could create a heaven on earth, while he talked a good game, his heaven had to wait, his followers were quickly busy killing each other. The Russian revolution soon deteriorated into Stalinist paranoid communism. Mao's people's revolution killed millions and hardly changed the lives of the common people. Even material or technological revolutions only create problems of alienation, slave labor conditions, and societal disruptions. The Industrial revolution destroyed farming, created cities full of lives of misery, polluted the environment, and may today finally destroy the earth. Out of our contemporary world of such vast promise, autism figures grow, one in eight women encounter breast cancer, and poverty figures increase. Free market Capitalism creates large trails of misery and regularly collapses as the Great Depression and the recent recession testify. Think also of the Katrina failure. Communism failed, Socialism is an interesting concept but like Christianity never tried. And so it goes....

Why is this, are not revolutions the means to create a society that supports the people. Wasn't the enlightenment about Reason and wasn't Reason the answer to injustice and violence? Wars of the 19th and 20th century show how far reason has gotten humanity. Look only at the wars of the moment. It is always the other side that is unreasonable. Look today at the fact most people on earth live on less than two dollars a day. A child dies every few seconds in the world from preventable causes. Revolutions in Africa become killing fields. One hundred and fifty million children in the world work in sweatshops. Even in America the poor grow poorer, this in a wealthy nation that cannot even provide healthcare for all its citizens. British youth rebel. Egyptians have had enough. Maybe revolutions of all sizes have goals of not a better world, maybe they are for some other purpose. Anyone know?

Will humanity ever advance to a state of nature, a state of peace, that only small tribal groups have ever approached or possessed.

The American Revolution was truly revolutionary because it formed a government for the people, the other revolutions (China, USSR) you sited were creatures of Progressive Thought and therefore could only lead to mass murder and subjugation.

 

[editec]

Will humanity ever advance to a state of nature, a state of peace, that only small tribal groups have ever approached or possessed.

Where does this come from? Nature is dog eat dog, the mightiest survives. Nature is not peaceful but a violent enviroment. It entails individual survival each and every day, wary of the predator that awaits you, that is going to eat you. Peace is an illusion that one who views from afar perceives, but go into the jungle and observe and you will see the true side of nature.[/QUOTE]

OH?

So mankind is a beast?

Not a cooperating social creature at all?

It's all dog eat dog, is it?

Seriously, kid, get a clue.

You ain't superman.

 

[Dragon]

Leftist math is funny. No wonder you people fuck up every economy you touch.

Actually, we don't. The U.S. economy was strongest during the decades (1940-1980) when liberal economics dominated, and the strongest economies in the world today are almost all those incorporating liberal economics (or social democracy as it is called abroad).

The right, as I learned a long time ago, is not fact-based, however, so this brush of reality will, I predict, make no impact on your ideological convictions.

And we will still outnumber you, and if it comes to civil war you will still lose. The poll you presented, as I noted the last time you did, shows only how many people CALL themselves liberals or conservatives, which means very little. You had no answer to this, nor to my presentation of issue polls showing that liberals far outnumber self-described liberals -- again demonstrating that your own beliefs are not fact-based. And here's the most important issue poll of all w/r/t questions of revolution or civil war:

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2010/06/new-pfaw-poll-shows-americans-want-action-to-correct-citizens-united

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today while 93% say that average citizens have too little influence.
95% agree that “Corporations spend money on politics mainly to buy influence in government and elect people who are favorable to their financial interests.” (74% strongly agree)
85% disagree that “Corporations should be able to spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of elections because the Constitution protects freedom of speech.” (63% strongly disagree)
93% agree that “There should be clear limits on how much money corporations can spend to influence the outcome of an election.” (74% strongly agree)
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount U.S. corporations can spend to influence elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.

Money in politics is the main issue of Occupy. As I said, we outnumber you (on this issue) by at least four to one.

Of course, your ideology tells you that this CAN'T be true, and your beliefs are not fact based, so this will, again, have no influence on what you believe. Life in a bubble does have its advantages, I suppose, in terms of peace of mind.

 

[diptherio]

Midcan5: Republicans obviously don't "hate America." That's ridiculous, just as ridiculous as when Republicans say that liberals "hate America." Seriously, can we adults? Daveman, you're being just a bad. Why does everyone feel the need to label themselves and everyone else and then cast dispersion or praise on those labels? It's just childish and very fuzzy thinking.

Crusader Frank, I would suggest you read the book "American Aurora" or some other history of those early times in our country. What you may find is that folks like John Adams wanted to replicate the British constitutional monarchy in the U.S., rule by the rich, and that's essentially what we got. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wanted a very different system, but they were defeated and ended up having to settle for the Bill of Rights. King George actually wrote to John Adams, "you have given yourself a king and called him a president." Adams loved this and thought that eventually the executive would have to become hereditary, just like Britain, and he was hoping that he or his son would end up becoming the first hereditary president.

Things are always more complex than most people want to believe.

 

[daveman]

I disagree that no revolution has benefited the people it meant to benefit. If you had inserted an "immediately" in there somewhere, I might have agreed.
[...]
The Revolution did not achieve success immediately. But it was a necessary step.

Interesting points but consider the time factor, was it the revolution or was it a change in ideas or a failure of old ideas. But the revolution may have opened up the possibility for future change. The Russian revolution eventually changed or morphed into something else after Khrushchev, Gorbachev and others realized the old way didn't work. America had what I would consider a revolutionary change during the great depression, when again, the old ways didn't work. Good discussion.

Leftist math is funny. No wonder you people fuck up every economy you touch.

The depth of your knowledge is a recent Gallup poll? That pretty much sums it up for you? Must be nice to be so simple minded. I outlined republican [conservative] accomplishments here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

While we are all conservative in a manner of speaking, conservatism has never accomplished a single thing that was good for all people, say like social security. I have asked numerous times for a society based on conservatism - there is none. There could not be one, for if we were all conservative we'd still be living in caves, if we got that far. I say this often and no one challenges me. If conservatism is tradition, then the tradition must have come from some place and (my take at the moment) is that place is liberal progress after the Enlightenment. Call it change if you like, call it whatever, but we do not stand still if we are to survive as people and as a society.

Hirschman nails you guys perfectly. "He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."

The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman | Harvard University Press
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]

Are you capable of thinking for yourself? All you do is post book excerpts.

 

[daveman]

Leftist math is funny. No wonder you people fuck up every economy you touch.

Actually, we don't. The U.S. economy was strongest during the decades (1940-1980) when liberal economics dominated, and the strongest economies in the world today are almost all those incorporating liberal economics (or social democracy as it is called abroad).

The right, as I learned a long time ago, is not fact-based, however, so this brush of reality will, I predict, make no impact on your ideological convictions.

And we will still outnumber you, and if it comes to civil war you will still lose. The poll you presented, as I noted the last time you did, shows only how many people CALL themselves liberals or conservatives, which means very little. You had no answer to this, nor to my presentation of issue polls showing that liberals far outnumber self-described liberals -- again demonstrating that your own beliefs are not fact-based. And here's the most important issue poll of all w/r/t questions of revolution or civil war:

New PFAW Poll Shows Americans Want Action to Correct Citizens United | People For the American Way

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today while 93% say that average citizens have too little influence.
95% agree that “Corporations spend money on politics mainly to buy influence in government and elect people who are favorable to their financial interests.” (74% strongly agree)
85% disagree that “Corporations should be able to spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of elections because the Constitution protects freedom of speech.” (63% strongly disagree)
93% agree that “There should be clear limits on how much money corporations can spend to influence the outcome of an election.” (74% strongly agree)
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount U.S. corporations can spend to influence elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.

Money in politics is the main issue of Occupy. As I said, we outnumber you (on this issue) by at least four to one.

Of course, your ideology tells you that this CAN'T be true, and your beliefs are not fact based, so this will, again, have no influence on what you believe. Life in a bubble does have its advantages, I suppose, in terms of peace of mind.

Need some help moving the goalposts?

You wanna see a leftist economy in action? Look at Greece. Good job, asshats.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, you're being just a bad.

A bad what?

 

[Dragon]

Need some help moving the goalposts?

The goalposts haven't moved. Of course, you know that, so we can add "liar" to your portfolio.

You wanna see a leftist economy in action? Look at Greece.

I give you 40 years of superb performance in the U.S. under liberal economics, and the fact that most of the world's strongest economies are governed by liberal economics, and you cherry-pick one poor country that mismanaged its finances. Typical.

I also notice what you did there in substituting "leftist" for "liberal." Speaking of moving the goalposts . . .

 

[daveman]

Need some help moving the goalposts?

The goalposts haven't moved. Of course, you know that, so we can add "liar" to your portfolio.

How can you tell when a leftist is losing an argument?

He calls you a liar.

You wanna see a leftist economy in action? Look at Greece.

I give you 40 years of superb performance in the U.S. under liberal economics, and the fact that most of the world's strongest economies are governed by liberal economics, and you cherry-pick one poor country that mismanaged its finances. Typical.

I also notice what you did there in substituting "leftist" for "liberal." Speaking of moving the goalposts . . .

Like I said...you suck at math.

Entitlement economies simply aren't sustainable. Planned economies simply don't work. Look at the rest of Europe. It's not working.

This is reality. You will predictably call it a lie.