what would it take for you to join a revolution, if one started against the american government. what would have to happen for you to want one to happen. and second. what do you think the chances of one starting with the ways thing are going right now.
what would you revolt over
- Thread starter megadethwolf
- Start date
megadethwolf said:
I'd revolt if I was living in any country in the Middle East. I think we should revolt in the US of A.
Justin S.
Member
Revolt against what exactly? Who is "revolting" and what does this mean? "The government" as boogeyman is not a sufficient answer.
The chances are essentially zero.
One, because the limits of conceptualization of the public are already so effectively bounded by the forces of acculturation, as seen by the absurdity of this thread. A great field study of power relations is Lisa Weeden's "Ambiguities of Domination". This should aid in demonstrating the problem with fantasies of "revolution".
Two, the public is literally dependent on mechanized technology that can only be maintained by a stable and centralized authority- food supply, raw materials, metallurgy, electronics, housing, electricity, fuel, information. The same applies to rural areas, as their farm equipment and feed is just as dependent on a stable and regulated market.
Lastly, the powers that be, and the military/industrial complex will not simply hand over the reigns because some people run around screaming "revolution".
This thread is pure wank fantasy, and is the worst form of "philosophizing". Way to go Neo.
The chances are essentially zero.
One, because the limits of conceptualization of the public are already so effectively bounded by the forces of acculturation, as seen by the absurdity of this thread. A great field study of power relations is Lisa Weeden's "Ambiguities of Domination". This should aid in demonstrating the problem with fantasies of "revolution".
Two, the public is literally dependent on mechanized technology that can only be maintained by a stable and centralized authority- food supply, raw materials, metallurgy, electronics, housing, electricity, fuel, information. The same applies to rural areas, as their farm equipment and feed is just as dependent on a stable and regulated market.
Lastly, the powers that be, and the military/industrial complex will not simply hand over the reigns because some people run around screaming "revolution".
This thread is pure wank fantasy, and is the worst form of "philosophizing". Way to go Neo.
Imp!
Member
- Oct 12, 2005
- 402
- 0
- 16
Justin S.- Nice to see you in another forum, I enjoy reading your posts at JP.com.
I wrote a bunch of words, only to go back to the original post you're referring to and realized I fuggered it all up... I think you bring up good points on how important stability is right now, our government is basically a nanny that keeps the place neat and clean, without it we're a complete mess... I do have to bring up another point though, a revolt in this country is entirely possible. Without stability the government is also a complete mess. One only has to look back to Hurricane Katrina and remember the anarchy there. People actually shooting at helicopters, rampant looting, police officers turning in their badges, roads and bridges melting into the ocean, how long did it take the mighty US military/gov't to calm the place down and restore order? Without roads and energy/electricity the government can get pretty tied up, especially if military branches decide not to cooperate. I think circumstances have to be just right for a revolt, but it can definately happen.
I wrote a bunch of words, only to go back to the original post you're referring to and realized I fuggered it all up... I think you bring up good points on how important stability is right now, our government is basically a nanny that keeps the place neat and clean, without it we're a complete mess... I do have to bring up another point though, a revolt in this country is entirely possible. Without stability the government is also a complete mess. One only has to look back to Hurricane Katrina and remember the anarchy there. People actually shooting at helicopters, rampant looting, police officers turning in their badges, roads and bridges melting into the ocean, how long did it take the mighty US military/gov't to calm the place down and restore order? Without roads and energy/electricity the government can get pretty tied up, especially if military branches decide not to cooperate. I think circumstances have to be just right for a revolt, but it can definately happen.
Justin S.
Member
Imp! said:
You have mistaken me for someone else. Ive never been to, nor posted at, JP.com (there is another Justin S.!
), but thanks anyway for the welcome!Concerning your post, certainly the governmental apparatus is hampered by the same conditions as civilians- the government is comprised of people! (as obvious as that is, people really do forget that and think of it as some monolithic inhuman entity due to its organization and powerful tools). So then, what then is the aim of a revolt? What is its target, its projected change? Can a "revolution" undermine something it itself needs to exist (mechanized capitalism and a technological training apparatus)?
I dont think recent examples of disorder (New Orleans, Iraq, various spots in central Africa) provide much insight on "what-ifs" of revolution, because the condition was always understood by all sides of the power relation to be temporary- the government would regain control of the core infrastructure within a matter of weeks.
I think those who advocate revolt, dont even know precisely what they are revolting against. I think it is a displacement of many different forms of frustration and exasperation that are channeled into a rallying cry for "revolution" (taking full use of the power of this language and symbolic realm).
I see these impulses to be a complex reactionary mood ("mood" not used in a dismissive way) against the omnipresent oppression of "civilization"- rationalizing technology, the dependency due to overpopulation on a technological apparatus, the necessity of order and a centralized authority due to the logistical strain of such numbers, on and on and on.
Revolt against what, how, for whom, what then? We should give pause to these simple questions before we run for the nearest inflammatory rhetorical tool.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
An effective way to change a system you don't like could theoretically be a personal withdrawal of consent and cooperation with it, rather than an armed struggle. One person doing this (to a greater or lesser extent depending on how far the individual is inclined to take it) may not seem effective to that person, but they are setting an example.
The most realistic possibility in the west for a coup d'etat would be if the military do it, which is what could happen as a result of mass civil disobedience or general breakdown of law and order. (Which isn't to say that they would make things any better.)
An organised revolution would be hard to arrange due to laws forbidding groups from plotting such things and getting together.
Another thing is that because we have the impression that, being in a so-called democracy, we can change things by voting, it is harder to drum up sufficient outrage or enthusiasm amongst the people for a radical change in direction. Anyway, the people have their pacifiers: tv, alcohol, sex, etc and would have to be at the stage of eating out of bins before they really wanted to rock the boat.
There is a possibility of a popular revolt somewhere like Saudi Arabia as their royal family is such friends with the US and the people are disgusted with that, to say the least.
The most realistic possibility in the west for a coup d'etat would be if the military do it, which is what could happen as a result of mass civil disobedience or general breakdown of law and order. (Which isn't to say that they would make things any better.)
An organised revolution would be hard to arrange due to laws forbidding groups from plotting such things and getting together.
Another thing is that because we have the impression that, being in a so-called democracy, we can change things by voting, it is harder to drum up sufficient outrage or enthusiasm amongst the people for a radical change in direction. Anyway, the people have their pacifiers: tv, alcohol, sex, etc and would have to be at the stage of eating out of bins before they really wanted to rock the boat.
There is a possibility of a popular revolt somewhere like Saudi Arabia as their royal family is such friends with the US and the people are disgusted with that, to say the least.
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
Could the revolt be against corruption in the government. To a certain level it may always exist, but the current level of westren govenment corruption is growing worse every year. The good and honest people in places of power need to use their resources and connections with other honest government to weed out the corruption and bring back the real checks and balances.
When people like GWB say I am above the law, and no one does anything about it, you know there is something wrong with your government. I thought the act of swearing in a public official was to make them responsible for their actions as a signing of a contract between the people and the elected member.
It is in secrecy that tyrants are born, and the blanketing statements of National Security ensure that people are left in the dark about important issues that quite literally effect their lives.
Government officials should be killed publically for treason(aka corruption). Organizations like FEMA are clearly not for the people, because the ammount of things that they did wrong(sending back supplies, confiscating peoples guns so they couldn't protect themselves from criminals, the delay in rescue) in just new orleans is astounding, but if something worse was to happen, and Martial Law is declared, you just lost all your freedom and probbably your life as you know it.
When people like GWB say I am above the law, and no one does anything about it, you know there is something wrong with your government. I thought the act of swearing in a public official was to make them responsible for their actions as a signing of a contract between the people and the elected member.
It is in secrecy that tyrants are born, and the blanketing statements of National Security ensure that people are left in the dark about important issues that quite literally effect their lives.
Government officials should be killed publically for treason(aka corruption). Organizations like FEMA are clearly not for the people, because the ammount of things that they did wrong(sending back supplies, confiscating peoples guns so they couldn't protect themselves from criminals, the delay in rescue) in just new orleans is astounding, but if something worse was to happen, and Martial Law is declared, you just lost all your freedom and probbably your life as you know it.
But usually, even though people are trying to set an example, they're usually taken unseriously, because they're only one person.Norsemaiden said:
You know, for a long long time, I've been wondering what would happen if the entire US Army stopped listening to the American government, and just stopped taking all orders, because they disagreed that strongly with Bush. If the entire Army, not Congress or Cabinet, disagreed with Bush so strongly that they didn't do anything they were told, and noone was there to enforce them to do anything.
The Patriot Act is meant to protect American citizens for their own safety and security.... Nah, I'm just fuckin' with y'all. The Patriot Act is to shut you all up.
Freedom of choice is an illusion. People are blinded by it. And most of us know it's an illusion, yet we will to be blinded by it. The only choice we actually have is the choice of who controls us, and the choice of who chooses who controls us.
What do the US and Chris Rock have in common? Everybody hates them.
Oh yeah, and to answer the thread question, the only thing I'd revolt for is for the Church of Metal to rule the world.
War_Blade
Member
If you are referring to the USA, I think the chance are absolute zero. Two reasons:megadethwolf said:
1) Revolt requires a massive number of people to be massively maligned by the actions (or lack thereof) of the governmental power. Fact is, right now most people in the USA are living well.
2) Revolt is encouraged by a broken governmental structure. Although people may take issue with the current President, faith in the structure of the governmental system as it currently exists is still upheld by the people it is in place to govern.
ARC150 said:
I find slight areas of disagreement with both points.
1) Per Capita income for 99% of the population did not increase as fast as inflation; median family income decreased; poverty increased; and even more interesting, persons with a bachelors degree had their incomes decrease 5%. This is all fact, and from 2004 numbers. 2005 and 2006 will tell a similar tale, as the estimates show further decreases in income for 99% of the population. Are we still materially wealthy, well of course. But how much longer can such decreases continue? Obviously, America is going way of the British, French, and Romans before us: power and wealth is being centralized and conglomerated by the very rich, and major corporations
2) Our government system is broken, and has been for some time. Does it still work? Yes. However it no longer serves the people, but rather, it serves money--and only money.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
War_Blade said:
USA is the only country with rights to free speech and arms. I don't see any other countries rioting
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
derek
Grey Eminence
I'm more likely to bitch and moan than actually do anything
If I recall Infoterror and a few others - myself included - have discussed the various merits of a revolution and came to a reasonable conclusion that they are an ineffective and dangerous mode of social and political change. I'm inclined to still believe that. Revolutions replace the ineffective with the pissed off and ineffective, and nothing really changes. The *REAL* way of change is more gradual and sustainable.
If I recall Infoterror and a few others - myself included - have discussed the various merits of a revolution and came to a reasonable conclusion that they are an ineffective and dangerous mode of social and political change. I'm inclined to still believe that. Revolutions replace the ineffective with the pissed off and ineffective, and nothing really changes. The *REAL* way of change is more gradual and sustainable.
entanglement
Member
Plus they don't have the will. USA cannot go beyond sit on their couches and bitch about how stupid their president is. I don't see that many people concerned to even ignite what could remotely be in the 'revolt' direction.
Very, very true.
troopsofdoom
Member
- Apr 11, 2005
- 131
- 2
- 18
Blah Blah revolt as we sit on our computers talking about revolting. There are allot of third world countries with people trying to revolt only to be slaughtered. Americans are cry babies we CAN change shit with out revolting. Ill bet most people on here haven't even voted. I agree the Gov is not doing a great job but it still does good compared to other countries.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
To a large extent, the kind of government a country has is a reflection of the kind of people living in that country. It's no surprise that Sweden has a government unlike that of Russia or Zimbabwe because the national character is so different. However, as I always say, with increasing immigration these differences in national character are being erased. And due to the mixing, and lack of common bond, one type of government will be imposed on all nations, ruling them like the slaves they will have become. All governments are moving in this direction and increasingly oppressing their populations.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Aarohi said:
One might argue there is no need to go beyond the couch. If you want to make a change, either vote for a representative whose views you agree with, or get elected yourself. I'd think sitting on the computer and spreading and views is essential enough for this process and voting is a more effective use of the will than most kinds of revolutions
hibernal_dream said:
I really think with such material comfort and riches, coupled with the stresses of work, and the isolation of modern society, one becomes not only complacent, but willing to possibly even support the disappearance of ones rights and freedoms in the name of greater security. Thus, I think Hitler or Stalin could be elected, and no one would complain but the usual protestors.
Similar threads
