General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI read, in another thread, the following statement ...
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Autumn (a host of the General Discussion forum).
Note to the Juror: This is NOT a call-out post ... I am genuinely interested in hearing more about this}
I'm wondering a couple things:
First, how many people on DU believe this? And for, those brave enough to own to their belief, please discuss what our world looks like the day after this mass, unvoting, revolt.
{ETA: I asked this question of the DUer that posted the comment; but, have not received a reply ... I'm either too impatient, or (more likely) on the commenter's ignore list}
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Then we the people need to represent govt. Start by running for local offices.
Sick_of_TP
(21 posts)Where's this/these people going to get the funding to run against a Koch funded candidate? Do you think they'll find enough $20 bills to match the millions needed?
MH1
(19,156 posts)I assume they fund some local candidates strategically. Bad luck for the person who wants to run in that locale. But may of us aren't in Koch-targeted areas, and have a reasonable opportunity.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Look at running for local office with the same set of spectacles when viewing our U.S. representatives… There are a few who get in, and depending upon how many in the locality of your municipality are engaged, or disengaged, you will eventually burn yourselves out UNLESS you get others to come on board with you.
Many of us who ran, tried to make a difference have burned out of ever thinking our running again locally WILL make a difference.
So, you're not seeing the real story here and lesson learned. The lesson I'VE LEARNED is to make a difference, you must get persons outside of governmental structures awake. The pressure to change governments (local to federal) has to be outside that government. They've totally enabled a dysfunctional INSIDE system.
It's gotten to that point.
randys1
(16,286 posts)for local office, because to do neither is purely irresponsible.
Yes, it sucks that voting for the lesser of two evils is what we seem to have, but if they STILL cant see the GRAND CANYON size of difference between these two evils, if they still dont get it, FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)consequences of such a thing. Most often, the ones calling for revolt are not the ones who would participate in such a revolt, but are only saying, "Let's you and him fight."
Not voting does not constitute a mass revolt, in any case. Here in the U.S. less than half of people who are eligible to vote bother to vote, for one reason or another. Apathy is the primary reason, though. Apathy is not conducive to mass revolts, either.
Calls for revolutions are generally little more than a recognition that actually making changes is difficult and requires hard work. Revolt, too, is difficult and requires hard work, so most people won't take part in any such thing.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)the population is required who are fully committed to the revolutionary program. This base might be forged from a coalition of urban proletariat and disaffected middle-class college and university students (to take up Chris Hedges' line for sake of the argument) but, until such a base is forged, calls for revolution are, as you put it, mostly a recognition that "actually making changes is difficult."
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)understand your question, nor the use of quote marks.
Care to elaborate on your question?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Aren't those demographics the essence of a Populist base?
Sorry, if it seemed snarky :~)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)
"Populist" movement in the late 19th- early 20th Century came from the agrarian landscape, at least as I recall American History. Rather than use a term with historical connotations like 'Populist,' I prefer to stick with more generic phrases like 'revolutionary vanguard' or 'revolutionary cadre'.
The Occupy Wall Street phenomenon saw a flegdling attempt to forge just such a base (of urban proles and disaffected middle-class students). I actually think "Populist" (both positive and negative) is a good descriptor for what I experienced of Occupy out here in Los Angeles. In my opinion, one reason Occupy failed to secure any lasting changes is that the urban proletariat component failed to throw in with Occupy 100% but, instead, held back out of some vestigial hope that late-stage capitalism could still be reformed. (I am deliberately contrasting 'reform' with 'revolt' here for purposes of this discussion.)
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)We need to figure out how to talk about these issues
else be mired in word twisting, and inane parsing
while the right-wing takes the whole shebang.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I will look for your posts from now on...
Now I have to read the rest of this thread...
the question:
just knocked me out of my recliner, I have asked this question before but this framing is by far superior to anything I have asked...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think that is correct, but no for the reason you suggest. Taking the proletariat, as defined as, the workers, working-class people, wage earners, etc., and urban, as PoC and the poor, I suspect we have never lost faith in capitalism; but we were/are constantly told by disaffected middle-class college and university students (read: the, largely, white intellectual leaders of Occupy), that blowing up capitalism, will solve our issues.
That is a message that misses us ... every time.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Seale and Fred Hampton among them) might take issue with your phrase "misses us ... every time." But the urban proletariat cannot be blamed for failing to throw in 100% with Occupy given the cacophony of voices amidst its throngs. I mean, for awhile at Occupy Los Angeles, there was a strong 'Ron Paul'\Libertarian contingent, FFS. No way any sane black or Latino working person is going to throw in with that shit, nor should they. The Paul-bots seemed to disappear after the first 3-4 weeks but, by then, the die was cast to a certain extent and the OLA camp had become mostly an experiment in urban camping, its 'revolutionary' potential blunted by a whole host of inter-related issues.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This is true ... though I was speaking of contemporary times.
But, to be honest, the 'Ron Paul'\Libertarian contingent's message is equally as off putting as much of the "it's classism, stupid"/"Down with the Oligarchs" language, we hear from the Left.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what is next? ... what will our political system/system of governance look like, after the "revolution?"
As history suggests, the people just end up trading one set of "elites" for another, and history suggests that rarely works out well for the people.
And, in our case, we would be trading (arguably, the illusion of) a democracy, for what?
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)If there is no organization left to pick up the pieces, chaos.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)such a theory (of 'circulation of elites') back in the early part of the 20th Century to analyze and explain social transformations. In my opinion, such a question is rendered largely moot anyway by the lack of that 3-5% base of which I first wrote.
I do have a (Socialist) vision where society is organized around meeting people's needs first, rather than enriching some people's pocketbooks. But getting to the 3-5% base for a revolution to achieve this is a long way off. Chances are that, long before that threshold was tripped, the Democratic Party would have shifted leftward to absorb some or most of it.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Do you think that the colonists had any idea how their Government would work eleven years hence? Must the destination be mapped fully to your satisfaction before the disaffected are allowed to revolt?
I'm not sure that the people fighting under Mao knew that the Revolution would become a cult of personality with single dictatorial rule in their futures. We know that many in Cuba did not expect that.
Look at Yugoslavia during the Second World War. There were three and sometimes four groups of Partisans fighting. Nationalist who wanted a Yugoslavia free of Germans and the Royal Family. Those loyal to the Royals. Communist supporting groups, and sometimes groups that were more Pro German. None of them could have possibly agreed on what the post war Yugoslavia would have as a future Government. But three of them agreed on one thing, there would be no Germans in the future. When the two main opposition groups were not fighting Germans, they were fighting each other.
France was much the same, with competing groups of Partisans all wanting to reshape a liberated France by their own design.
So we have historical examples of chaos leading to some sort of organizations afterwards, but none that I can think of where a people rebelled and got the utopian vision they might have dreamed of. If they had known it would end up that way, it's possible they would not support the rebellion. It's also possible they would, because look at Cuba again. No matter how bad it was under Castro, nobody ever wanted a return to Batista. In other words, there does not need to be a cohesive plan for the future that the people can agree upon, there needs only be a general distrust of and opposition to the current Government.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)that it's in their interests to stand aside (or even join) your revolution. I don't think they're at the point of saying "anything will be better than what we've got now". They're the ones with the powerful weapons who ultimately control whether the current system continues. No-one is going to invade from outside, unlike China, Yugoslavia and France. And unlike the American Revolution, the military for the status quo power is on home ground, not a month away across an ocean only crossable by sailing ships.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)So you think the Awesome American Military would do the job well of securing a nation that is three thousand miles from coast to coast?
You do know that we have just over one million people in uniform including the National Guards and Reserves right? That is less than one percent of the population of the nation. How many of them would refuse to fire upon other Americans? Let's say it is only one in ten. Since the most patriotic and gung ho types join the military, it might be much much higher, but how many units would be combat effective if they were literally decimated before the action began? So what would happen? Would the military spread out and sweep through areas? Or would they fall back and attempt to defend vital areas. Let's say Manhattan, Washington DC of course, and some other cities.
Oh, and a third of those in uniform are people on ships in the navy and coast guard. How useful is a Submarine going to be in Kansas City? Or someone trained for submarine duty with a rifle? More than a couple hundred miles from the coast and even the Carriers are useless. We could park the ships, and end up with five thousand poorly trained infantry.
You should look at the numbers my friend. If the nation rebels, there is literally next to nothing that the military can do about it except secure a few vital areas, and then the question of supplying those areas with food, electricity, water, and all of that medical supply stuff that gets trucked in every day is a real one for folks in that area.
Tanks? We don't have enough to put one in every city with more than a hundred thousand people. Helicopter gunships? We have fewer of those than we do tanks. Attack jets? Fewer even than the helicopters. So either the military ceeds large swaths of the nation to the notional rebels, or they try to fight them piecemeal. That didn't work in Viet-Nam where we had a hell of a lot more people per square mile, what makes you think it will work in the US?
If the people are behind you, you can accomplish great things in a Democracy. If they are against you, you are powerless. Oh, and before you start talking about the police, remember that there are even fewer cops, including federal agents, than there are military people.
All told, everyone who could conceivably carry a weapon in Federal service would make up far less than one percent of the population. If on the other hand, a mere five out of one hundred decide to take action, then the cops and federal agents are outnumbered by about six to one. If the military joins in, and all combat troops deploy, then the numbers of the rebels grows dramatically, and you're talking about the authorities being outnumbered by about ten or twelve to one. How long before several of those ones just pack up and go home? We know that after three days many police officers left New Orleans to its fate. Outnumbered, no support, they just quit. The military might hold out longer, say a couple weeks before they decided to fall back and secure the vital sections, meaning cities.
All told, if they handed a rifle to every man and woman, police and military, they could field about 2.2 million people. How many states have populations greater than that? How many of those law enforcement types would turn and walk away. We saw many who were uncomfortable with the police response in Ferguson, if things like that were happening every day, how many would just walk away? Especially since about three quarters of the military people are support rather than combat types. The general rule of thumb there is for every infantryman, you have ten soldiers in support. That is tanks, engineers, artillery, aviation, dental, medical, supply, transportation, intelligence, and several other specialties like water purification. I don't think that a detachment of dentists is going to do much good on the lines or on patrol in the towns and smaller cities do you?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)yourself, let alone one that the nation has. You're saying that you don't need to specify what the revolution would be for - just 'a revolution'. But you think that the military wouldn't stop such a directionless revolution, and you assume that no-one else would support the status quo.
Outnumbered 12 to 1, the heavily armed military, with a clear purpose in mind - to support the democracy they've supported all their lives - would massacre the rebels who have just personal arms, and no purpose beyond 'revolution', who wouldn't have support from most of the population - because the rebels would have been the ones who started the fighting.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Since you admitted to NOT KNOWING
what Russel Brand is advocating you
are just making false assumptions.
You are misleading people into a hyperbolic scenario.
Rather than spreading misinformation and fear mongering
about your imagined apocalyptic scenarios just watch
a you tube video of what Russel Brand's "Revolution"
actually means?
Or are you "one of them"?
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)The bottom line is that the right-wing is better armed, more motivated, and more capable than the left if it all came to some sort of revolutionary action. This "revolt" is unlikely to turn out as the people calling for it envision.
I'm not really interested in talk of revolution from either side. The results would be far more disastrous than doing nothing, I'm sure.
Our society isn't in the mood for revolution or even "revolt." That seems clear to me.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... that in a system that provides systematic, effective, and peaceful means for advocacy, reform, and change pursuing "mass revolt" is ethically dubious.
PS, The fact that some one particular group or individual doesn't have success in achieving the reform or change that they advocate does not mean the system for change is ineffective. It far more likely means that they, themselves, are ineffective.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Because an unknown, walking in off the street into a precinct meeting, demanding that everyone listen to them, and then stomping out in a snit when no one does ... is a proven method for raising ineffectiveness to an art-form. {This scenario is a compilation of what I have seen in meetings, and posts that I have read here.}
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)imthevicar
(811 posts)For the same reason the House is a complete fail, Poor representation.
www.thirty-thousand.org
randr
(12,648 posts)and will never have to suffer the consequences of his ill advised notions.
Talk is cheap, voting takes effort.
randys1
(16,286 posts)up and lord knows we need that, the answer is not to give Karl Rove what he prays for, apathy and a guaranteed republican Supreme Court, Republican House of Representatives and Republican Senate.
Now, the damage they will do will be so outrageous, so harmful, so deadly, that it would end their party once and for all, but would anyone be left standing to celebrate?
How many tens of thousands of dead Women from botched back alley abortions do we need before we say no more?
How many people who are at the raw end of institutional racism like Black folk, Gay folk, Latino folk, will nonchalantly not vote to make a statement, how many can afford that luxury?
You see it is a luxury for white, straight Americans to do some revolt by not voting, because they are not daily targets of institutional racism and bigotry, they are not pulled over by police for no reason other than skin color.
I get kind of tired of hearing from these people who have luxuries, threatening to prevent anyone else from getting them.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Do you really think people who are in the entertainment industry and have nice apartments and own nice things in the UK are part of the 1%, or were you just looking for a hasty generalization?
randr
(12,648 posts)and I don't give a rats ass about their possessions.
I am merely pointing out that those few among us that do not have to sit down every week and wonder how they will pay their bills, put food on their plates, gas in the cars, heat in their homes, or clothes on their children have a few more options than the majority of us.
A hasty remark would be for anyone to advise working people to give up their only chance of bettering their lives. That would be to concede that they have no voice in their future.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I think voting is only one of many duties in your life that will increase your chance of participating in your local economy, because local issues are what are most important at the polls.
I hear nothing from Brand to advise anyone to give up a chance of bettering their lives. On the contrary, I think he would advocate becoming interested in how your dollars are put to use, and who is keeping tabs on your private information. This is good advice IMO.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Not suggesting people withhold their votes.
The Far Right/Conservative movement is making it increasingly more difficult for legal citizens to vote just because they might vote the Democratic ticket.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when there is such a "movement" to withhold/interfere with the franchise, directed at a specific class(es) of people that tend towards voting Democratic, it seems odd to: 1) ignore what the movement leaders are saying by creating the movement (i.e., voting Democratic, is to be hampered);and 2), help them, by advocating that the affected class(es) voluntarily abandon electoral politics.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Change you mind, change you behavior.
His point about VOTING is that there is not
point COMPLAINING about the people YOU vote for
if YOU don't change your own behavior first.
His revolution begins with the INDIVIDUAL
randys1
(16,286 posts)If voting for Hillary is the same as voting for Jeb, then why would one side be working day and night to stop us from voting?
greatauntoftriplets
(179,005 posts)And I always do.
marym625
(17,997 posts)The worse of two evils win.
We need to make sure we get candidates that don't fall into the evil category at all and then campaign our asses off for them. With the new rules on campaign contributions is going to make that even more difficult than ever.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Maybe some people just don't want to put in the work of getting their person elected. I give the GOP credit for co opting the tea bags and running for the smallest office at the lowest levels to develope a base of elected officials to move up the ranks to higher office.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)What is "this"? A DU members interpretation of Russel Brand?
Have you researched Russel Brand's actual quote(s)?
Do you know specifically what Russel Brand
intended with the statements quoted?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Particularly the:
part.
No, I have not research what Brand said ... I, generally, play little attention to actors, (or athletes) as political commentators.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)...Because Russel Brand said voting equals
participation in the oligarchical system?
Yet you haven't looked into what Russel is actually saying?
Is it possible to agree with a part of Russel's POV
yet disagree with another part?
What are you really asking?
If DU members have given up on the democratic process...
if apathy reached critical mass?
As to "pay little attention to actors, (or athletes) as political commentators."
Who do you pay attention to?
Who are your reliable "go to" information purveyors?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is a viable plan for accomplishing anything politically.
Who do you pay attention to?
Who are your reliable "go to" information purveyors?
I listen/pay attention to a wide range of ... most of which have academic backgrounds or histories in social movements.
You are clearly, intelligent enough to understand my query (everyone else has been), but I sense a strange hostility vibe coming from you ... I strongly believe you are merely arguing to argue with me. So per my New Year's resolution ... Have a happy life.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Since you haven't taken time to learn what HE intends
using the term "revolution" you are distorting his meaning.
You are creating a thread that veers into apocalyptic
revolution, mad max scenarios, etc which is completely misleading
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I wonder why?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)What exactly is the "accusation/assertion"?
That Russel Brand is being taken out of context?
That you are suggesting an apocalyptic revolution?
That DU members won't vote in an "oligarchical" system?
So what have you concluded from your "not a call out" thread?
Have you come to any conclusions yet?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Nope. Not going to play.
Have you come to any conclusions yet?
I've come to the conclusion that for some reason, you, and you alone, have misunderstood my query.
Have a happy life.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Mass revolt? Umm, you and what "mass"? If you can't get people to do something so easy and straight forward as to VOTE for your policy preferences, exactly why would you think that you could get anyone to REVOLT on behalf of them?
Nothing but a petulant rant. Paying attention only encourages the tantrums.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was asking if others supported abandoning the electoral process. I am the last person to advocate that fantasy.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... and the current post does not imply that you do. I was simply responding the full quote which states "...it's time for mass revolt...".
My observation has been that those who speak against voting (at least on DU) aren't generally recommending apathy or dropping out. They are generally advocating their personal romantic fantasy of "armed resistance" or "mass revolt," so I thought I would take the opportunity to comment on that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)assuming that it was still between Ds and Rs and that it was the Ds that revolt it is easy to tell you what it will look like within the next four years.
Morning after: WH, Senate and House all solidly in control of Rs. They are the winners and NO ONE else is.
Throughout the next 4 years our elderly SCOTUS either die or retire due to old age. Rs replace all with young and radical Rs. They now own the SCOTUS for years to come.
They repeal all safety net programs including ACA, food stamps, housing, education money including school lunches, unemployment, labor laws, the right to unionize, social security, Medicaid and Medicare. Regulations on banks and corporations are repealed.
They privatize most of the government. For profit programs now cost a lot more than government run ones but since most programs have been repealed it is cheaper to run what is left of the government. They do not lower the taxes on the working class.
They increase defense spending and the number of wars but they ignore the needs of returning vets and cut many of their programs. Torture and other bush era methods of war become the norm. They may have to reinstate the draft because they cannot get enough volunteers. It will not include the children of the rich.
They end the right to abortion, birth control etc. Women's rights are rolled back. Civil rights are repealed. Free speech is ended. RW Christianity will become the state religion. Others will be banned.
Immigration will become a not so nice worker program to provide plenty of cheap labor to the country. The idea of citizenship for immigrants will disappear.
And the most important thing they will do is find every way in the books to obstruct voting for those of us who revolted. And they will win another 4 year term.
The fight is over and we have lost.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm interested in seeing/hearing what those advocating abandoning the franchise will accomplish besides, in the best case, a generation of dystopia, and in the worst case, a rapid decline into a "Mel Gibson" movie, which gives rise to "strong men/women" rule, and no governance.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Do you really believe what you are saying?
Or is this hyperbole intended to scare the children?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)comes true, this nation will collapse into dystopia? And likely stay there, because the people that have the wherewithal to turn it off (i.e., re-constitute governance) ... "elites"/"oligarchs", will be largely unaffected because they will continue to have security forces to protect them, while the rest of us are merely trying to survive the day.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)You owe it to yourself and others to actually
find out what Russesl Brand is advocating.
And apparentlyyou misunderstood jwirr's position as well?
See post #46
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)If you want my attention, you'll have to pay more attention to what you are writing, frankly. I value words. So does Russell Brand.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)probably need. As much trouble as the protesters get into they are finally involved in governing. Occupy, Hands up, Don't Shoot, the teachers in Wisconsin they are all involved. They are involved on a wakeup call basis.
But that leaves the rest of us.
Voting is the first step. It says our vote may not count but we are still here and we are not giving up. Go to the caucus or vote in every election. Tell them what you think and join with others who think like you.
Joining together to sign a petition, or write our congress persons and the President. If ALL of us did that on the issues it would not allow them to think they are getting by with their lies. And some of them do listen.
Writing letters to newspapers is not easy because you have to give your name. I quit when I started getting hate mail from strangers. But it is still important if anyone has the stomach for it. But we have another way - the internet and sights like ours. We not only communicate here but we contribute to other social media sites.
Support things like the Unions who work for us every day. They are our voice.
Yeah I know these are the old ideas but at least we are still fighting. We did not just give up. One of these days if they do not start listening to us we will run into a crisis that touches everyone - climate, food shortage, bank crash - and we will still be there ready with our ideas and our actions to call them out. Change will come. I believe it will.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Yeah, I'm a huge star trek fan, but I can't help but recall the two part episode "Time's Arrow" where the Star Ship Enterprise manages to take aboard Mark Twain in the process of doing what they do best… giving the rest of us a different version of how we must evolve and what it means to any future of the human race.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts). . . if we can't find a way to get people of their dead, lazy asses and get them to vote - with VoterID if required. Before we can get rid of the onerous Jim Crow laws, we have to VOTE.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)to consolidate their control of the 1-party state?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)to win. Even in the long run. My first post was an answer to the original post regarding what I think to Russell. His idea is kind of a fantasy and so I answered back in the form of a fantasy. Hopefully enough of us will still see the need to fight back.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)missed some crucial contextual clue. Is Brand arguing that people simply not vote?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)height of irresponsibility and childishness, imo. If for no other reason, you vote AGAINST THE GREATER EVIL! (Sorry for the internet shouting -- I'm saying 'you' rhetorically and not personally -- but this is such a core concept that I can't restrain myself.)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)do not see refusing to vote as a form of protest. It does not work. My father raised us all to understand that if you do not vote for your candidate then you are voting for the other party or as you said the greater evil. I have found out there are a lot of people on DU who do not understand that and I often feel totally defeated by their thinking.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we misunderstand Brand's message ...posting a link to Brand talking ... after I stated I really don't follow,or take political cues from entertainers.
Maybe you can/will watch the video and "report back."
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Almost every post is saying "Russell Brand doesn't vote ..... doesn't want you to vote." So yes that is how I understand it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)off base?
Say it ain't so.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Even a lot of those voting R are voting against their best interest. On the abortion subject, I think the GOP really does not want to change this because it is a controlling factor on those who votes against their best interest just because they have been told the GOP is against abortion. If they really was against abortion then they would be sure the forced birth babies would have every chance of succeeding with ample food, shelter, health care and education.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)- the first time I realized to was when raygun won.
This post should be required reading for anyone who advocates not voting. 
TexasProgresive
(12,730 posts)Also In studying the outcome of revolutions it seems they often make things worse rather than better.
One more thing- I don't trust people who suggest that one's vote is worthless so why bother. the people who do this the most in our country are RW extremist who always vote and do everything they can to get us not to vote.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think too many have romanticized the French Revolution and/or believe the American Revolutionary mythos ... The former, removed the "Monarchs" power, but left in place the oligarchy ... the latter left out a majority of the population (i.e., women, PoC, the poor and landless).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but, of late, the call is coming from the left ... there was a "well received" OP, the other day calling for a movement of progressives to "abandon electoral politics."
randys1
(16,286 posts)all the way through to the end.
I am a recovering drug addict.
When I get the urge to use drugs I am encouraged to "Play the tape" as they call it, to envision what my life will be like for the next 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 years if I pop that pill.
When I play the tape I see pain, loneliness, bankruptcy, depression and death.
When I play the "dont vote" tape I see all the same things...
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)I find MANY friends and acquaintances are recently embracing the same stance (don't vote, the only way to affect change is to starve the beast) -- and forcefully calling anyone who disagrees flat-out idiots.
It's usually younger white males...some white females...shouting this from the rooftops, the people most steeped in privilege (even if they are struggling financially). I rarely see PoC advocating for revolution against the oligarchy or even using that proletariat/bourgeoisie language that most people I know are distinctly uncomfortable with.
I do advocate for a revolution: A Revolution of Values.
The Marxist language coming from the left doesn't seem very helpful. On one hand I believe in taking back the words (because conservatism has co-opted and destroyed even the most basic words like compassion and The Common Good), so I can applaud them using terms they know people are uncomfortable with in an attempt to get back to basics (?); on the other hand, when the words refer to ideology and systems, I think a new language altogether may be most effective. These words have so much baggage it's nearly impossible to have meaningful discussion with anyone not already in your camp.
And while they also speak to the existing systemic "isms" -- racism, sexism -- along with classism, my impression is that they prefer to sweep these other things under the rug saying EVERYTHING comes down to classism.
It's also really hard to get on the same page, especially when people can't even agree on what liberal and progressive mean, for example.
I do feel capitalism in today's world is horribly destructive, but without a shift in cultural values, no other "system" -- economic and otherwise -- is going to remove oppression. It simply changes hands.
We need cultural transformation leading to new systems steeped in authentic partnership rather than domination and oppression as we've become accustomed to as "it's just the way it is."
Anyway, seeing your thoughts here made me feel better...that I'm not going crazy...as I tend to resonate with your positions and views.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)talking this "down with the oligarchs" stuff are, as you mention, white males/females, those most steeped in privilege.
I could argue that this is WHY they are anti-capitalist ... they are white, and (mostly) male, and (self-convincedly) smart, and (possibly) hardworking ... everything that the American Dream mythos tells them that is needed to get rich (i.e., achieve oligarch status); but, they are not ... capitalism has failed them ... they are struggling financially.
The problem is this rebellious cohort ascribe their disappointment in the American (capitalistic) Dream, to those that have never came to believe it.
I agree with you about the need for a "Revolution of Values" ... But for, that (as most PoC can tell you) ... we are merely trading one set of "masters" for another.
.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)Really, that's one of those subtle shifts in perspective that helps clarify some of the undercurrents I'm seeing.
I know there are multitude of ways we humans "other," demean and dehumanize one another via bigotry and bias that are also inherent in our systems, but I do believe racism lies at the heart of it. Humanity's core wound, if you will.
I'm trying to create more pluralism in the so-called "new economy" movement, specifically co-ops (which is yet one more thing we white people have co-opted from the AA community, where the history of co-ops and mutual aid societies really began 100 years ago), but it feels almost insurmountable right now. There is an overwhelming, though understandable, lack of trust which prevents integration of these grassroots economies, even though there are exceptions, of course.
While I understand the human tendency to stick with those with whom you're most comfortable and familiar, especially with a community activity in which you invest yourself, I feel strongly that any new economies created are going to manifest the same competitive, oppressive dynamic if true diversity isn't part of the structure. (Again, "trading masters" as you say.)
No one can afford to wait for white people to become the minority for racism to die out. Time is of the essence with lives lost each and every day.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)maybe it's my bias; but, the integration of these grassroots economies, IS doable ... so long as, white folks (and males), do not minimize racism (and women), because at that point it is you (in the generic sense) just trying to use me ... again.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)I've ruffled a lot of feathers recently by repeatedly bringing this up in these various circles. The few PoC were like, "Thank GOD someone finally said something. If we brought it up we'd be the typical angry black person."
So I'm on the outs with many "new economy" people because I put the inherent white privilege in this movement front and center (I'm a white female, btw), yet PoC who don't know me don't trust me. TOTALLY understandable.
I'm not a newbie to race relations (been at it for 40 years), but it's not like I've written books or essays on the topic for my credentials to be verified...lol.
I'm trying to figure out how to cultivate trust across a wider range of people using these intertubes. It all comes down to trust or else whatever is created isn't sustainable, imho.
Nice chatting with you. Take care. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You are off to a good start.
Peace.
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)The system *doesn't* really give a fuck about us--yet, voting can still force reforms that make mass struggle more effective.
I don't know what Brand had in mind. Mass revolt is kind of vague. If he means general strike, those have a time and place, but aren't the answer to everything.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Russel is simply advocating mass action.
Be it boycotts, general strikes, not voting etc...
Not a "french revolution"
It seems not many here have taken time to find out what he's saying.
NBachers
(19,438 posts)If my company goes on strike- that's a different matter
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)Massive revolts end up in situation such as the French Revolution. Or Civil war.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)flood the ballot box, flood the political parties, and flood the streets.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
ThoughtCriminal
(14,721 posts)2006 vs 2010, 2008 vs 2004...
And get 500 more Democrats to the polls in Florida in 2000 and compare the world that we got.
The oligarchy fucking loves it when we decide that voting does not matter. They invest a huge effort to promote that attitude.
madokie
(51,076 posts)we win by Voting and doing it often. Never by not voting. In fact that is a recipe for failure if ever there is one.
*15 months showed me the importance of voting and I was but a kid then.
*'Nam service
Not only did we/american soldiers kill million of innocent Vietnamese but we lost 58 thousand plus of our own. Many of us were changed for the rest of our lives in the process. I came away a changed man fully understanding the importance of Voting and voting often
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)themselves schmucked not 12 months later. In '68, voters chose Tricky Dick's "secret plan" and again got schmucked as bad or worse as they had in '64. One would have been entitled to draw exactly the opposite lesson ("the importance of voting and voting often"
from those two elections, I think.
Atman
(31,464 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a callout. The poster had the opportunity to discuss this in another thread (and has directly participated asking this question there). He accused the post in question of breaking the TOS and then starts another thread about it. If he didn't get a reply to the post he linked to, then that's too bad. You can't just call someone out because they didn't answer you in another thread. Use the alert system or wait for a reply, or accept that you aren't going to get one. This is disruptive and inappropriate.
I really like 1StrongBlackMan's posts, but that doesn't excuse this type of post.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:16 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Initially voted to leave it until read alerter's comments. Yeah, it's just a call-out that could have been/should have been dealt with on the original thread. I'd prefer to leave it, it's kind of interesting, but it is a pretty clear violation.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This seems like it could be a valid discussion and I see no call out. The history of this poster means nothing to this particular post. Who is called out? I will never figure it out.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe the morning caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, but I can't see anything wrong about the original post. Just because an issue was brought up in another thread shouldn't mean that that's the only time it can be discussed. And judging by the replies, may DUers think that the OP have value as a discussion point.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Democrats from voting, don't listen to this crap, it never wins except for the other side. We don't need more GOP's elected.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)That said, it's critical we acknowledge and accept that there are profound flaws in the electoral system that make it vulnerable to abuse and corruption. Under the current setup, moneyed powers will dominate and control elections and legislation. The proof of this can be found here:
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
IMO those who believe voting is sufficient to supporting their notion of democracy are mistaken, and are inhibiting real progress.
rock
(13,218 posts)Just because there is a high infiltration of corrupt officials does not mean there is any thing wrong with the system. If every voter voted against the incumbent the next three election we would have a squeaky clean congress with a clear message that hey would not even consider contradicting. We the people allow the corruption.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I suspect that if elected folks knew/thought they would be voted the next cycle, they would either, do what they thought best for the nation, regardless of what the people say they what; or, go for as much money/connections they can garner, for their after-life.
Neither of these are desirable to me.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)You'll see comments about the parties being 'two wings of the same oligarchy party', or 'opposite sides of the same coin', or some other such Naderite bullshit.
They're wrong. There are very real and concrete differences between the parties, and very real and concrete reasons to vote for Democrats over Republicans.
If a poster can't find a single reason to vote for the Democrat over the Republican - if they'd proudly stay home and make waffles, for instance - then they deserve the government that they get.
Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)
statistically, compared with other western democracies, the U.S. is kind of a shithole. Of course the current system is great for some. Glad it's been good to you.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)when YOU ARE enabling their bad behavior.
Russel Brand is saying that enabling bad politicians
is the problem, stop complaining, change YOUR life.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)JI7
(93,616 posts)
G_j
(40,569 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)of the left striking will gain us, what? ... besides, 24-72 months of really bad stuff (see jwrr's post).
G_j
(40,569 posts)A strike should not exclude voting, which is important in my view. However, I don't see it ever happening here. A general strike would be far more intelligent than some nebulous 'mass rebellion'. Still, it aint going to happen.
In my humble opinion, we've already gone beyond the pale. Democracy is dead, the noble experiment has been sabotaged.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)would mean total anarchy and leave us struggling for our survival like feral animals in the woods.
The point being, ALL of those people were far more liberal than today's "centrists" who would mock and bully them for their ideas and visions. Real leaders like these will NEVER be allowed within the cloistered, gilded circle of "acceptable candidates" who fall to their knees every time Wall Street says "service me".
So, Russell Brand is saying something that would have him censored, bullied, stalked and humiliated on this website, which, by design, does not permit discussion of alternative solutions to the current Democratic Party's political dysentery.
So our political monopoly answers only to those with money, and when anyone suggests dissent or protest, we punish them.
It's a fucking perfect system for an oligarchy.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)boycotting the voting system altogether just validates the other side's claim that Democrats "just don't go out and vote." The only way to see change is if tons of people go out and vote and then we can see them denied the right to vote, see their votes flipped to the other side, see their votes disappear altogether. Without that, we're just conceding.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Those advocating to abandon the voting process have not told us what this place will look like 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years after republicans are in control of everything...everything
So if you are advocating to not vote, can you at least tell us why, what is it you want to see happen?
And please answer this question in the context of being under total and complete control of rightwing, teaparty, science hating, Women hating, minority hating, Europe hating assholes for an indefinite time.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't think not voting is the key, in fact I think so many people not voting is exactly what has put us at the mercy of those who have no mercy.
I think voting for people who have unequivocally made clear they will work to deconstruct the status quo that empowers those with money is the answer. Candidates of any party who want to 'work with' the status quo of empowering the wealthy and corporations are the problem, not the solution.
Again, I make a call for a 'none of the above' in every race, and if that is the winner in a given race, it has to be run again, with none of those who ran before allowed to run in that race.
ms liberty
(11,237 posts)
CaptainTruth
(8,200 posts)the ongoing protests. Specifically, occupying govt buildings. For example if Congress is about to pass yet another bill that's a giveaway to Wall St, the Koch bros etc, I would love to see a few thousand people show up at Congress, not sure how far you can get into the building (are there public viewing galleries in the House & Senate?) but get inside & shut it down. Deliver the message that they work for us, the people, not their rich campaign donors. I'm feeling like that's the only way we can really get the attention of politicians, large crowds of "We the People" in their face. As it is, they merely court us for our votes, then go back to work for their owners, & voters don't hold them accountable (ie vote them out).
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Long-term, a bunch of armed, intimidating yahoos would probably rule.
I'm fine with large protests, voter drives, etc. But, shutting everything down, and perhaps anarchy, would make things worse for most.
I've contemplated living under a bridge, but doing so with thousands of others so desperate as to shoot one in their sleep for food, ain't my idea of a good outcome.
I don't think things would necessarily come out better. But, we can't sit on our complacent asses and do nothing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)electoral process as far as I'm concerned. I also think reducing what he is saying to 'don't vote' is not very fair and it is the sort of thing which if done to any person in his line of work can make them sound as daft or extreme as you'd like.
I think a difference between our Party and the Republicans that I'd like to see preserved is that the Republicans remain the Party that hears a soundbite about a song lyric or comic's verbiage and runs to condemn what the soundbite told them the song lyric said, while the Democrats remain the Party that when hearing quotes and characterizations of works of art or pop culture that get their interest, rush to examine the actual work, the artist and to judge for themselves the intended message of the work. Let the Republicans judge the cover, let us go to the bother of reading the book.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)planet.
They are the best friends the Koch brothers could ask for.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Abbie Hoffman sounded an alarm over 47 years ago, and you can see today how that turned out.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)However, I still think you have to vote until that revolt happens. btw Revolution does not necessarily mean riots in the streets but a movement to change things, like maybe refusing to pay taxes and other such means to make our elected representatives to pay attention to us.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Individual acts or by a small number aren't effective as the Occupy movement proved. Although they were on the right track they needed to get a vastly larger number behind them. I found that out in high school when I tried to start a revolt about our dress code. Although most of my classmates agreed, they were too chicken to back me up.
Revolutionaries can only be effective when they become scary. Large numbers behind a movement make that happen. We do vastly outnumber the present PTB but we need some leadership to inspire, harness and direct that power.
Generic Brad
(14,374 posts)But doing something is hard. Mass revolt is not the answer though.
Revolting against the status quo without offering viable alternatives reduces us to nothing more than primates flinging poo. It's tantamount to a temper tantrum.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and think the "revolution" must be a bunch of people willing to draft, campaign for and vote in the politicians that will work for the best.
BTW, I am decidedly NOT an anti-capitalist ... but would like much more government regulation of the system.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However I believe the Princeton report that says ordinary citizens have no control over policy, hence voting will not be the sole means of accomplishing our ends.
What the oligarchs do not understand is that if all reasonable means for effecting change are taken from the electorate, then revolution is the inevitable result. I do not advocate revolution and I wish to prevent it if possible. However the current state of affairs vis-a-vis partisan politics is hastening, not delaying, the inevitable.
Epiphany4z
(2,234 posts)maybe not as much as it should but it matters So does the numbers in the street, Both things are needed.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)And then I will listen to his opinion about anything.
Until then, it's all a bunch of fancy talk from a rich asshole who can do whatever he likes because
he knows he can always pull the ripcord and retreat to luxury.
Fuck him.
Edim
(312 posts)MineralMan
(151,269 posts)He said a lot of things. Some of them were extremely well said. Others were not. Which sayings do you mean?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but I could never translate any of it into a political/world-view ... primarily, because of its nihilism.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I never confused him with a political thinker, though.
Edim
(312 posts)"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing."
pansypoo53219
(23,034 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Even if Socialism were achieved by peaceful, electoral means the Capitalists would immediately start a violent counter-revolution.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's should be our plan.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Add any new information, and I'll include it with the next GOTV.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION
Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.
Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.