There Has Never Been A People's Revolution in History

This is one of the best "back and forths" we've had in awhile now. Im going with both PHAGE and Wrabbit, purely for point-on-point and logical ascertions.

Revolution brings change. Period. No matter how it comes about.

Excellent thread, I understand all arguments presented and have been actually thinking about this a fair bit recently. I think that we could achieve a revolution as long as we have a clear plan from the beginning. I think it has been more a case of an outside force causing a revolt, and taking advantage while the country is weak. But in saying that a global revolution would be a whole new ball game.

I came to the conclusion that the only way possible for a real global revolution would be to organise a trusted author to distribute a hard back book that outlines a clear plan and overall strategy. It would need to be concise and very detailed, with a power structure, including a new constitution and bill of rights or commandments that would allow us to make sure we never end up in this mess again. Pull it apart and build it proper from the ground up.

We just need someone to author it, I'm throwing phages name into the hat :-D

reply to post by Wonderer2012


www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

Please read the above. Here is one perfect example of just what such a so called revolution will lead to, ............. Nothing.....

OP, 1 Star for being correct.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Good thread. Sort of a concurrent train of thought from smyleegrl's thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted there too. The short version is what are Americans supposed to do versus their apparent willingness to ride the bus? Not a whole bunch of options available.

I agree there is not much precedent in history for regular people ''rising up' and 'fixing things'.

Throwing this out there then past what are we supposed to do: what are we supposed to fix?

Wall Street/Fed corruption? Foreign wars? Surveillance state? Useless (at best) and/or tyrannical (at worst) government officials? The list goes on and this is a the national level. I am sure most have seen the same douche-baggery at the state/local level.

An example: greed is endemic to humanity. Nothing new under the sun here. What happens on Wall Street, the IMO, the Fed, etc. are just the latest manifestations. Those participating in the BS only see the upside of profit with little downside to laws broken/bent to get profit. There is no fear. No fear from the laws on the books, put there in good faith and lots of effort knowing money has this effect on people and needs to be on a leash. No fear of the demonized regulators. And definitely no fear from their own consciences. The climate is one of 'it's all good and right and we can buy our way out of any silly misunderstanding'.

Talking it out in a national conversation is akin to hugging it out with a psychopath. Could it be they need a little fear to right the ship? A little enlightenment that stealing is still stealing, fraud is still fraud, lies are still lies, no matter the color of the collar?

Where will this fear come from and precisely where is it directed?

RUN.. thats the only option imho. King George never lost his power in England. King SAM wont lose power here, and if he did, look who the new king would be, turnkey LAMBO police state..yikes!!

We need to EMIGRATE to somewhere, sans genocide and disease blankets.. where?

is Africa the next "HEAD WEST"? natives with spears (in some places.. trying to be humorous, not slanderous..sure hope it came across OK??), herds of wild animals, all the stuff to live a cowboy's dream!..err except for the ak47 loving warlords!!

SO, where?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Take a chill.

If we do nothing then we are stuck with the same crap. I don't like this crap I want new crap.

I disagree, I believe Iceland recently had a people revolution

But as for the rest alot of them were people revolution as PEOPLE had to be involved or nothing would have happened,, just after the events corruption set in with a different face.

Big difference, don't discount the people so much.

If there's anything to the idea of a 'collective unconscious' - an idea developed and promoted by C.J. Jung from his analysis of the collective German psyche in its adoration of Hitler, not as a symbolic figure, but as real live person, and an heroic one at that - then I suppose its possible for the American psyche to collectively 'snap-out' in a fit of absolute rage directed against the awful power of the state. In other words, taken as individuals in a rage its not possible, but taken as an 'unconsciously collective mind' operating in synch with one another (consciously or otherwise) so as to violently express their fury against an oppressive regime, then I would say yes, its possible for the people to revolt.

The key word here is RAGE and is there enough of it. Do you feel it sufficiently to act? I damn sure do!

The violent revolution legitimizes the changing structure of law in a country. I don't mean that it's necessary, but it does serve to convince people, "Ok, power is changing hands, the agreement that comes out of this will be the new legitimate legal and structural frame of reference." So, in lieu of a violent revolution, there must be something, some event or some movement, which draws enough attention that the idea of it is present in everybody's conscious. For example, almost everybody knows about communism. The idea that power has changed should be present.

Then, so that the message of the event cannot be redirected or obfuscated, it must be simple enough that it can be easily remembered and applied to any situation. For example, the non-aggression principle at the base of libertarianism is so intuitive and applicable that it immediately clicks in the minds of its audience. "Don't use force on another, except in self-defense." This applies to physical violence, but it also applies to what the original poster is referencing - that underneath the nice wording and bills of rights, the actual wealth of the land and people is consolidated by the self-appointed leaders of revolutions. Their legal frameworks are backed up by the monopoly of force granted to the governing body, which violates the non-aggression principle, so in theory the non-aggression principle should still work, but people are confused by the lie that society cannot exist without investing force in one administrative body. So again, it must be so simple that there is nothing left to be discussed behind closed doors. It could be as simple as "Henceforth, nobody owns anything. Kill anybody who says they do." You can then claim that you own something, but you must have the physical capacity to back that up, and anybody is free to "unconsolidate" your temporary property so long as they're capable.

A system like that requires faith. It assumes that people won't band together in sufficiently large groups so as to be de facto law. I think as long as that mantra is alive and well, "Nobody owns anything, kill anybody who does" groups will have less stability the larger they grow, because their greater consolidation of wealth incentivizes power struggles within the group. Everything in what I'm saying depends on whether a group can or can't become de facto law, with the mantra "Nobody owns anything, kill anybody who does" in place. The fact that we have de facto law in modern society suggests that groups can overcome their internal lack of cohesion with the use of ideology, such as Orwell's idea that only continuity of the State Party matters (and none of the individuals), but I don't want to judge too quickly. It may be that humanity had a common recognition of the idea of property in place which /allowed/ state apparatus to arise. Prehistory scholars can answer that question better than I can.

Also, the game is not over just because a de facto group of law enforcers arises. They probably arise either due to their numbers, which is easy to overcome with careful planning i.e. bomb them, or due to superior technology which neutralizes any outside threat. In that case, the course of action would be to create a further superior technology which makes their technology obsolete. If it can't be done, if they innovate faster than the whole rest of the planet, I'd call them fit to rule. X-D

I cannot think of everything so if you detect a flaw in my reasoning then please, please point it out! But I ask that you do so in the spirit of collaboration. Please don't think, "Oh well that's communism and communism fails." Nothing positive comes from that addition to the debate, it's a closed argument. This idea I'm writing about is similar, but not exactly like that. In communist systems as they've existed, there was still a privileged administrative class, probably because the Communist Manifesto is more than one sentence, so it requires some level of expertise, so the cannon fodder in those revolutions deferred to authority. The idea must be so simple that anybody and everybody can detect when there is a subversion.

There was more I intended to say to make this idea more seaworthy, but I've lost it, so again I hope you can point it out but also propose solutions. We may as well get started on this now.

EDIT: One more thing, I'm anticipating that people will disagree with "... kill anybody who does." Well, it doesn't have to be that, but it highlights the fact that people must have constant vigilance, that even if there's a violation on the other side of the world, go there to stop it just in case nobody else does. Imagine that world, such that if anybody picks up an object and says "this is mine," a crowd gathers around them, and the crowd grows and grows and grows and grows and grows until they put it down. Also I think I'd argue, it does have to be that. If an attempt to own something is the last thing you will do in your life, almost nobody is crazy enough to try it. And there's a simple test to determine whether someone thinks they own an object or owns land. Take the object and walk away, or start using the land. They'll reveal their attitude or they'll give up their claim.

The best arguments for why private property must exist are probably advocated by free-market capitalists. I used to know those arguments and I learn them again from time to time, but others here surely know them even better. Can some of you put forward the very best of those ideas, and see whether the idea put forward here negates their argument; and if it doesn't, find a way to revise it so that it does? Remember that ultimately, it still must be so simple that even an appreciably stupid person can understand it. Sorry, but appreciably stupid is what we're working with, must of us here know that.

Originally posted by HanzHenry
Now, the difference is there is no freedom to escape to. The breadth and reach of the elites/Banksters Masters/ are unparalleled in history, there is NOWHERE TO HIDE..

Actually, this may be true. Though I'm not thinking of it in quite the same way as you, I don't think.

However, imagine for a moment that next week there was a "true" peoples' (violent) revolution. What do you think would happen? How would "The Powers That Be" respond?

And can you imagine, that if the people took to the streets here, to take back power, that we would not have foreign (allies of our government) armies in our streets to beat us back down that very same day?

Just a thought...

Originally posted by Sparta
I disagree, I believe Iceland recently had a people revolution

But as for the rest alot of them were people revolution as PEOPLE had to be involved or nothing would have happened,, just after the events corruption set in with a different face.

Big difference, don't discount the people so much.

did you see the Icelanders in pictures, have you met any in real life?

they kinda look and talk alike.. and share culture amongst the whole nation pretty cohesively..

meaning... not a whole lot of immigrants loyal elsehwere, different races to pit against another, bazillions of displaced NAFTA victims (factory workers, jobs that paid $20/hr in the 80's). etc

Originally posted by HanzHenry

Originally posted by Sparta
I disagree, I believe Iceland recently had a people revolution

But as for the rest alot of them were people revolution as PEOPLE had to be involved or nothing would have happened,, just after the events corruption set in with a different face.

Big difference, don't discount the people so much.

did you see the Icelanders in pictures, have you met any in real life?

they kinda look and talk alike.. and share culture amongst the whole nation pretty cohesively..

meaning... not a whole lot of immigrants loyal elsehwere, different races to pit against another, bazillions of displaced NAFTA victims (factory workers, jobs that paid $20/hr in the 80's). etc

Thats true dude, the culture gap in many countries is large nowadays, to big it seems for them all to agree on something.

Originally posted by Sparta
Thats true dude, the culture gap in many countries is large nowadays, to big it seems for them all to agree on something.

The Icelandic revolution was big news on ATS for awhile; I forget the details, but wasn't the general consensus that the changes in Iceland were cosmetic and overblown? For example, I think I remember hearing that, while a lot of public debt was forgiven, Iceland also forfeited debts owed by multinational corporations - did it come to a net loss of income for Iceland? I forget. There were also claims that the whole legislature of Iceland was ousted, or something, right? But if I remember correctly, most of the legislature returned to office. Again I forget, but Iceland deserves better research before we can call it a successful revolution. It may just as easily prove the OP's point that popular revolutions always seem much better than they are and usually serve the interests of the wealthy minority.

Also just to add for people who read this thread if you haven't already, to check out whats happening in Egypt at the moment and over the weekend past.

I believe that defines a peoples revolution