|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses?
"freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though.
You’re hoping for a revolution that transfers power to the powerless. Those don’t generally happen because the powerless have no power. The US revolution transferred power from distant elites to local elites.
Not the powerless, but those that don't recognize their power. That's an important point about the US revolution often glossed over though.
|
United States42701 Posts
On April 25 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? "freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though.
Slavery. There was no revolution of the oppressed and powerless in America, there was a war between the elites.
If you plan to take shots at my background regarding revolution you should examine your own.
|
Wait. Are you advocating an anarchistic society, where each person rules themselves and their own defined kingdom? Or are you saying that the people should overthrow the government because the people shouldn't recognize the broken democracy they live in, and instead rule themselves/redo the idea of democracy? Or is it more of a socialist communistic philosophy you're espousing? I need particulars here.
Edit: Kwark, you should probably add "physical slavery" because I think he's going to counter with "mental slavery."
|
On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? Perhaps we shouldn’t condescendingly dismiss each other based on shots about ancestry. You’re hoping for a revolution that transfers power to the powerless. Those don’t generally happen because the powerless have no power. The US revolution transferred power from distant elites to local elites.
A Russian-style Communist revolution would do it... briefly. That's one of the rare times when the elites didn't get power at first. But then they became the elite and the cycle resumed.
|
United States42701 Posts
On April 25 2019 08:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? Perhaps we shouldn’t condescendingly dismiss each other based on shots about ancestry. You’re hoping for a revolution that transfers power to the powerless. Those don’t generally happen because the powerless have no power. The US revolution transferred power from distant elites to local elites. A Russian-style Communist revolution would do it... briefly. That's one of the rare times when the elites didn't get power at first. But then they became the elite and the cycle resumed.
1905 St. Petersburg Soviet is the dream.
Haiti successfully tore direct control from the French too, but they only kept it on the condition that they put their shackles back onto themselves and served the interests of their former owners.
|
On April 25 2019 08:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? "freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though. Slavery. There was no revolution of the oppressed and powerless in America, there was a war between the elites. If you plan to take shots at my background regarding revolution you should examine your own.
From my perspective slavery ended despite white USians literally fighting to the death to preserve it not because of some come to Jesus moment. Slavery was unsustainable and the civil war was largely manifested out of that rather than some Yankees freeing anyone. Nothing about the US disqualifies a return to slavery other than it's inherent instability lest masked with a more humane system.
As to my background I'm comfortable knowing the complexities of being Black in the US leaves a wide birth for a multitude of more nuanced identities and ancestries than your argument assumes.
If we want to return to the feasibility or the necessity of revolution I'm fine with that though.
I appreciate people's fear of revolution, but that doesn't detract from it's necessity as previously argued here by people arguing the futility in hoping for a system dependent and empowered by it's corruption to vote to end it.
|
The election of Lincoln, a candidate elected by a party formed to end slavery, did make slavery pretty unsustainable going forward.
|
On April 25 2019 08:34 Plansix wrote:
The election of Lincoln, a candidate elected by a party formed to end slavery, did make slavery pretty unsustainable going forward.
"A party formed to end slavery" sounds like history by Disney to me or like the liberal version of "Lincoln was a Republican you know!?"
Lincoln: "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it..."
|
United States42701 Posts
On April 25 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:18 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? "freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though. Slavery. There was no revolution of the oppressed and powerless in America, there was a war between the elites. If you plan to take shots at my background regarding revolution you should examine your own. From my perspective slavery ended despite white USians literally fighting to the death to preserve it not because of some come to Jesus moment. Slavery was unsustainable and the civil war was largely manifested out of that rather than some Yankees freeing anyone. Nothing about the US disqualifies a return to slavery other than it's inherent instability lest masked with a more humane system. As to my background I'm comfortable knowing the complexities of being Black in the US leaves a wide birth for a multitude of more nuanced identities and ancestries than your argument assumes. If we want to return to the feasibility or the necessity of revolution I'm fine with that though. I appreciate people's fear of revolution, but that doesn't detract from it's necessity as previously argued here by people arguing the futility in hoping for a system dependent and empowered by it's corruption to vote to end it.
My view is that as long as there are individuals ready to break ranks and serve the elites for a promise of elevation above their comrades it’s not going to work. Billionaires are rich enough to pay half of the disenfranchised to shoot the other half. The United States lacks class consciousness. People are too busy trying to ensure that they’re in the half getting paid, and not the half getting shot, to realize that they’re a single group that has been arbitrarily divided.
It’s the classic problem of a factory owner announcing that 10% of the workforce are being let go. The 90% are just happy that they’re not in the 10%, they’re not willing to speak up for their unlucky comrades out of fear that they’ll be switched with one. If they all quit then they could wrest the power back and they’d all have jobs, but the 90% are already safe from this round, they’re not willing to stick their necks out.
Revolution isn’t coming.
|
On April 25 2019 08:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:18 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? "freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though. Slavery. There was no revolution of the oppressed and powerless in America, there was a war between the elites. If you plan to take shots at my background regarding revolution you should examine your own. From my perspective slavery ended despite white USians literally fighting to the death to preserve it not because of some come to Jesus moment. Slavery was unsustainable and the civil war was largely manifested out of that rather than some Yankees freeing anyone. Nothing about the US disqualifies a return to slavery other than it's inherent instability lest masked with a more humane system. As to my background I'm comfortable knowing the complexities of being Black in the US leaves a wide birth for a multitude of more nuanced identities and ancestries than your argument assumes. If we want to return to the feasibility or the necessity of revolution I'm fine with that though. I appreciate people's fear of revolution, but that doesn't detract from it's necessity as previously argued here by people arguing the futility in hoping for a system dependent and empowered by it's corruption to vote to end it. My view is that as long as there are individuals ready to break ranks and serve the elites for a promise of elevation above their comrades it’s not going to work. Billionaires are rich enough to pay half of the disenfranchised to shoot the other half. The United States lacks class consciousness. People are too busy trying to ensure that they’re in the half getting paid, and not the half getting shot, to realize that they’re a single group that has been arbitrarily divided. Revolution isn’t coming.
Not with potential revolutionaries excusing their selling out by pointing towards the impossibility of raising class consciousness rather than working towards it, you're right.
|
On April 25 2019 08:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:18 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? "freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though. Slavery. There was no revolution of the oppressed and powerless in America, there was a war between the elites. If you plan to take shots at my background regarding revolution you should examine your own. From my perspective slavery ended despite white USians literally fighting to the death to preserve it not because of some come to Jesus moment. Slavery was unsustainable and the civil war was largely manifested out of that rather than some Yankees freeing anyone. Nothing about the US disqualifies a return to slavery other than it's inherent instability lest masked with a more humane system. As to my background I'm comfortable knowing the complexities of being Black in the US leaves a wide birth for a multitude of more nuanced identities and ancestries than your argument assumes. If we want to return to the feasibility or the necessity of revolution I'm fine with that though. I appreciate people's fear of revolution, but that doesn't detract from it's necessity as previously argued here by people arguing the futility in hoping for a system dependent and empowered by it's corruption to vote to end it. My view is that as long as there are individuals ready to break ranks and serve the elites for a promise of elevation above their comrades it’s not going to work. Billionaires are rich enough to pay half of the disenfranchised to shoot the other half. The United States lacks class consciousness. People are too busy trying to ensure that they’re in the half getting paid, and not the half getting shot, to realize that they’re a single group that has been arbitrarily divided. Revolution isn’t coming.
Would you say that the time for revolution in the US in modern times, has passed and the inequality among the various classes has already ensured that it will never work? Not getting into the fact that the citizens will be outgunned and the sacrifices needed to force any change, what do you think?
|
On April 25 2019 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:34 Plansix wrote:
The election of Lincoln, a candidate elected by a party formed to end slavery, did make slavery pretty unsustainable going forward. "A party formed to end slavery" sounds like history by Disney to me or like the liberal version of "Lincoln was a Republican you know!?"
The Republican party was created to end the institution of slavery in the US, for both economic and ethical reasons. The institution of slavery is pretty specific in US history at this time. And that version of slavery defines most of our early history, after all. I didn't say make the slaves equal to whites. Or give them the right to vote. Or give them many rights at all. But you know this, for you are not stupid.
|
|
|
United States42701 Posts
On April 25 2019 08:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:41 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:18 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:06 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 06:19 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 05:54 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that Trump works out for the left because he energized the left and that's better than the status quo under Clinton is that to get anything done, the left is going to need to address the fact that Trump has filled one Supreme Court seat and something like 100 lower court seats that were all left open because Republicans blocked Obama's appointments in one fashion or another, and many are lifetime seats filled by Heritage Foundation candidates in their 40s or early 50s, all of whom can probably be expected to live for at least 40 years.
tl;dr Trump winning following the Republican blockade of Obama court nominees has had an impact on the federal court system that is going to last until around 2060. My counter to that is: In order to do what we need to do we were going to need to change the supreme court and justice system at-large significantly anyway. Clinton wouldn't even entertain the dialogue and would be advocating for relatively useless centrist judges anyway. Change the system by ceding control over the system? You need a revolution at that point, and you’re not going to get one. I think you're misinterpreting my point? The mistake was supporting Clinton in the first place, there's the alternative of recognizing the problematic nature of the DNC real time and rallying to Bernie in 2016 instead of 2020. But since people did go with Clinton effectively ceding power to Trump I don't disagree with the necessity of revolution. The comedy of being assured by a Brit of the futility of revolution is also not lost on me. I suspect I’m rather more closely related to the last successful revolutionaries in America than you are. The comedy of being assured of successful revolution by the descendent of a slave whose forefathers were freed by the struggles of white men is apparently lost on you. Have you heard the saying about people in glass houses? "freed" is comical in every sense of your intention. It does beg the question of who or what they were freed from though. Slavery. There was no revolution of the oppressed and powerless in America, there was a war between the elites. If you plan to take shots at my background regarding revolution you should examine your own. From my perspective slavery ended despite white USians literally fighting to the death to preserve it not because of some come to Jesus moment. Slavery was unsustainable and the civil war was largely manifested out of that rather than some Yankees freeing anyone. Nothing about the US disqualifies a return to slavery other than it's inherent instability lest masked with a more humane system. As to my background I'm comfortable knowing the complexities of being Black in the US leaves a wide birth for a multitude of more nuanced identities and ancestries than your argument assumes. If we want to return to the feasibility or the necessity of revolution I'm fine with that though. I appreciate people's fear of revolution, but that doesn't detract from it's necessity as previously argued here by people arguing the futility in hoping for a system dependent and empowered by it's corruption to vote to end it. My view is that as long as there are individuals ready to break ranks and serve the elites for a promise of elevation above their comrades it’s not going to work. Billionaires are rich enough to pay half of the disenfranchised to shoot the other half. The United States lacks class consciousness. People are too busy trying to ensure that they’re in the half getting paid, and not the half getting shot, to realize that they’re a single group that has been arbitrarily divided. Revolution isn’t coming. Would you say that the time for revolution in the US in modern times, has passed and the inequality among the various classes has already ensured that it will never work? Not getting into the fact that the citizens will be outgunned and the sacrifices needed to force any change, what do you think?
The problem is America's cultural sickness. People who have something to lose, no matter how small, don't side with their brethren who have nothing to lose, despite being separated only by luck.
Lets assume that technological unemployment continues and, for the purpose of argument, who gets to keep their job is decided by lot. Those who are fortunate enough to still have jobs are in every way identical to those who drew the short straw and yet, this being America, they will feel no sense of comradeship with them. They'll say "well I need to take care of myself, I can't afford to lose what I still have". They'll worry that if they speak out then they'll lose the job and that one of the people on whose behalf they spoke out will steal it from them. And they're not especially wrong to, game theory would make it rational to do so.
The system creates dependence but Americans are loathed to acknowledge dependence and power relationships. The fact that they can be fired at any time, and that they only escaped the previous wave by the luck of the draw, will be ignored because it's an uncomfortable reality that does not fit into the world view of the self made free American. They will concluded that those who got unlucky must have been guilty of some kind of failing of character because the alternative, that they are identical, is far more frightening.
This is a country that doesn't even acknowledge that a working class exists. The working class is classically defined as anyone who sells their labour for a wage (middle class works for themselves, creates the product (lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, who own their own practice), upper class doesn't work at all) and yet you'll have a lot of trouble finding any working class Americans. Without class consciousness and a willingness of individuals to risk themselves for their class you'll never have change.
|
On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change?
I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear.
The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution?
|
Thank you for that. I see what you're saying. The division within the lower class is haunting and there are some colloquialisms from my culture (and I'm sure it's found in others), that are apt to the discussion. I think that the main issue you raised is the reluctance to see the other as a reflection of you, in the working environment. That you are both one and the same.
It is quite the spectacle to watch people who are essentially the same, tear others down who have a bit more. There can be no unification of class without the realization that, at the end of the day, most are in the same rat race or crabs in a barrel.
Edit: So your revolution is one of a major policy shift, intended for the greater good regardless of political affiliation, and not a physical confrontation of the powers. You are asking that local communities/cities do whatever is necessary to stem the runaway effects of climate change, so that, in any way that can be calculated, moves us closer to surviving the impending calamity that we ourselves have created.
Is that correct?
|
|
|
United States42701 Posts
It’s on average the richest nation in the history of mankind and yet it is filled by individuals who think the problem is those who received no share of that wealth, rather than those who have the shares of hundreds of thousands of their countrymen.
|
On April 25 2019 09:20 KwarK wrote:
It’s on average the richest nation in the history of mankind and yet it is filled by individuals who think the problem is those who received no share of that wealth, rather than those who have the shares of hundreds of thousands of their countrymen.
Would it be fair to suggest an alternative market that doesn't feed into the capitalistic machine that drives the nation? Not necessarily black market, but something more communal? Is that possible? How long would it take? I just don't see a solution without a policy shift that taxes the rich closer to 40% of all accumulated assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
