So...do you think there'll ever actually be a revolution?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
...in your own home nation/area? And I'm talking about social revolution in the willful, concerted sense of the word, not the glacial, almost coincidental, sense. Oh and will it be televised?

Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 08:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Successful revolutions have long incubations -
periods of indoctrination and propaganda. Sam Adams
started this process ten years or more before 1775.
I don't see any such thing happening in the US,
currently.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 08:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Do revolutions only ever really happen when they're forced to? That is, when a populace is being starved and/or brutally oppressed and stuff?

Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 08:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think that is true of the Ayatollahs taking over in Iran, is it? Or doesn't that count as a revolution?

MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 09:05 (twenty-three years ago)

that's another good question, where does one draw the line between a revolution and a coup? Did the Ayatollah have some sort of popular mandate?

Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 10:04 (twenty-three years ago)

is it that a coup just involves the overthrow of a government by some other group of ppl & a revolution is a more wide-ranging thing involving a substantial section of the population? Maybe an online dictionary would help...catch yer later....

MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 10:29 (twenty-three years ago)

The Guaranteed Income solution proposed by Robert Theobald can bring profund social changes and is achievable without a revolution.

New smarter technologies means tanquil revolutions are underway.

Dereligionizing politics will revolutionize how conceptions of the world are mediatized and this will help to open imaginations to the multiplicity of humanity's becomings.

The rise of the sovereign subject @ the Will to Jouissance
showing a great appetite for freedom
by resisting contemporary slavery =
applied nietzschean aesthetic
as an existentialism.

Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 11:20 (twenty-three years ago)

appears I was right: coup d'etat
a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 11:36 (twenty-three years ago)

you can bet your bum that it will be televised

Fuzzy (Fuzzy), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 11:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I kind've knew that Mark. What I meant was if less than 50%+1person of a population affect a revolution (my god I should stop throwing around that word which I haven't gotten around to assigning a meaning to yet), is it always a coup?

Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 11:49 (twenty-three years ago)

Despite the dictionary definitions, I think that how the event is viewed historically affect which terms are used too. Quite possibly the French & Russian Revolutions didn't actually involved enough of a percentage to qualify if we were going to delineate revolution/coup in strictly numeric terms, but the consequences definitely make Revolution the correct term! Whereas you might have a huge percentage of the population overthrowing govt by a particular group which then reasserts control again, so it is viewed as a coup.

MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 12:05 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, I agree with that. But if it isn't popular support that makes a certain kind of movement (watch me continue to dance around defining it) a revolution, what does make it? Something related to a shifting about of how people relate to each other and to their things and to how they make their things??

Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 20:37 (twenty-three years ago)

didn't gingrich lead one in '94?

j fail (cenotaph), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 21:01 (twenty-three years ago)

A good model for revolution that I wish more "revolutionaries" would look into = Czech's Velvet Revolution.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

everyone who posted to this thread is going into a special CIA folder tomorrow, yknow.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 21:11 (twenty-three years ago)

oops.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 21:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Successful revolutions have long incubations -
periods of indoctrination and propaganda. Sam Adams
started this process ten years or more before 1775.
I don't see any such thing happening in the US,
currently.

this sounds like a totally awesome beer commercial

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 21:11 (twenty-three years ago)

To answer the original question

In the US?
No

What is the difference between a coup & revolution?
Not that much when you come down to it. Violent overthrow generally tends to mean disaster. I’ve seen the effects of two and one was a disaster and the second – well, has the potential for rejuvenation and also the potential for huge disaster.

I’ve been thru one revolution (I was very lucky young age saved me from worst aspects) and they are NOT fun to live through

even tho’ ‘coz of my age I was spared a lot of the hellishness, I still have real fun experiences and memories, like having ppl with machine guns search my toy chest or having ppl in tanks come to take my dad away (and I was v. lucky that he came back, many friends had parents killed or imprisoned for years)

Renting videos/watching videos was also a sensitive issue – I remember that we had books that could ONLY be loaned to particular ppl, fuck loaned – SEEN- by particular ppl. Video stores could not rent films like “Missing” and would only let you take them if they trusted/knew you. (Guess I should be happy that at age 9 I was allowed to rent stuff and see what they had in the back of store)

Revolution drove me family (amongst a lot of other Ethiopians) into exile and those repercussions are still being felt. I was an activist in US for years and used to hear from friend s the phrase “come the revolution….” With (yes, joking) subtext that “ _____ will be up against the wall” but I always winced’coz I know/knew ppl who were up against the wall and it isn’t just a statement or joke. This happened/happens and cannot be ignored or forgotten.

Sorry for babbling but this question hit a nerve.

H (Heruy), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 23:08 (twenty-three years ago)

I get the uneasy feeling we're due for an L.A. Riots size phenomenon before Bush's term ends, though.. if the economic situation in the U.S. further deteriorates (not saying this just to complete the analogy with Bush Sr.'s term.)

donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 26 March 2003 23:10 (twenty-three years ago)

i know there will never be but in spite of this i act as if there will be and i would be at the head of it. oh i'm a deluded soul.

di smith (lucylurex), Thursday, 27 March 2003 00:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Ever? Of course. During the current term? No. Not even if he has a second go.

Millar (Millar), Thursday, 27 March 2003 00:40 (twenty-three years ago)

There won't be a revolution as long as there's television for everyone.

Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 27 March 2003 01:05 (twenty-three years ago)

if a coup d'etat is considered synonymous with revolution, it's conceivable that the U.S. underwent bloodless one in 2000.

badgerminor (badgerminor), Thursday, 27 March 2003 01:09 (twenty-three years ago)

No, it isn't.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 27 March 2003 01:17 (twenty-three years ago)

FUCK NO.

Never in America or in a first world country. The citizens are too lazy and too babied. A revolution for what? More socialism? More of a theocracy? The level of oppression in first world countries is inconsequential at best. Besides, it would definitely interrupt American Idol and the Bachelor to do things like overthrow the government.

don weiner, Thursday, 27 March 2003 02:30 (twenty-three years ago)

The revolucion is coming! Dress well.

via rapida, Thursday, 27 March 2003 02:35 (twenty-three years ago)

nickalicious-could you tell me (us) more?
out of curiosity
i know i should go and read a book about it,but i obviously won't get around to that in the near future,and know nothing about the revolution you're referring to...

robin (robin), Thursday, 27 March 2003 02:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I get the uneasy feeling we're due for an L.A. Riots size phenomenon before Bush's term ends, though..

Does anyone in this bitch know how big the Cincinnati riots were, compared to LA?

j.lu (j.lu), Thursday, 27 March 2003 04:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Never in America or in a first world country. The citizens are too lazy and too babied. A revolution for what? More socialism? More of a theocracy? The level of oppression in first world countries is inconsequential at best. Besides, it would definitely interrupt American Idol and the Bachelor to do things like overthrow the government.

HOBBIT MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!

Millar (Millar), Thursday, 27 March 2003 04:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I do think that, eventually, America will undergo a revolution - likely based on overuse of natural resources and squabbling between the states, with an eventual breaking apart of the nation and smaller groupings of former states coming together to form their own countries.

Now as to whether I will see this in my lifetime: Hell, I don't know. I do think that the water and power crisis in the west is going to continue to become more dire, with population growth and rapid expansion of the urban growth problem. I do wonder if Southern California will ever break away from Northern California (or, if, conversely, No. Cal. will divorce the southerners).
I do not think that America is heading toward a near-term cultural revolution or a significant change in political arrangements. Over time there will be evolution in these areas, but I do not see the people rising-up to overthrow the government based on ideological reasons. To put it simply, Americans (and many of those of us in the Western world) are too comfortable with the status quo. We're inclined to look at those on the extremes with fear and amusement - not to identify with them. And when a "revolutionary" group gains power, then we tend to move away from them, in order to establish distance and difference between the weirdos and the self.

Wow - sorry that's all mucked up. Really, there are some good thoughts in there, I just can't quite seem to phrase them correctly.

I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Thursday, 27 March 2003 05:21 (twenty-three years ago)

(Thank you a million times over, Dan. I keep getting more and more tired of people taking the metaphor of the 2000 election as a "coup" and trying to pretend it's a literal fact. We had an election under standard conditions; the results were legally questioned in the normal manner; the legal dispute was arbitrated by the judicial branch of our government according to a pre-ordained process. In many people's opinions, portions of the executive and judicial branches of government fucked up, and selfishly so. But the thing that makes it not a "coup" is that those people and courts are constitutionally vested with the power to fuck up: regardless of the outcome, the process was the standard constitutional one.)

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 27 March 2003 07:21 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.