Any guesses as to who the New "Bolsheviks" are going to be?

[Tyler Durden]

As a Socialist, I never liked the term "Busheviks," because as warped as Bolsheviks were and as bad as they became, they were Revolutionaries devoted to egalitarian social change, at least at the grass roots, something you could never accuse the Bushites of.

Anyway, as I am so fond of saying, when the people in power behave like "Romanovs" long enough, someone usually invents that generation's form of "Bolsheviks" and then we all know where that leads.

Now we MIGHT get lucky and the new "Reds" (I use the term only to describe the similar grouping) will be kinder, gentler, etcetera.

FAT CHANCE.

The one thing I'm certain of is that I don't have a good fix or feeling on who they'll be: I'm afraid it'll be the Militias and Brigades; the guys hanging out in the "Enclaves," and that will just mean a newer better version of 1917.

Any thoughts? I'm fresh out.

[Zuni]

1. The Bolsheviks were never a grass roots movement

they were top down authoritarians from the begginning, that is why the other socialist parties hated them.
They were also quite brutal, and their savagery surpassed anything the Tsars had done. In 6 months in 1918, they had more executions in their prisons than the Tsars had for the previous 90 years.

[Tyler Durden]

2. Oh I understand THAT completely...

I'm just saying that your average peasant/worker Bolshevik-In-The-Street was probably NOT a bloodthirsty mad dog.

I merely use the term to indicate "Generic General Social Upheaval and Revolution" type organization.

Who do you think ours will be?

On edit: when I say "newer and better version of 1917" I'm referring directly to what you're saying about Bolsheviks and other bloodthirsty folk, such as the Nazi's and the "Committee for Public Safety," and I'm wondering if they'll have firing squads or not.

[Zuni]

3. Ours are generally not one single group

but a movement that covers many different groups and many different ideologies.
Look at the 60s. There wasn't one group, but many from Civil Rights marchers to the Anti-War movement to the Feminists and etc. etc.
I think the next upheaval will be like the 60s, and it will be a coalition rather than a sectarian revolution.

[Tyler Durden]

4. Sounds too "rational" to me.

Remember that WE decorated lamposts with hanging "Loyalists" when we got started. Seems you can't have a revolution without slaughter.

[Zuni]

5. perhaps, but we do not need to resort to jacobin terror either

you win more flies with honey.

Revolutions that descend into terror and bloodbaths rarely achieve much after the terror starts. The revolutionaries become the tyrants, and the new kingdom is built by fear

The American Revolution started as an uprising against colonial rule. It was not really a revolution until the constitution

[Tyler Durden]

6. I'm not in FAVOR of what I think is going to happen, by the way.

Just making an observation, while feeling like a Jew in Warsaw, hoping the Nazis wait just long enough for me to get my family to Palestine: I have my tickets, but they aren't for a couple of months, and it's going on 1939.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Tyler for multiple reasons Revoltuions in the States happen

every twenty years or so... they are peaceful, they combine many factions

We are overdue by the way.

Will there be violece? YOU betcha, but there was violence in the 1960s...

The coalitions of this new revolution are starting to coalesce over things such as the USPA... and once the draft starts, over that too. Civil Rights is not yet registering in the minds of most americans, but it will SOON

Now you are correct in one assumtion, if these new Romanovs (I like to call them Tories for historical reasons) continue pressing down long enough, then yuo will have an armed revolt, and all bets are off at that point. I am willing to place bets on a very hot and bloody civil war and the break up of the US before a Revolution though.

It took the people in Russia oh two generations to really get from point a to point b. Yuo could even make the argument that it took three, as it was driven by the changes forced by teh Tsar on the people starting with the Serf liberation in the 1860s, and then the industrialization of the 1880s... The seeds of the Proletariat that rose started in the 1880s. Now last time I checked the revolt truly came due to the hunger and pressures of WW I... and 1917. That is oh close to 40 years, and almost two generations, if you add the 1860 Serf Act you are talking three generations.

Now for the American Revolution, for the record the only Elite driven revolution ever, things took close to 20 years to get from point A to point B... and if you look for the real origins yuo may want to look at Cromwell for inspiration as well as John Locke (One line even made it to the Declaration... with a mild change, pat yourself in the back if you know which one)

So armed revolution, will take at least 20 years or a major upheaval such as defeat in a world war...

[Tyler Durden]

8. I don't go into that much detail about it...

...I just figure since we've got about one gun per citizen, and plenty of off the wall militia groups hanging around, then all we need is the massive debt plus the DEEP recession that will happen as soon as the auto companies figure out that you can't give away SUV's AND keep building them AND stay in business.

With one out of 7 working directly in the Auto industry (with #'s in support unknown) I figure that might just be all it takes. Anyway, I'll be in Canada by X-mas with the 4 season greenhouse in full swing and the wind generators running like mad. I think that's about when it will crash, if it waits that long.