On the Subject of Necessary and Inevitable Political Change:

[Tyler Durden]

Social awareness of necessary political change comes or revolution comes. Revolutions can be relatively gentle but radical changes in paradigm, or they can be 1917/1789/1776 style uprisings; it's actually not up to the people at ground level as to how it ends up happening, but to the brokers in the halls of power: but happen it will.

There is no such thing as a 1000 Year USA, any more than there was an Eternal Communist Soviet Union, a 1000 year Reich, a permanent Athenian City-State, a Roman Empire everlasting, the "sun never sets" forever British Empire...

There is no "forever" anything, from the trilobites to the coming genetically engineered ubermensch. EVERYTHING will pass, and anyone who believes differently can have faith in "Magic" if they want...but they're wrong. What we have are choices as to how we can behave for the common (read "collective") good. Unless you're a "mountain man" living like Jeremiah Johnson in the Rockies, you depend on everyone else. The modern "Self Made Man (or Woman)" is the highest form of lying, deceptive bullshit. If "he/she" so much as drove to work today, from the road to the gas to the car to the electricity that ran their laptop, the infrastructure that supported them for one HOUR would have run the entire Roman Empire at its peak for a month.

And I wouldn't Pooh Pooh the "Bolsheviks" if I were you...if a "ruling class" behaves like Imperial Romanov's for long enough, then some bright person INVENTS "Bolsheviks," creates a "Lenin" who then rounds up everyone who they believe even THINKS like a Romanov along with their FAMILY, FRIENDS, EMPLOYEES and anyone else in their way, SHOOTS them and throws their bodies down whatever is nearby that passes for a well.

The most dangerous time in the lifespan of an empire is when they believe they are at their strongest and they spout "Gott Mit Uns" or any current equivalent with every other breath. The Greeks called that "HUBRIS," and they wrote extensively about how the worst falls were ahead of the excessively prideful.

[magellan]

1. Excellent

It looks in this case like the Romanovs plan on getting to the Bolsheviks first. But they've got a problem, because we've "gott mit uns" too. lol

[Tyler Durden]

3. They sowed the seeds of their own demise....

...with the almost universal private ownership of firearms. And as long as you can buy things like this OVER THE COUNTER:


(Barrett .50 caliber semiautomatic rifle)

which can send a slug twice the size of your thumb over a mile THROUGH ANYTHING less armored than an
Abrams Tank, then the "New Romanov's" better not get too deluded about how secure they are.

They can't nuke CHICAGO, and that's their only REAL hole card.

[magellan]

6. Yup, dem's the mitt uns I'm talking about!

The only real thing we've got in our favor is the trade deficit. They can't crush us too soon, because then there'd be that many less to buy up China's crap to offset the deficit and China will call in their loans. (I think China will do this on their own eventually, when they grow tired of toying with us.) That'd be bad boo-boos for the New Romanovs. And the rest of us, of course, but I think we're screwed either way.

[Tyler Durden]

8. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Rome's fall was large and tragic, but our fall will shake the tree of every ape in Africa, to coin a phrase.

There is not one individual on Earth that will not be effected by the crash.

[bryant69]

2. The question is whether the Busheviks

reperesent Modern America or the Modern Republican Party. I would posit the later - the Republican Party has overextended. They are believing their own hype and are not adjusting to the failure of several of their schemes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tyler Durden]

4. The Imperial Romanov's represented LESS than 1% of the population.

The rePukes are a LOT more secure than the Romanov's were.

THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. NOT because it makes them invincible, rather, it makes the chance that the inevitable "revolution" will be horrible to behold: brutal, bloody, UNIVERSAL, and protracted almost 100%.

I honestly hope it waits until I am dead and gone: I really don't want to watch it happen.

[bryant69]

5. OK but that's assuming they hold onto their power

It's possible that the mechanisms currently in place to blow of steam, like "voting the bums out," might engage, and society will be spared a bloodbath.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

7. Allow me to say three bad words:

BLACK BOX VOTING.

Even without Grand Theft Election by Electronics, Stalin was right on the issue of voting: it's the counting that matters. And as long as the "empire" continues to function, Stalin will continue to be right on that issue.

[bryant69]

10. A theoretical question

If the Democrats took control of the House in the November Elections (and/or the Senate, although the House seems more likely), how would that affect your opinions on this matter? Not just Black Box Voting but the forthcoming revolution.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

11. It delays the inevitable.

All history I have studied tells me that to believe otherwise denies reality.

Let me ask you two theoretical questions:

ONE
How long do you believe the lifespan of the "United States of America" to be? Roughly will do. And if you believe it to be, for all PRACTICAL intents, eternal, justify your conclusion.

TWO
How long do you believe "Captialism" will exist as an economic philosophy? And if you believe it to be, for all PRACTICAL intents, eternal, justify your conclusion.

[bryant69]

12. Hmmm

1. I have no idea, but I suspect it won't be forever. That said I want it to continue - I think there's a lot of good in the United States of America - and I think, at her best, she's better than almost anything else I've seen (and the few exceptions are largely unworkable on a larger scale). Obviously we aren't at our best right now, but I'd like to see us return to our glory days - and that's what I'm going to fight for.

2. I have no idea, but I suspect it won't be forever - I suspect that in order to move successfully away from capatilism to something better we will have to become or have become different types of people. Something akin to mass conversion to "real" Christianity (or any other religion that has love at its core) for example. Or an evolutionary leap forward. If we all really loved each other, than we could move past capitalism. As long as we all kind of despise one another and are just out for the main score, well, capatilism probably works better than anything else with those kinds of people - it certainly works better than anything that has been tried so far.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

13. Fair enough. Try this:

1. There has been a lot of good in EVERY system, from the Greeks on down to us. What makes OURS better than say, the concepts of the Roman Citizen under the Republic? (PLEASE omit slavery.)

As to our "Glory Days," I can't peg 'em. The Republic was founded on the backs of common working people for the benefit of the elite ever since Alexander Hamilton sold the Revolutionary War debt and bonds to the rich at less than 5 cents on the dollar. Aaron Burr was, to me, a personal hero and one of the most misunderstood of the early American founders.

2. I am at a loss to understand why "...it certainly works better than anything that has been tried so far." I'm afraid you're going to have to show me some instance of where REAL Capitalism has shown any real benefit to the common citizen as compared to the Rich Elite (versus what Adam Smith proposed in "The Wealth of Nations," which bears as much resemblance to REAL Capitalism as a Boa does to a Badger.)

I'm kind of looking for examples here...

[bryant69]

15. This is an interesting discussion

1. It's tricky to answer in a way because we run into the problem of "How do you know your mother was the best?" "Well she was mine." I don't know if I would say to a Frenchman or a Brit or a Canadian that we are clearly better than them; much of what I like about the United States is based on the fact that I live here - and I'm used to it and I like it. I did get perhaps a bit to congratulatory in the last post about hte glory of America.

I will say though that I do think that all people everywhere should have certain basic rights. And that some of the first documents to posit the existence of those rights are the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights - and I have less respect for societies or nations that walk on those rights. I am forced to conclude that the United States is superior to China or Saudi Arabia or the old Soviet Union which did not respect those rights.

Oh, and I couldn't disagree with you more about Hamilton and Burr - but I've always been a big fan of Hamilton. The roots of the New Deal and the Great SOciety and Universal Health Care (if and when we get it) go back to him, not to Jefferson.

2. The tricky part is showing benefit, whithout defining what that benefit is. But since we are talking about economics, i woudl presume that we are implying economic benefit. It's well known that the poor in the United States have more than the poor in most other nations.

The hard part about defending american capitalism is that it sounds like I'm unaware of the flaws - of course it has flaws - things which should be fixed - which must be fixed. But when you compare it ot other systems on a national level it looks pretty good. Most of the systems that seem a bit better, are explained by local conditions that can't apply on a national scale - like Castros Cuba in the early days - he got literacy up and child mortality rates down - but of course he had the USSR willing to pump money into the economy to embarrass the United States. You have Scandanavian countries with a somewhat uniform population and oil money out the yazoo - they work pretty well, but they aren't going to work on a larger scale.

[Tyler Durden]

18. Yes, this is interesting.

And CIVIL too. Are we on GD or is this Never-Never Land?

1. Not to sound snarky, but comparing us to China is like comparing beefsteak to cowshit: the only thing they have in common is they have borders and population. I don't think anyone with half a brain would hold any of those losers up as something to aspire to.

For comparison, I was thinking more along the lines of Holland, or Sweden. I think those are "fair" examples of other minded nations that work fairly well.

As to Hamilton, we'd better save THAT one for another day! I suspect we'd spend WEEKS in that discussion.

2. Again, you have to compare apples and apples. The poor in Detroit or Flint make the poor in Stockholm look like Rockefellers. Now if you compare the poor in St. Petersburg or Cairo...then you're back to comparing apples and hand grenades.

Sweden hasn't got anywhere near the wealth per capita that we do here: they just believe in distributing it a little more fairly. And if they can build a SAAB or VOLVO then they can't be doing EVERYTHING wrong.

Cuba is a terrible example in my book. If we'd have let them alone instead of building a fence around them (ANOTHER goody to thank Florida for) Castro's Cuba might have evolved into a paradise. Remember that Russia and the Communist Block was the only market they had for decades, and those assholes...think THEY ever gave those poor bastards fair value? Yet look what they accomplished.

[bryant69]

20. Probably Never Never Land - I can never tell

1. Holland and Sweden are both great countries - I'm not going to deny that - I'm also fond of Belgium having lived there for a bit, and Norway seems like a nice place too. They aren't my country, but they are great countries. I would even like it if we would absorb some of these nations traits - while retaining out essential American-ness. It's not like i think the United States is perfect right now - but the initial question was whether or not the United States will continue (or, implied, should continue).

I guess another way of asking it is, Should the United States, as it is now continue forever or the forseeable future. I think both our answers would be "Hell no!" But if we could move o to create an America that combines our best traits with new and more just traits.

2. I have nothing against sweden, except that they have certain triats that we don't have. I'm also not sure exactly how far they've gone from capitalism - aren't they a blend of Socialism and Capitalism?

I do think the Soviet Union was more generous to Cuba than you are allowing for - not out of the goodness of their hearts, but for propoganda and military reasons.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

24. This is Really nice for a change.

Maybe we can set a trend.

1. Is there a tipping point? I think so, and I think we passed it with the "Gingrich Revolt." After that, I seriously doubt any going back. As said by a true gentleman, the late Shelby Foote, our GENIUS is in compromise. Do you see any possibility of compromise, now that a stain on a blue dress gets you impeached, yet an illegal war, treaty violations (signed treaties carry the weight of US Law: that's in the Constitution), and torture DO NOT?

I believe we will either evolve as a nation or self-destruct, and I'm not too sure on evolution in our case.

2. Hey, I'll take ANY blend that grants a more egalitarian nature to this hemisphere. Some limits on wealth would be nice, or some INTELLIGENT taxation on wealth, as opposed to our not so funny joke.

But on the Soviet Union, no, their aid was mainly MILITARY, and they CHARGED for their protection like some sort of Communist "Godfather." Understand me, I think the USSR as it was from Lenin to Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko was a poor excuse for a Socialist nation. That said, Gorbachev never got a chance. If he'd had another 5 years, I'll wager he could have turned the whole mess around. Sad we'll never know.

I think the easiest way to revamp Cuba is to throw away every trade and travel restriction RIGHT NOW. The Communist regime would have to become a Caribbean version of Sweden or die.

[bryant69]

27. IT depends

1. That's a judgement call isn't it? I see where you are coming from, but I don't think the game is over yet, so I'm going to keep playing. I can't fault you if you think we've lost - or the United Stats has lost for not wanting to play anymore or for looking around for a new game to play. But I haven't come to that consclusion myself.

2. I would have to go back and look it up - it's been a while since I spent anytime in latin american history. As for Cuba I agree we should lift the blockade (should have lifted it a while ago actually), although it seems I have a more negative view of Fidel Castro than you.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

28. Getting closer...

1. Definitely a judgement call. I was merely curious. At 53 with 36 years of political activism behind me, I am beaten but unbowed. SURE I believe it's possible to turn things around, but I'm stupid enough to buy lottery tickets, too.

As to the "tipping point" though; yeah, I think we've tipped. The proof will be over the next 3 years: if Bush isn't up on charges by the Summer of 2009, I'd say that's proof we've tipped.

2. Actually, no. I think Fidel and Stalin might make good buddies in the afterlife, and I don't think ANYTHING positive about Stalin. Someone had to end the Batisita "reign," too bad it was like what happened to the Shah. The whole thing could have been helped by us...instead, we listened to the Rich Right Wing Cuban Expats in Miami who just wanted their shit back.

Truly a long and dreary tragedy.

[bryant69]

29. I don't know -

I have more modest ambitions as far as Bush goes - i'd certainly like to see him brought up on charges, but don't think he will be- on the other hand of the Republicans hold onto both houses of congress and the whitehouse for the next three years, I would be far more in your camp.

I totally agree that our position towards Cuba and Iran when windows of opportunity opened goes a long way towards explaining our current problem.

The cold war exerted a influence over the American psyche that Republicans (largely) exploited to further their political ends - the result was an irrational foreign policy, particularly towards the fringes of the battle. A similar thing is going on in the war on terror. IN both cases at the core was a real and largely undeniable problem. The Soviet Union was our major rival and we were on an ideological collesion course. By the same token, international terrorism is a real problem. But our responses to these problems were not always rooted in sanity - rather they were usually rooted in ideology and insanity.

Bryant

[Wiley50]

21. I'm a direct descendent of Hamilton (through my mother)

And I easily see that he was an arrogant elitist.

[bryant69]

22. Well yeah - but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

23. ah ah ah! This is the Political Change Thread...

NOT the Hamilton-Burr thread.

Nice to get the support of relatives, though.

[sweetheart]

14. Neo-robbespierre will need a lotta bullets

I do agree it will be very bloody and ruthless, likely involving
summary executions of corporate directors and lots of hidden names
like the coors family and others behind the bad king.

I hope they wait, the pressure's still building, but frankly, on
hearing of the summary deaths of who they think the 10,000 most
influential persons behind the neocrminal rise, I'll wonder if
president robbespierre will ever repeal the legislation that allowed
bush to summarily kill 100,000 and get away with it.

But i'm not betting on that, i'll wager rather that the dollar collapses,
and plunges the country in to a soviet-style kleptocracy.

[Tyler Durden]

16. Too many guns, and we program people to USE them.

In Texas they think it's a GOOD IDEA to allow citizens to SHOOT someone who's repossessing their vehicle from their yard.

A person did just that: he shot the Repo IN THE BACK while he was driving the tow truck away, with a scoped, high powered rifle that he kept right by the front door, loaded.

He claimed he thought "...someone was stealing it..." There were no charges leveled, and his CHURCH took up a special collection to pay his LAWYER'S FEES and to PAY OFF THE DAMNED TRUCK FOR HIM.

People have no real concept of death other than what they see on a Steven Segal movie, and that makes them horribly dangerous.

[Tyler Durden]

9. One gratuitous kick...

Only because it's very hard to be that coherrent while nursing a migraine of 8 on the Richter Scale.

Ouch.

[raccoon]

17. Great post, and well thought out.

As you say in your 2nd paragraph, no empire ever has or ever will last forever.

This part I especially liked:

“The modern "Self Made Man (or Woman)" is the highest form of lying, deceptive bullshit.”

So many time people think of themselves as “self-made”, conveniently forgetting help they received and still do receive from the society as a whole.

I respectfully disagree with your including 1776 among the revolutions you referred to in the first paragraph. The American Revolution was really a war for independence. It didn’t change the social order. Instead of being ruled by rich white men in GB the new nation was ruled by rich white men in the new US.

[Tyler Durden]

19. I accept your correction!

KUDOS! Again, I would cite pre-capitalists like Hamilton as the root cause for the power elite and their disproportionment of wealth today.

[leftofthedial]

25. TD, you nailed it

the power elite are behaving more and more like wannabe deities, as though wealth imbues them with some sort of innate superiority. Their sense of entitlement and their boundless greed are killing everyone and everything else on the planet. They WILL be reigned in.

[Tyler Durden]

26. HOW will they be reigned in???

I simply don't see HOW. When (or IF) the Democratic Party takes majority in Congress, the rePukes will simply OBSTRUCT EVERYTHING while they scream "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!?!?"

Even if we DO become the monsters we depose by NOT righting all of the wrongs in House and Senate rules enacted by these filthy bastard rePukes, WE CAN'T MAKE IT ALL BETTER.

I firmly believe the damage has been done. The rePukes have rammed the ship of state into the iceberg, water is rising in the hold, and there aren't enough lifeboats. This is not to say that I'm not down in the engine room BAILING LIKE MAD. I AM. But I am just as certain it won't be enough.

The change will come...the question is, how awful will the transition be?

[Odin2005]

30. We must end our love affair with the Nation-State, it is obsolete.

The world is having a paradigm shift, modern technology is making the nation-state irrelavent. Globalization is inevitable, We need to use it to our advantage, not fight it. Fighting globalization is futile because it relies on using the dying institution of the nation-state, fighting globalization basically lets the Corporatists cause a race-to-the-bottom without effective opposition. The only way to oppose corporate power isto create a global government, only a global government has the power to rein in the multinational corporations.

[many a good man]

31. We need a return to the city-state

Voluntary regional political economic entities bound by common interest. They can align with or seek membership in larger political entities with which they can agree to trade terms. I see a series of overlapping circles with highest being a reformed UN.

We also need a return to the pre-Civil War concept of corporations. Back then it required an act of the state legislature to form a corporation and as a condition it had to prove that it provided a benefit to the people of the state in return for its expanded legal protections.

[Odin2005]

34. Sorry, but that can't work.

There needs to be a global entity that is stronger then even a reformed UN could be. The basis behind the UN is rooted in the outdated Nation-State Paradigm. The UN isn't a government, it can't collect taxes, it can't set up global economic regulations to rein in corporations, it can do millitary operations only at the pleasure of the Nation-States that are now powerless in the face of the Corporatist thread. There needs to be a DEMOCRATIC global government that represents the people of the world as a whole and enforces the will of the people of the world as a whole in the form of a global federal governmental structure. We can't go back to the old concept of corporations without having a global government (I think corporations should be abolished anyway and replaced by a market socialist economy based on cooperatives).

[guodwons]

33. Now your talking...

This is simply the best thread I have ever read here.

And I think this last post nails it (with the utmost kudos to the two primary authors).

But I propose it goes one level further and that's that we need to establish shared and common goals, objectives and vision amongst ALL of the citizens of this new global reality. It's only through an equally shared agreement (a continuous negotiation) of the differences between good and bad, implemented globally, that we can beat the failures of the past (the Romans, Britiannia, Easter Island and others). We need one global shared set of principles and objectives that transcend all boundaries, geographies and religions.

These shared principles actually do exist; our challenge is to get them to exist equally in all societies. And I think the only hope of that happening is that everyone throughout the world has equal access to the same information.

[Jcrowley]

32. Hope everyone gives this a glance

K&R

[Odin2005]

35. Kick n/t