Is "revolution" the only answer?

[kentuck]

Reading a couple of posts this morning, by AllentownJake and Time for change, I do not feel optimistic that we will ever get our country back from the corporate interests. Actually, I don't know that we ever had control?

However, we have never been under corporate influence moreso than today. And I know that these folks do not give up their power voluntarily. What can we do to change this warfare on the American people? If we cannot do it legislatively, through our Congress, what options do we have? We can surrender and beg for the crumbs from their tables.

[derby378]

1. Are you saying liberals and progressives need to have their own Tea Party?

Wrenching control of the Democratic Party from the compromisers would be a big step. But then, I've been advocating this for the past four years.

[dotymed]

34. Why is this the case?

The SCOTUS when deciding if a corporation should be granted
the rights of "person hood" decided, that NO they
should not. A disgruntled court recorder, wrote the opposite
in the record of the courts decision. It has long been
established that just because a person doesn't record the
decision correctly, the law is unchanged. How have we come to
let these corporations assume the rights of people when the
SCOTUS decided against them? According to law, a corporation
has to submit a charter that is then considered on their
contributions to society before and every so often after they
are incorporated. Obviously, this has not been followed since
the lying court recorder misrepresented the decision. It is
time to follow the true law of the land and start revoking
charters and insuring that corporations work for the
betterment of society.  Is there a lawyer in the house? Can
you explain if and why I am wrong? Just because corporations
touted an incorrect judicial entry, that does not change the
law. Btw, the SCOTUS also denied income taxes (on labor) yet
that law is not acknowledged either. This is supposed to be a
country of laws.

[Greyhound]

64. It was the idea of a nation of laws that they reject.

The clerk was not disgruntled, he was a banker and he made that note deliberately. Since that case (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific), hundreds of decisions based on that subterfuge have created a body of legal precedent and we're stuck with the results of this corporate take-over of the Judicial.

If, by some series of miracles, the SCOTUS ruled on the facts of the original decision, the legal fallout would be chaos. This is why is is so important to stop and expose this kind of thing immediately. "We'll fix it later" just doesn't work because later never comes.

[Jim__]

2. I don't think revolution is the answer at all.

The people who overthrow the government are not necessarily the people who get power. I'm sure there are organized groups ready to jump in and take control of any anti-government violence in this country.

We do still have the right to vote. I think it is far easier and far more likely to succeed to organize a strong grass-roots movement to vote out every corporate whore in the government than to have anything good from any attempt at government overthrow.

[kentuck]

4. You make the assumption...

that "revolution" means overthrow of the government. Revolution can take several forms.

[madokie]

3. if you like hate and turmoil I guess it is

Personally I'll take the Presidents way out of this. He's a lot smarter than any of us here. He's seeing the same shit you and I see and you can bet your sweet bippie that he is working on those problems and not being the problem. I'll get his back

[Skinner]

I believe there is only one thing that *might* change the balance of power.

Public financing of political campaigns.

And, no, I don't think that recent efforts to tinker with the campaign finance system on the margins have made any difference. The entire system needs to be tossed and replaced with public financing. As long as we have a system of privately-funded political campaigns, the biggest donors will have the most power.

Granted, the wealthy and powerful will remain wealthy and powerful even in a system of public finance. But it would, at least, tip the balance a bit in the other direction. Which is why it hasn't happened yet, and might never happen.

[Deep13]

7. That and a decentralization of media.

Unfortunately, for that to happen, the progressive point of view has to be in power and the present finance system precludes that.

[kentuck]

8. That is a "revolutionary" idea.

I agree with you. This healthcare debate has proven that, if nothing else.

[AllentownJake]

19. At the core that is the issue

When someone running for office knows that propoganda in the form of mail and TV will ensure their office more than voting the right way, they will be beholden to the interest that pay for the propoganda.

[Usrename]

25. Or, we could just make bribery a crime.

Oh, wait..

[Le Taz Hot]

30. The problem, of course,

is that the very same people that are needed to put limits on out-of-control corporate financing are the very same people who are benefiting from that same system.

And I'm going to take this a step further. The people in the highest echelons within the Democratic Party are at least equally tainted by corporate monies and it's those same people who control who's candidacy they will/will not support. I truly cannot see the DCCC, DNC, DSCC and/or the DLC supporting a candidate that will turn off the the money spigot.

We basically have two choices: 1) work from the grassroots level to defeat corporate-sponsored candidates and, in many cases, that will mean working against the Party Favorite, or 2) amassing a viable third party. OK, I know we can't advocate for the 2nd choice on DU, but we can certainly discuss the first. THAT is the direction I think DU should be going. (That advice, of course, is worth exactly what you paid for it.) :-)

[Soylent Brice]

43. ^^^Public financing of political campaigns

:thumbsup:

[sudopod]

45. The answer. +1 nt

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Unfortunately a much more liberal Suprem Court than the current one...

Ruled that money equals speech and thus you can't impose spending limits. The recent efforts to tinker with the system have failed because you can't really change the system without spending limits. Somebody will always find a way to spend more money and that money has to come from somewhere and usually it will come from powerful interests.

I once spoke to a Tory MP and he told me that in the UK they are only allowed to spend roughly $40,000 on their campaigns. This makes it so they couldn't possibly become beholden to powerful interests because most people can easily raise $40,000 from small contributions. He said that quite frankly that was one reason the UK political system is a lot better than the US political system and coming from a conservative, I was quite surprised to hear that.

[Luciferous]

82. Exactly, but it will never happen

[Deep13]

5. No. As bad as the powers that be are...

...those likely to support a revolution are even worse.

[chimpymustgo]

6. Maybe. But I think we need a new party. Progressives.

[BigBluenoser]

9. Is it time fo time?...

Jesus... This thread makes me feel like I accidentally went to AR15.com

But there are no useful on threads on conversions here...

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Here's the plan... you go first.

Edit: Please note, I did not get any "new party" vibe from the OP, I got "political change" ignoring the constitution and wishes of the people. Revolutions tend to be um.... messy... in that bowl of spaghetti thrown at a wall kind of way.

[kentuck]

10. You need to read closer.

before jumping to conclusions.

[BigBluenoser]

11. I edited my message to reflect the fact...

and you need to write more clearly.

Spell it out for us slow kids huh?

[Kokonoe]

12. Answer: Vote

Try the primaries first.

If you do that, SLEEP TIGHT

[kentuck]

13. I don't think voting is the answer in itself.

We voted the last election. It is who and what we vote for that matters.

[Le Taz Hot]

32. Vote for what?

Our choices, among Democrats come down to, do I vote for Corporate Whore A, Corporate Whore B or Corporate Whore C? George Carlin was right, "We don't have choice, we have the illusion of choice." Until WE, the Progressives, start bucking the corporate system, which the Democratic Party is firmly entrenched, put up and support TRUE alternatives, we will continue to have a government of, by and for the corporations.

[Kokonoe]

39. The primairies are a different animal.

That is where the true election is (ask Joe Lieberman). We are always going to have corporations, but the primary is the time we have a true choice.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. I was referring to the primaries.

(??)

[Toucano]

14. They won't yield an inch.

I am also increasingly less optimistic that we can ever be free of the corporate control.

But I think we need a revolution in thinking before we can have a revolution in government.

[kentuck]

15. Well said, Toucano.

Some of us have tried to do that here.

[H2O Man]

16. Interesting.

In part, I suppose it depends on how one defines "revolution." In the sense of violent revolution, I certainly hope that never takes place. In the sense of a revolution of values, such as King advocated, I certainly hope so. Yet I am realistic enough to know that if there was a large-scale embracing of King's Dream, the forces that would seek to resist this would resort to violence. The only available path to progressive change will require that those seeking that progress be willing to suffer, go to jail, to the hospital, and even to their graves.

[kentuck]

17. You mean, we have to be willing to fight for it?

Hmmmm...

[H2O Man]

18. !

[Kokonoe]

24. Lets just vote

I admit I'm old and lazy.

Thats what got you into this mess.

[jotsy]

20. The option that keeps coming back to me is to stop the flow of money to the corporatocracy.

As I believe to act preemptively may be the only chance we have to reassert the founders intentions of a free and self governing society. If we wait until the dollar has no value, we lose what may be the only leverage they are likely to respond to. This holiday season, please consider buying from locally owned businesses and then drop in at the big shopping venues and tell them, you are choosing to spend your money elsewhere. If store managers at places like Macy's or Kohl's hear this 10 or 20 times a day instead of once or twice a month, the message stands a chance of moving up the chain.

There are other and more radical things we can do, the health insurance thing for example, stop paying premiums and then they can't hold the doctors hostage with a claim of ownership on the patients.

[conscious evolution]

84. Starve the beast

I totally agree with this.Cut off their money supply and they will die.

[rucky]

21. There's another way, but you won't like my answer.

The best cover for the corpratists is the party-line divisions - mostly perpetuated by the culture wars. Because of the social divisions - the uber wealthy get to influence politicians on both sides of the aisle, and can count on a base of support for their handpicked sellouts no matter what. The well-financed will get the nomination, and most likely the seat. Once they're in, it's really hard to get the sellouts out of Congress or the Senate.

Safe to say that with the Congress we have now - we will not get campaign reform. The people we're expecting to pass reform are the same people benefitting from the current system (they won their last election). It's not going to happen.

Now this is where you have to do something unpleasant, so stay with me...

The only way to get campaign reform is to unseat the corporate sellouts. The most effective way to do that is to put aside D/R partisanship, and see the struggle for what it really is - a straight-up class war. Ideas aren't going to lead people to the light - there will always be partisan divisions, but there is an anticorporate element coming from both ends of the spectrum.

The tea party movement is a mixed bag of crazy - but its origins were in reaction to Paulsen's first big bank bailout: The largest act of corporate welfare we've ever seen. Then Geithner got his turn.

Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story sheds like on this. We don't talk about that movie much here anymore - and I think it's because the Teabaggers have co-opted and completely ruined the central message. But the sentiment is still there - it's just now in the fringes of the Dem power structure. Why is that? Partisanship has made us rationalize a crime that outraged us when a Republican did it, but mollified us when it was supported by our team.

I am proposing an unholy alliance between progressives and the libertarian wing of the Right - aimed at the Corporatists in Congress. The fringes of each party have the greatest stake in campaign finance reform. They both detest "corporate welfare" - albeit for entirely different reasons. But there's a shred of common ground there that will give us out best shot at bringing reform.

"No Corporate Welfare" needs to be our mantra.

Unholy Alliance: Step 2

We don't need a third party. We need a third and fourth party. This is something else we can get the Teabagging types to agree on. The only thing keeping them in the GOP is that if they broke off, they fear more Dem rule from an imbalance of power. Sound familiar? Every time we talk about our own third party, the logic is easily shot down for the same reasons, different result. The way to balance that out - and make dissastifed members of both parties break without hesitation - would be to create a third and forth party simulaneously.

We'll work on unseating the Corporate Welfare Dems, they work on unseating the Corporate Welfare Republicans. The ones in will have more incentive to pass campaign reform to keep their seats - because they will be challenged, not supported, by the DNC/RNC money, power and influence (corporate money, corporate power, corporate influence).

With fair elections, ideas would be central. We can beat the teabaggers on ideas any day.

[chimpymustgo]

28. Excellent post, rucky.

[rucky]

33. Thank you, ma'am!

I've been thinking about this for awhile.

[Fire1]

55. I can tell. n/t

[Deja Q]

58. I disagree:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/michael-moore-capitalism-a-love-story

Quotes like that, about quitting if people don't start a revolution for him, are why people gave up on him. (not to mention, he's suckered his fans enough to cozily retire on for a couple hundred years. He doesn't care.)

Tea baggers had nothing to do with anything to do with him, I regret to say.

[Daemonaquila]

59. To a point...

I think you've got the right idea but might be putting the cart before the horse. I don't think you can get there through fair elections without dealing other blows to corporations outside the political sphere. There are many ways to take down corporations and corporate influence a few pegs by choking off the pretty money, though it is a little more challenging when you're dealing with 50 states and coordinating efforts. The trick is to work all the angles at the same time - corporations have a lot of dough to spend on shoring up one side while under attack on the other.

[LWolf]

83. I like your answer. nt

[Life Long Dem]

22. Until we patch up the holes.

We'll never have a Government our founding fathers formed for the people. How do groups like the Blue Dogs still get voted in but go against these basic principals? Is it a viscous circle that needs patching somewhere once trusted? You tell me because it seems we get to a certain point and subjects change real fast.

[Prospero1]

23. an alternative.....

is to use the system against itself. It would require a large organization and money but could has great potential for immediate results. Create a system where everyone in the group buys stock in a targeted corporation until a controlling interest is obtained. Then use that power to remove the criminals in charge and replace them with responsible persons, amend the charter to promote good behavior in the future (ie prohibit lobbying, political contributions, astroturfing), and cease undesirable activities such as pollution and price gouging. Then move on to the next target. If handled correctly, this could even be profitable. Its a big plan, but then, so is a revolution.

[Greyhound]

66. Good idea, but it can't be done.

In order to control or influence the corporation we have to acquire class 'A' or voting stock and those shares are held by parasites and they do not let them go easily. Depending on which state the company is incorporated in, his can be overcome but then there are states like Delaware where "hostile takeovers" cannot be done, they are illegal.

So, even if you could do everything else, we would end up with the largest and worst corporations flocking to whichever state(s) agrees to protect them.

[StarfarerBill]

26. Deeper engagement in politics is not enough.

Changing our corrupt, bankrupt society would require an extended commitment from a majority of citizens, private and public.

While I'm dubious of that happening any time soon, I'd prefer it to the alternatives: status quo, things actually getting worse, or some sort of vanguard political party.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

27. Definition of insanity

as we know is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

So we might make a list of the things which have been attempted and failed. Seems much has been exhausted.

[Quantess]

80. Why was this good DUer delivered pizza?

It's a shame. There must be some mistake.

[OHdem10]

29. Reagan set the policies in motion giving over Power to Business

Unfortunately, some in our Party drank the cool aid. (Congress People,
that is).

There is a lot of anger in the country right now. The GOP are
trying to capitalize on this and garner votes of the most angry.

There is a serious problem. The Democratic Party instead of
citing a Democratic Vision and carefully explaining to the
people the reasons they want certain policies, too often
appear to be the ME TOO Party or Republican Lite. Thus, GOP
philosophy prevails. Our Party just may, and I say may
simply push us over the cliff-- THAT cliff the Gop brought
us to the last 8 years.

What I am trying to say, IMO, there will be civil unrest in
this country. At some point the working class including
Ditto Heads are going to wake up and realize they have been
exploited. Katie bar the door. Citizens from both sides
Dems and Repubs will be fighting back and it will not be
pretty. As our country slowly becomes a Banana Republic
the Middle Class having all their dreams shattered will
revolt.

[cark]

31. Solution - Return to the Liberty of our Constitution!

The best solution to a harmonious existence is 200+ years old and it is our Constitution. We need to reduce the influence of our federal government and return power to the people (states). Let conservatives have conservative states and liberals have liberal states with a lot of moderate ones in between. Forcing everyone to live under the same laws only results in a lot of unhappy people. Progressives and Teabag Conservatives will never arrive at a happy compromise. You don't want to live under their laws and they don't want to live under ours. Nothing will change that, so lets accept that as reality and work to accommodate everyone.

Your state can go its way and our state will go our way. If one states ideals appeal more to you, you are free to move there. 50 different choices are much better than 1. People have a lot more power and influence to affect change at state and local levels than they do at the national level. Washington is the worst place to do most of the heavy legislative lifting and the founders realized that and tried to prevent it.

The feds should protect our individual rights and provide for the defense of our nation, but that is about it.

[nemo137]

35. Except when you get the feds into "protecting our individual rights"

That shatters your dream of conservative states and liberal states, unless you don't believe that women, GLBT Americans, the poor, and non-white Americans have rights.

[cark]

71. I disagree

What we currently have isn't working. Forcing people to obey or conform to a government that they are diametrically opposed to is not noble or just result. Give the people a choice and I think it will go a long way to healing the partisanship and anger we feel towards other Americans.

[sudopod]

46. :(

You make baby Jesus cry.

[cark]

72. Why would giving people choices be a bad thing? nt

[Greyhound]

67. What happens to this "harmony of the states" when Texas decides they

don't want to be in the union any longer?

[cark]

69. Texas

This is exactly what the gov. of TX is complaining about - that the federal government has usurped constitutional protected state powers. IMO, there would be no reason for them to leave if they were left to govern themselves like the constitution orginally intended.

[Greyhound]

70. But that's not the question, say it's another state.

What if California decides they're tired of carrying the other western states and wants out, or Iowa decides they can make more for themselves by circumventing the federal government and selling their grain directly into the world?

Do we let them go? If not, how does that jibe with a cooperative union?

[cark]

74. Not the question either

We aren't really talking about the same thing. The Constitution gives the power to regulate international trade/treaties to the federal government.

Werther states should be allowed to secede is another question. I guess I can't see using military force against our neighbors because they are tired of us telling them what to do. If you were the president could you really justify bombing TX or CA?

[Greyhound]

75. OK, getting back to the question asked in the OP, how do you propose

that state and personal liberties be returned? Nobody wants to give up their power over others and will not surrender it easily, I think that is the underlying motivation in the OP.

If I were President bombing would not be an option. My view is that there is nothing in the Constitution to compel states to remain in the union and the American Civil War was an error. But mine is not the prevalent opinion and I'd bet that you couldn't find many, if any, politicians that would agree, so holding states captive by any means remains the default position.

[cark]

76. answer to the OP

Is a return to the government our founders intended as I laid out in my first post. Return power and choice to the people.

[Greyhound]

77. That's the what, the question regards the how. n/t

[deutsey]

36. I think the kind of inner revolution that Vaclav Havel wrote about

in his essay Power of the Powerless is what we need.

However, I'm not sure enough people are ready to take the personal responsibility to reject the Big Lie of corporatism as they were ready to reject the Big Lie of communism. Corporatism is much more sophisticated and subtle in its pressure to conform and in its appeal to basic human greed. Communism was very hamfisted in its brutal repression and appeal to human fear.

Here's a good summary of Havel's main point:

Responsibility lies at the heart of Havel’s famous “green grocer” metaphor, which appeared in his essay “Power and
the Powerless”, Professor Falk explained. The green grocer is an ordinary worker who is forced to put an ideological
sign in his window — which he does, though he does not take it seriously. This is “living the lie”, according to Havel’s argument: in exchange for his peace and quiet, the green grocer conforms to the dominant ideology. The green
grocers of the world share some of the blame for the state of society, in Havel’s view, because their behaviour
confirms the system regardless of whether or not they believe. What would happen, Havel asks, if the green grocer
suddenly stopped displaying the sign? This would be an example of taking responsibility, in the Havelian sense, and
the green grocer’s freedom would be given concrete significance.
http://www.utoronto.ca/ceres/news/spring07/Havel.pdf

[Kansas Wyatt]

37. We just need to set up a guillotine in front of Congress.

And instead of continuing to send money to Corporate Politicians, set up a fund to man protests outside Congress.

Let them fear the People that they piss on for a change.

[cali]

41. no thanks.

[Kansas Wyatt]

44. How is scaring them into actually doing their jobs wrong?

Did I say drag the corrupt bastards out and chop off their heads?

No

Corrupt Politicians pissing themselves, over the thought of will happen if they continue, would set a sobering tone for them to actually do what they swore they would do.

[Echo In Light]

47. Good, "normal" Americans cling to the illusion that change comes via voting. It doesn't.

But at least that way it's not scary or dangerous...or real.

[Kansas Wyatt]

52. Until enough Americans are facing scary, dangerous, and real...

Problems that the Corrupt Politicians dumped into their laps.

[cali]

61. It does where I live. change where you live.

or move.

[cali]

60. scaring them how? Your op was vague. You indicated that you didn't

the answer was at the ballot box and you utilized the word revolution, which I took to mean violence- something I don't endorse. So if that's not what you were suggesting, what are you suggesting.

As for me, I believe in working locally to change politics and halt corruption. And as for my elected reps in Congress, I find them quite satisfactory. For the record, that's Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Peter Welsh.

[kerrywins]

38. Yes.....dissolve the Federal Gov.

rid ourselves of these parasite murderers.

[cali]

40. insane. insane as the asshole teabaggers.

[kerrywins]

78. there is no other way to stop US wars

as we have seen, regardless of who is president, they will continue growing the US empire at any expense.

[Echo In Light]

42. Yes. There of course are numerous reasons to dance around it...but yeah, basically

[EmeraldCityGrl]

48. If we would use our power as consumers

to bring down some of these corps it would be revolutionary but, Americans are so attached to their creature comforts that will never happen.

[mitchum]

49. Yes, because anything else is just evolution of the status quo

[leeroysphitz]

50. Something's got to give.

Soon.

[Ishoutandscream2]

53. You can count me "out"

"in"

[Kitty Herder]

54. I think about this a lot. I don't believe in violence.

But we need some serious change. So I keep coming back to the idea of non-violent revolution. I wonder how much we can accomplish through non-violent means?

[Deja Q]

57. Michael Moore was saying that... Maybe when he actually does more than tell others to do it for him,

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/michael-moore-capitalism-a-love-story

Which is okay, he's got plenty of money to retire on and he needs a clever excuse to go away. Throwing a hissyfit and demanding others revolt or else he'll quit is utterly feeble.

Just to get to the point: He's suckered his fans like Rush Limbaugh suckers his.

[kerrywins]

79. Michael Moore attacked corportism and called it free markets

corporatism is the opposite of free markets, and can only work if gov. intervenes using threat of force.

[proteus_lives]

62. No.

"Revolution" is a loaded term. We aren't anywhere near the social conditions needed for a "revolution" by it's classic term.

[kentuck]

63. Maybe just Revolution #9 ?

It's pretty revolting.

[proteus_lives]

65. Revolution #9?

Sorry, I don't understand the reference.

[Greyhound]

68. Probably, but what kind of revolution?

I think, like most of the other replies here, that a civilian insurrection would result in disaster on a global scale.

OTOH, if enough people agreed to just stop playing their game, the system itself would collapse in a few months leaving the political and physical infrastructure behind. So I guess our rallying cry should be something along the lines of "Tune in, Turn on , and Drop out". Hmm... now where have I heard that before?

[branders seine]

73. yes

[FarLeftFist]

81. Shop at the mall.

[Naturyl]

85. Third party or major movement. Progressives/populists.

We need to either devise a way to turn the Democratic party around completely, or at some point, we will need to start voting elsewhere.