Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATE - MORE PHOTOS] 200,000 Rise Up in Brazil - "The People Have Awakened" (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Indeed, this is rising expectations (9+ / 0-)

    There was a Brazilian on NPR this morning explaining that the protests are the result of Lula's party (the party against whom these people are protesting) having raised millions of people out of poverty and having created a middle class. Now this middle class is demanding better, more accountable government. Which is a good thing, and not a revolutionary uprising.

    Hence the Bennetton look.

    •  historically, revolutions do NOT happen in times (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fe Bongolan, happymisanthropy

      of desperate widespread poverty and repression.

      They happen in times when things are actually improving--but not fast enough.

      (But I should be careful to point out that what we see in Brazil is NOT a revolution against a plutocratic oligarchy---it is a protest against a social democratic government to do more, faster, in its fight AGAINST the plutocrats. That is rather a large difference.)

      •  Indeed. (0+ / 0-)

        The Soviet Union didn't fall during the Afghan war, it fell when the war was over and people started demanding better.

        Our snoops are not legally authorized to snoop without legal authorization. Of course, if they were legally authorized to snoop without legal authorization, that would constitute legal authorization. Do you feel better yet?

        by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:52:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the collapse of teh USSR is actually a good (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marsanges

          illustration of what I talk about in comments below--the need for revolutions to have an alternative power structure already in place.  When the Soviet bloc collapsed, it was almost a surprise to everyone. There was no organized rebellion and no rebel power structure---just a spontaneous crowd of people and boom, everything fell.

          That meant, alas, that there was a power vacuum. And as with any power vacuum, it was filled by the groups who were the best-organized.  That happened to be two sets of people who virtually melded into one----(1) former Communist Party officials and (2) organized crime.

          And that is why, despite the mass popular uprising that collapsed the Soviet Union, Russia today is a kleptocratic Mafia state run by a former KGB officer, not a democracy.

          •  another example (0+ / 0-)

            Morsi, Brotherhood, Egypt. Just now. Ennahda, Tunisia. Same story. (They are different beneficiaries of course; but they werent who made the revolution).

            •  yes indeed (0+ / 0-)

              The whole aim of a revolution is to transfer power from one group of people to another.  And that can't be done if there's nothing to transfer power TO. It just produces a power vacuum, in which the best-organized, win--whoever they are.

              Many leftists get all nervous when we talk about "power", but the brutal reality is that power is what it's all about. "Power" is the ability to do the things you want to do, and if you have no power, you do . .  well . . . nothing.  (shrug). Saul Alinsky has a very good discussion of that in his classic "Rules for Radicals" (a book that every organizer should be forced to read, twice.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site