Skip to main content

View Diary: Just shut up about violent revolution (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I said much the same thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    perro amarillo, Magnifico

    on the Justice Stevens thread earlier.  I hear too much Second Amendment claptrap which amounts to violent revolution which will never work. Hunting rifles fail every time agains tanks and jets.

    And even more important, it is easy to talk about violence, but the experience of being shot at, or standing in front of a tank is something else.

    Passive resistance is a much better bet in the long run.

    •  tell that to the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, lgmcp

      Iraqi insurgents. If they find you funny enough, they might even let you return with your head. I doubt US troops in Iraq would find any humor in your remark, though.

      If the US military were unstoppable against an insurgency with massive popular support, the Vietnam War would have been "won", and most of our troops would be home from an Iraq with a government firmly under US control. Or a Territory of Iraq with people arguing how many states to break it into and which political party would profit most from it.

      As has been pointed out, the last people to successfully break an insurgency with popular support were the Soviets in Hungary 60 years ago, and the circumstances aren't comparable.

      Not to say I recommend civil war. It's entirely too easy to imagine what one with breakaway military factions... and tanks, planes, artillery, and nukes on both sides. Remember that our soldiers take an oath to the Constitution, NOT to the Commander-in-Chief, and this was done for the same reason as the 2nd Amendment was written.

      But this whole discussion is rather premature... check out the post with the Che Guevara comment where he points out that one has to have visibly exhausted peaceful remedies first.

      When one can cite Che Guevara in stating that it's not the time to plot revolution, it really isn't time.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:04:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Strangers in a strange land. (0+ / 0-)

        Your county police will overwhelm any rebellion here. If however, something like the stupidity of the early occupation of Iraq dissolves ALL authority - and if you happen to have thousands of trained military demolition experts AND have been given a free pass to loot ammo dumps at will - then you'll have a comparable situation.

        An attempt at armed rebellion here will be put down by people who speak your language, know your tactics and have better weapons, communications and presumed authority. When they kill you, no one is likely to notice. Massive popular support for a lefty revolution here? Sheesh, what would have led up to it?

        Slap those goddam hogs away from the trough. They've had enough.

        by perro amarillo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:12:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I said (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justCal

          massive popular support.

          This would include military veterans and very probably, active duty personnel who really don't like the idea of accepting orders to shoot their own friends, neighbors, and families.

          As for what kind of circumstances would trigger such a thing, massive economic disruption combined with refusal by a large segment of the population to accept the legitimacy of a government would probably do it, these are the usual preconditions to revolution or civil war.

          Unfortunately, there are several trends that point in this general direction. The perception of fixed elections and a few major disruptions in the oil supply chain could create the economic disruption.

          I understand your will to believe that "It can't happen here". Neither history nor the force balance between the general population and the government support it. It can happen anywhere.

          The problem isn't creating the conditions for revolution, the problem is making peaceable change possible to make sure it doesn't. I suggest you look to the history of the 1930s and the circumstances that led to FDR becoming President, and why he's generally credited by historians with saving capitalism. The military was substantially better armed than the general population then, too.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:38:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where to start? (0+ / 0-)

            Hoover was a fuckup. Roosevelt was elected. There was an active labor movement and some hardnosed confrontation with employers; see River Rouge, for instance.

            What's your point? The American Communist Party was never a serious challenger. What "revolution" was headed off? Even in times of massive financial and social crisis, there wasn't much of a threat. If FDR headed off anything it was a fascist seizure of power from the right.

            And the imbalance of power between authority and citizenry in terms of arms is a hundred times worse today than it was in the thirties. And no, I don't refer to nukes.

            Slap those goddam hogs away from the trough. They've had enough.

            by perro amarillo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:19:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, Hoover wasn't a fuckup (0+ / 0-)

              If he had been, Harry Truman wouldn't have hired him to organize post WW2 famine relief in EU or to head a commission to reorganize the US government to make it work more efficiently, particularly given their distinct differences in political philosophy.

              He was the wrong President for that time in history.

              However, I finally understand your perspective. You don't know enough about American or world history to have any sort of realistic perspective on the current situation, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you American History 101, much less world history. Perhaps people with more patience than I've got can point you at dozen or two good books with which you can repair your ignorance.

              Thank you for playing.

              Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:34:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Aren't you a cute li' reptile. And a silly snot. (0+ / 0-)

                I suspect I've read more history than you. Doesn't matter. You hang on to that romantic revolutionary perspective.

                And Hoover was an absolute fuckup as President.

                Slap those goddam hogs away from the trough. They've had enough.

                by perro amarillo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:29:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting claim about knowing history (0+ / 0-)

                  from somebody who's never heard of a Hoover Commission.

                  Or the "Little Hoover Commissions" which exist to this day in governments all over the US.

                  Links not provided, if Google isn't your friend, that's your problem.

                  However, you probably do just fine deconstructing your credibility without any further help from me.

                  Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:47:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  What does Iraq have to do with this? (0+ / 0-)

        Really?  China shut down the students in Tienamen Square.  Russia may or may not keep control of Chechnya, and Iraq will forever be changed, and not for the better.  But I really just don't see how Iraqi insurgents, terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, compare to the smackdown of a violent revolution that would happen in this country.  The closest thing we could look at would be the American Civil War, and the technology has changed things so much that it isn't a very good example.

        •  my point was (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justCal

          that military force doesn't work against an armed insurgency with massive popular support. Anywhere. I see no reason to believe the US is an exception. This is the lesson of Vietnam, and if the GOP had learned it, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

          At Tienamen Square, the people trying to make a peaceful revolution had neither arms or massive popular support.

          As to how such a thing would play out here... I think it would probably in fact look more like Iraq than the US Civil War... because the population on each side is intermixed (e.g. there are Sunni in Shiite areas and vice versa... just as there are hard-core Bush fanatics in Blue states and vice-versa)... but with heavier firepower and an infowar component. In the Civil War, the population was divided by state lines... slave states vs free states.

          Let's say tens of megadeaths and a level of destruction that would make the Civil War look like a Sunday School picnic.

          And as I've said elsewhere, the problem isn't creating the preconditions for revolution, the problem is preventing these preconditions from happening through peaceable means... despite the apparent batshit insanity of large portions of the people who run this country.

          In other words... it's back to ordinary electoral politics.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:51:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. We all KNEW that Chinese kid was special, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      airshipjones

      Slap those goddam hogs away from the trough. They've had enough.

      by perro amarillo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site