Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

34 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Hard to do when one ideology wants to build and the other wants to destroy.

I get where you're coming from, but I'd urge you to try and understand that this is a bit of an oversimplification. In order for our system to work, both sides have to compromise. When we start seeing our opponents as being evil, compromise becomes impossible, and the system breaks down. This insane level of toxic contentiousness has got to change. Check out this Bill Moyer interview with Jonathan Haidt. It covers many of the most important points that have got us to this point.

 

 

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Well, that's pretty depressing.  The consensus seems to be that there is nothing that can be done, so surrender.  Apparently, the Star Wars quote is wrong.  The sound of democracy dying isn't thunderous applause.  It's a yawn.

That's not what people here have been saying at all.

[Hereward]

3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Well, that's pretty depressing.  The consensus seems to be that there is nothing that can be done, so surrender.  Apparently, the Star Wars quote is wrong.  The sound of democracy dying isn't thunderous applause.  It's a yawn.

That's pretty ironic as the only person who has called for an end to democracy in this thread would appear to be you.

[ThinkerX]

There are external factors that might make many people believe the choice comes down to 'authoritarianism' or 'anarchy.'  Things like the energy crisis, increasingly severe fresh water shortages, and economic security.  You could even toss in perceived threats to ones religion/culture (refugees of different religions.)  All these factors are going to get worse in coming decades.  Many folks might prefer the 'iron hand' approach that guarantees energy, water, and whatnot to a perceived free-for-all.

[Darzin]

Progressives have had  victory after victory in the culture, and Trump can do precious little to reverse that. At best Trump is the last gasp of a dying generation, and ethos. The people who voted for him often cite that they can't recognize their country anymore and the reason they can't is progressives have won, in the cities at least and with the youth. The youth are the future and they are more liberal both socially and economically then any generation before them. And yet after one just one major setback, which is demographically doomed to fail. You want through our the system and institute a tyranny, no thanks. 

[Sivin]

7 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

 I don't think ethical people are incapable of winning a war.

With leadership that can see more than one innocent step ahead, I would agree.

7 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I have less and less confidence that we're all going to get on the same side.  The problem is change: some people embrace change and happily learn new technologies, while some people inherently do not or even cannot.  This tension has always existed and having both arguably conferred group survival benefits, but change happens now faster than ever before in human history.  The chasm is now too wide.  We are changing our environment faster than our evolution can keep up (not a great signal of long term species survival), and we've reached a tipping point in our societal balance.

The minority best able to handle this change are now responsible for the majority of economic, artistic and cultural production, while the others tag along at the periphery.  The left behind majority will need to be bribed and pandered to by the productive minority to maintain a peace, whether political or literal.  And a listless, feckless majority resenting their dole will need a lot of pandering.

Most unfortunately, the traits supporting success seem to be heritable to a large degree, somewhat nature (conservative vs progressive has shown to be partially innate) but mostly nurture.  And the rate of change continues to accelerate.  So the problem is only getting worse through concentration. 

Talk of liberals unleashing a revolution on the "fucktards" is laughable.  Revolutions come from the starving/dispossessed majority against the disconnected elite minority.  If there's any revolution in the offing, it will come from Trump nation, not the other way around. 

I respond only because of you're quoting me but I will say for my part that while a leftist 'revolution' would be doomed to failure, my personal interest would be a leftist Thermopylae of sorts.

And also I will point out that the Trump nation is the minority.

3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Well, that's pretty depressing.  The consensus seems to be that there is nothing that can be done, so surrender.  Apparently, the Star Wars quote is wrong.  The sound of democracy dying isn't thunderous applause.  It's a yawn.

To be fair, Robin. American democracy isn't dying, we're witnessing the last of the rotting flesh slough off the bones.

2 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Progressives have had  victory after victory in the culture, and Trump can do precious little to reverse that. At best Trump is the last gasp of a dying generation, and ethos. The people who voted for him often cite that they can't recognize their country anymore and the reason they can't is progressives have won, in the cities at least and with the youth. The youth are the future and they are more liberal both socially and economically then any generation before them. And yet after one just one major setback, which is demographically doomed to fail. You want through our the system and institute a tyranny, no thanks. 

Which victory, might I ask? The healthcare reform that cost them any relevance in government for the next 4 years? The uh... the imperfectly implemented basic human rights protections that have already been rolled back? Or maybe the environmental safeguards that were dismantled in a matter of hours after Obama left office?

Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans harbor 'liberal' beliefs, election after election shows that Americans prefer policy guided by bigots and the most casually veiled crooks.

The USSR was pretty interesting, I'd be down with seeing what the first few years of an American equivalent would look like.

[maarsen]

I f you want change, get young people to vote. That is where your strength lies. If you really want change get youth involved. Look at the 60's. And yes I grew up in the 60's. For good or bad the generation just before me made huge changes that are still  being felt now.

[mcbigski]

4 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Well, that's pretty depressing.  The consensus seems to be that there is nothing that can be done, so surrender.  Apparently, the Star Wars quote is wrong.  The sound of democracy dying isn't thunderous applause.  It's a yawn.

Well that quote was from the Jar-Jar trilogy, so that's an appeal to false authority.  

[Luzifer's right hand]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

The forthcoming tidal wave of postcapitalism is going to completely redraw the map on how the political parties worldwide approach things. Most of them don't seem to grasp the magnitude of the problem, even as they mess around with the symptoms: Trump proudly declaring that jobs will return to the US from China, for example, apparently unaware that was will come back is not factories ready to employ thousands of Americans but factories full of automated production lines, robots and AI-driven ordering systems, and media reporting on the exciting advances in driverless cars and trucks without pondering what will happen when millions of drivers are made jobless in a very compressed space of time. And this is something that governments are going to be grappling with on a small scale imminently, and on a very large scale in the space of the next generation.

Otherwise, the primary problem of the left is the degree to which it appeals to ethical and moral behaviour and decisions taken on behalf of society as a whole. It requires people to be profoundly unselfish, especially with their money, which sounds great when you're a penniless student but less so when you're a forty-something parent with two kids. Some countries have cracked the problem (like those in Scandinavia) but the UK and US certainly haven't, and shows no sign of doing so soon (as the immense scorn poured on Sanders and Corbyn - in the latter's case, not helped by his own limitations as a public figure - shows).

Yeah. I suspect neither side will be of importance in 50-100 years.

I honestly doubt that the world will be a nice place for most people once most jobs are obsolete. Unless governments start tackling things now. Stuff like Hartz 4 in Germany come to mind where you get enough money for food, cheap housing and TV/Internet but not much else. Might not be an awesome life but still better than what most working people get in the rest of the world. But right now the working class is paying for that...

Even most non-research/expert jobs which require a good education will vanish in the long term. Stuff like Watson is already pretty good at diagnosing diseases for example . Hell even a simple google search is better than most doctors when it comes diagnosing rare diseases. 

The only real question is will the people controlling the robots/drones bother with bread and circuses for the rest of humanity(except the small number of experts necessary to keep the system running if strong AIs are not a thing).

[DunderMifflin]

Being that this "right wing" trend came about through democratic means I don't see why it can't be taken down by democratic means.

Take the recent US presidential election, I didnt see an authoritarian(trump) defeat a freedom lover(clinton). I saw an authoritarian defeat another kind of authoritarian. There seems to be this thought from all political junkies that it's abusive and wrong when the other side enforces their will, but it's complete justice and heroic when the things I want to be enforced on people are carried out. That's "freedom"

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Being that this "right wing" trend came about through democratic means I don't see why it can't be taken down by democratic means.

Take the recent US presidential election, I didnt see an authoritarian(trump) defeat a freedom lover(clinton). I saw an authoritarian defeat another kind of authoritarian. There seems to be this thought from all political junkies that it's abusive and wrong when the other side enforces their will, but it's complete justice and heroic when the things I want to be enforced on people are carried out. That's "freedom"

Good point. I think this ring wing trend is just part of the back and forth between ideologies that is occurring. There is an assumption from the left that they are immediately correct on all issues and anyone who disagrees is backwards / racist / misogynistic. The assumption that the world is moving forward inevitably towards a progressive future is one that doesn't sit well with everyone and that's hard for some to understand. 

So there is a swing from one extreme to another. That is democracy.  I'd say many who have voted for right wing parties have felt rather helpless , that they are not being heard and needed a revolution. So now we are seeing the 'other side' feeling the same that's all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Well, that's pretty depressing.  The consensus seems to be that there is nothing that can be done, so surrender.  Apparently, the Star Wars quote is wrong.  The sound of democracy dying isn't thunderous applause.  It's a yawn.

Robin,

You suggest instituting "IQ Test" or "knowledge tests" before allowing people the franchise and simultaneously bemoan the "death of democracy".  You do understand what "cognative disonance" is, don't you?

Seeking to rig a system to guarantee your desired result is the opposite of "Democratic"

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 hours ago, Wolfgang I said:

Yeah. I suspect neither side will be of importance in 50-100 years.

I honestly doubt that the world will be a nice place for most people once most jobs are obsolete. Unless governments start tackling things now. Stuff like Hartz 4 in Germany come to mind where you get enough money for food, cheap housing and TV/Internet but not much else. Might not be an awesome life but still better than what most working people get in the rest of the world. But right now the working class is paying for that...

Even most non-research/expert jobs which require a good education will vanish in the long term. Stuff like Watson is already pretty good at diagnosing diseases for example . Hell even a simple google search is better than most doctors when it comes diagnosing rare diseases. 

The only real question is will the people controlling the robots/drones bother with bread and circuses for the rest of humanity(except the small number of experts necessary to keep the system running if strong AIs are not a thing).

If almost all jobs end up getting automated it will be possible to provide people with far more than just basic necessities. Total production of goods and services will be much higher than right now, just without much need for human input. 

[baxus]

18 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

If that's the case, should voting require an IQ test and psych evaluation?  Otherwise, the Xenophobic, homophobic, racists who want nothing but hegemonic power will win, in perpetuity.

So, you are actually saying there should be a list of people who are fit to vote? Does that remind you of something?

12 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

First, xenophobic, homophobic and racist folk have always been a facet of conservatism, not fascism.  Fascism is simply the armor they wear. These are people who believe, without basis, that they are superior to those they perceive as different from themselves.

Is the bolded part true only for "xenophobic, homophobic and racist folk", though? Could it not be applied to those who would require people to pass the test in order to vote? Or do you consider "an IQ test and psych evaluation" enough of a basis to consider oneself superior to anyone else?

7 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Hard to do when one ideology wants to build and the other wants to destroy.

It's even harder to do when one oversimplifies to the point of "noble Elves vs abominable Orcs".

[MercenaryChef]

do we need (in the United States) a full fledged revolution leaving piles of conservative heads on pikes as warnings? no. that isn't the way. 

but on a smaller level those emboldened by the current leadership to be free with their rhetoric of hatred need to be dealt with. they cannot be allowed to speak freely or safely. when they rear their heads to spew forth their ideologies against women, Muslims, immigrants, minorities, LGBT people and others they need to be met with a revolution of sorts. it should at the very least be an emphatic 'shut the fuck up' and if need be offered the same inhuman violence that they espouse. 

the revolution needed is localized and grassroots. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

but on a smaller level those emboldened by the current leadership to be free with their rhetoric of hatred need to be dealt with. they cannot be allowed to speak freely or safely. when they rear their heads to spew forth their ideologies against women, Muslims, immigrants, minorities, LGBT people and others they need to be met with a revolution of sorts. it should at the very least be an emphatic 'shut the fuck up' and if need be offered the same inhuman violence that they espouse. 

the revolution needed is localized and grassroots. 

They need to be debated. They need to be outed by their own speech. Blocking their Free Speech is not the answer. This is a big piece of why there was so much push back against the whole SJW/Political Correctness movement. This "shut the fuck up"  attitude is unamerican.

[MercenaryChef]

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

They need to be debated. They need to be outed by their own speech. Blocking their Free Speech is not the answer. This is a big piece of why there was so much push back against the whole SJW/Political Correctness movement. This "shut the fuck up"  attitude is unamerican.

sorry. but no. hatred is not worth protecting. you cannot debate fascists. they need to be forced back into their hovels. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

8 hours ago, polishgenius said:

That's not what people here have been saying at all.

Not in so many words, but there seems to be a sentiment that the system is, somehow, self-correcting.  I don't have that optimism.

6 hours ago, Hereward said:

That's pretty ironic as the only person who has called for an end to democracy in this thread would appear to be you.

Not, end, but there needs to be a means to reboot it in a manner that prohibits a government from dragging people out of their homes, tearing families apart, harassing citizens because they look dangerous, all without due process of law.

6 hours ago, WinterFox said:

With leadership that can see more than one innocent step ahead, I would agree.

I respond only because of you're quoting me but I will say for my part that while a leftist 'revolution' would be doomed to failure, my personal interest would be a leftist Thermopylae of sorts.

And also I will point out that the Trump nation is the minority.

To be fair, Robin. American democracy isn't dying, we're witnessing the last of the rotting flesh slough off the bones.

Which victory, might I ask? The healthcare reform that cost them any relevance in government for the next 4 years? The uh... the imperfectly implemented basic human rights protections that have already been rolled back? Or maybe the environmental safeguards that were dismantled in a matter of hours after Obama left office?

Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans harbor 'liberal' beliefs, election after election shows that Americans prefer policy guided by bigots and the most casually veiled crooks.

The USSR was pretty interesting, I'd be down with seeing what the first few years of an American equivalent would look like.

How does this all play out in a society that appears to have passive good guys and active bad guys?  How does that work when both major parties have drifted right of center, so that people who didn't want Trump, found his opponent unpalatable as well?

5 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Well that quote was from the Jar-Jar trilogy, so that's an appeal to false authority.  

I'll plead nolo contendere.

4 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Being that this "right wing" trend came about through democratic means I don't see why it can't be taken down by democratic means.

Take the recent US presidential election, I didnt see an authoritarian(trump) defeat a freedom lover(clinton). I saw an authoritarian defeat another kind of authoritarian. There seems to be this thought from all political junkies that it's abusive and wrong when the other side enforces their will, but it's complete justice and heroic when the things I want to be enforced on people are carried out. That's "freedom"

The Republican Party has been Gerrymandering political districts for decades.  When the court struck down their attempts  to disenfranchise minorities, they turned to disenfranchising areas which were heavily Democratic, thereby ensuring the road to hegemonic power. So, no, the democratic process in the US has become an unlikely vehicle to repair itself.  We've reached the point where the majority party no longer needs to get the opposition to agree.  It's easier to change the rules and ram things down their throat.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

You suggest instituting "IQ Test" or "knowledge tests" before allowing people the franchise and simultaneously bemoan the "death of democracy".  You do understand what "cognative disonance" is, don't you?

Seeking to rig a system to guarantee your desired result is the opposite of "Democratic"

Ser Scot,

The cognitive dissonance I experience is the realization that people who are incapable of fully understanding the ramifications of their vote, or those who enjoy watching it all collapse, can vote.

1 hour ago, baxus said:

So, you are actually saying there should be a list of people who are fit to vote? Does that remind you of something?

Is the bolded part true only for "xenophobic, homophobic and racist folk", though? Could it not be applied to those who would require people to pass the test in order to vote? Or do you consider "an IQ test and psych evaluation" enough of a basis to consider oneself superior to anyone else?

It's even harder to do when one oversimplifies to the point of "noble Elves vs abominable Orcs".

Again, should people incapable of understanding the issues they are voting on be able to impact the results?  Should sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers?  If it is wrong to allow a person with severe psychiatric issues a gun, because that person could kill dozens, why allow them to vote, and destroy a country of 320+ million people?

And while the Democrats do not qualify as noble elves, the Republicans, in their incessant quest to ensure that only rich white men have rights, are abominable orcs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

sorry. but no. hatred is not worth protecting. you cannot debate fascists. they need to be forced back into their hovels. 

How, if you are unwilling to use force, do you propose to "force people back into their hovels"?  How is shouting down people who say things you disagree with appreciably differnt from Robin's proposal to test people to determine, based on political beliefs, whether they may or may not vote?  

[Robin Of House Hill]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How, if you are unwilling to use force, do you propose to "force people back into their hovels"?  How is shouting down people who say things you disagree with appreciably differnt from Robin's proposal to test people to determine, based on political beliefs, whether they may or may not vote?  

That's not fair.  IQ tests and psych evaluations are not tests of political beliefs.