|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
And The First Shall Be Last... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
Isn't it ironic that (with the exception of the ones 18 and older but under 21) the last group given the right to vote was the Native Americans--the ones who were here before anyone else!?!
Think about it...
Great Piece!
AJ :-)
|
Apr 29 '06
1:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: You are right, but... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
V.,
What you say is all reasonable, but you are distorting what I said. I simply noted that this country is becoming more and more autocratic and, by the way, certain components of international capitalism are by nature undemocratic.
Since there is very little class movement in the US, any rebellion is likely to take the form of street violence and simply an explosion of rage. I never called this a coup d'etat.
Widespread violence may give rise to military repression and it is hard to guess what chain reaction that would spark.
I never said that I predict this, I simply said it is a possibility if the inequity of our society broadens. On the other hand, you have plenty of examples of countries (take much of the South American continent) where peasants have been crushed for centuries and revolutions have occurred only seldom. Hard to fathom what people will do. On the other hand, 5 centuries of colonial boot has left an imprint on the face of these people. Americans are not so meek, and I am not sure how much they will take.
As to which heads would roll, that is not the point. If my head has to roll, so much more urgent is for me to see an active and articulate opposition to the current Washingtom monolith.
You see things in black and white - USA and USSR.
There is a LOT we can do in the US to keep the free initiative alive without necessarily driving people to the brink of starvation and misery.
It is called redistribution. But the distribution should be to the needy, and not to the tycoons, as we are doing now.
As to the difference between the superrich and the kings, yes, there are - and big ones. But they do not exist to people who are poor, have no roof, no food and no medicines, and they see CEOs making $100 Mill a year by closing down factories and going to Mexico. No amount of mental gymnastics can possibly represent this situation as "fair".
Vittorio
|
Jan 25 '06
3:24 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: You are right, but... (Reply to this comment)
by verbatima
Vic,
I brought up my own experience as an example; and I don't think there is any good reason whatsoever to deem Russian history irrelevant.
Second, I did not argue that ALL revolutions are bad -- I just said that revolutions are more likely to lead to autocratic governments than peaceful processes. If we weigh all revolutions in history, I am sure that the "velvet" ones, which bring about a liberal democracy, are the exception rather than the rule. The American revolution is rather exceptional -- not the only, but exceptional nevertheless.
Further, while I realize you are not advocating a replay of the Reign of Terror, I am not sure that a violent overthrow of the government, with accompanying purges, repressions, class ideology, and a complete economic disintegration is something that a democracy "needs" in order to be "honest". Revolutions have nothing to do with honesty, in my opinion. Neither the LA riots nor Katrina justify an overthrow of the US government; and nothing replacing it could simply waive a magic wand and eliminate racial tensions and differences in wealth (except, perhaps, by following the Soviet example and making everyone equally poor and wretched). I realize you don't like the current administration (I don't either), but to describe the revolutionary "solution" as either desirable or inevitable is clearly extreme.
A democratic country's way of life is always precarious. I think the French way of life is much more precarious than the Saudi one. In the past, when I told people that France has tremendous problems of racism, discrimination, and inequality, many people would not believe me (because for many of us in New York, France is synonymous with perfection). The recent riots confirm that fact. Are you saying that the Fifth Republic too, should be, or is about to be, violently overthrown? And what is it going to be replaced with? An "honest" democracy? Perhaps I am prejudiced by my experiences (reality has that effect), but somehow, I don't believe it.
As to the promise that "heads will roll", I assure you that this is absolutely the last thing that could possibly remedy the wrongs which you believe are about to produce a coup d'etat. The great irony of violent revolutions is that they victimize those that they aim to help the most. Most victims of the French Reign of Terror were poor members of the Third Estate. Most victims of the Russian Revolution and the Great Purges -- the executed and those who were worked to death in the GULAGs or starved to death in the kolkhozes -- were also the poor, Bolsheviks, and, at most, members of the lower middle class (salaried specialists, artisans, shopkeepers, and the like). The very adherents and supporters of a violent revolution are also extremely likely to become victims of the new regime. So if it ever comes to this in the United States, I assure you that the pleasure of seeing W executed in Times Square will come at the cost of millions of lives of the very "underdogs" whose sorry state supposedly made the revolution necessary; and as much as you root for the underdog and despise Bush, if there is a revolution, your head will be among those in danger of rolling.
And yes, there is a difference between the First Estate and American tycoons. I am not defending the tycoons, but comparing one with the other is merely colorful rhetoric -- sorry.
V.
|
Jan 25 '06
9:06 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: You are right, but... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
V.,
you are generalizing from your own experience. I am not sure what is "hot soup" for you, that democracies tend toward dictatorships or that that they need a revolution when that happens?
Both are broad statements of some validity. The former has happened many times in history, and is happening now in the US. A lot of times (see Rome's transition from republic to empire) it is a slow transition. Before Caesar, Rome was only formally democratic, its institutions being on the way to breakdown, partially because of the continued warfare. Caesar's murder COULD have brought more democracy back - it just did not happen. In Rome the senate was supremely corrupt, and the citizenry wanted a strong ruler who could protect them from perceived military danger. Sounds familiar? America's democracy has gradually deteriorated, and the last 5 years have seen a fantastic acceleration toward an autocratic regime. The "War on Terror" is a strategy toward domestic political control. Too many Americans cannot see, they are being brainwashed by the media, who pull out a Bin Laden tape whenever politically expedient for Bush.
Revolutions have unpredictable outcomes: in France the kings were dislodged in a blood bath (and this slowly led to a more democratic regime), in Britain and Holland the royals were peacefully dethroned (and are kept as pets).
Don't forget that the US has had a good experience with revolution - whereas, say, Italy, replaced the oppressor with a monarchy, the US went straight to a democracy. In the US revolution is not a dirty word!
Clearly, there is no political ideology today in America that could lead to a revolution. There are perhaps a few groups of wacky anarchists who cannot be taken seriously.
Rather, in the US a reaction to the current regime, if the trend continues, may take the shape of urban fighting and destruction, which could deteriorate further, with unpredictable results. Don't kid yourself that we live in a modern civilized society. The LA riots and the Katrina disaster should tell us how precarious our way of life is.
Under a very thin veneer of civility, there is enough racial hate and seething underdog rage to blow up the whole country. All it takes is the videotape of a beating, sometimes....The Bush regime is adding fuel to the fire. Of course, I am not advocating a revolution. But it is possible that when people have enough, heads will roll, and not metaphorically but literally. After all, is there really a difference between the French nobility of the 18th century, and the class of tycoons now running the country?
The real problem is that there is no real alternative nowadays to mainstream American politics. We lack a party under which the liberals (and perhaps the underdogs)can rally. When political dissatisfaction cannot be democratically channeled, it takes other courses. Of course, most Americans are too drugged by TV and Prozac to really understand what is being done to them...but don't underestimate them.
Vittorio
|
Jan 24 '06
8:47 pm PST
|
|
One little correction, Craig (Reply to this comment)
by verbatima
Women's suffrage was enacted in 1920, not 1918.
|
Jan 23 '06
11:38 am PST
|
|
Re: You are right, but... (Reply to this comment)
by verbatima
"Once in a while, so they say, democracies need a revolution to stay honest.
Perhaps the US isn't so far from this specter. "
... and "they" are full of soup. Revolutions are much likelier to lead to dictatorships than peaceful processes. I've lived in a state forged by a revolution; as much as 50 million dead, and the country got nowhere near democracy. This nineteenth-century romanticism has quite discredited itself.
V.
|
Jan 23 '06
11:38 am PST
|
|
You are right, but... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
you say: "As a young American, it is your duty to register and cast your vote.
As for me, I am not young and naive, and so I wonder if it is my duty as well.
I don't know whether you have reflected about the low voter turnout in this country, at least compared to other democratic countries, some of which have 90% turnout.
It is possible Americans are lazy, stupid, too busy, too rich, or whatever, but there is a possibility one should consider: our two-party system does not offer a meaningful alternative. There are two factions merely vying for power in order to get rich, and there is no substantive debate or clear alternative positions anymore. Political campaigns are just orgies of opponent smearing and vague appeasing statements to all voter groups, while there is enough corruption in both parties to make the voter sick. Voting for an independent makes a statement but has no effect. I suggest that Americans do not vote because voting will not make any difference and they know it.
Democracies are great, but, as someone very smart said once, they tend toward dictatorships, as those in power consolidate their position through undemocratic processes. And it is precisely the voting routine which gives us the impression that we live in a democracy. Once in a while, so they say, democracies need a revolution to stay honest.
Perhaps the US isn't so far from this specter.
Just food for thought. There are plenty of reasons for voting, but plenty also for not voting.
Vittorio
|
Jan 15 '06
2:11 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2010 Shopping.com, Inc.