Because most of the revolutions as of late are doing loads for the good of humanity!

How exactly do you expect this statist revolution to happen, when the primary purpose of the [existing] state is to prevent revolutions?

In democracies the people tend to get the government they deserve. Someone who really has a problem with the government may, by some fluke, manage to remove them, but the root cause of their problem remains the same and the new state will come to look very much like the old state. Unless, of course, the new state is a dictatorship, in which case things will be a whole lot worse.

@Oct +1 - The US was founded by revolution. The French government had a revolution a few years later. Cuba and Fidel Castro? Revolution put him in power.

Any government founded by revolution will eventually come to resemble, in a perfunctory manner, the government that precedded it.

The US being the outlier in some sense, but yes, still crafted around the English system.

Define Revolution?

In 3 1/2 years, the US will elect a new president, the entire congress will be up for election, and 1/3 of the Senate -- meaning that we could have a completely different government in 3 1/2 years. It's unlikely, but possible.

Is that revolution enough for you? Or must blood be spilled for it to count?

No, because that is a change in power (potentially) as is defined by the nation, not the people. I'm sure the people aren't against the process, and while they are electing new power, it's the same as is defined and principally supposed to happen. A revolution is the coming of a new system, not a new leader of the same system.

"Only the state has the power to solve the challenges facing humanity."
Ow? I had a problem with communicating when hanging around on the country-side, and the state did not invent my cell phone.
I have a problem with my stomach every morning and I put food in it to solve it. No state there, I buy groceries in private supermarkets.
Many revolutions were meant to kill off the above two solutions by state-imposed non-functional economics. How are you a revolutionary statist?

"- Only by revolution can we establish a state that can be counted on to do what is required."

How so? In a democracy you determine "what is required" by majority vote. Seems fair to me. We're 17 million people here, you won't get a unanimous vote on anything, so majority rule seems very fair. What does a revolution do that a vote doesn't?

electing a new congress is a pretty pathetic revolution since all the current laws will remain on the books. maybe one percent of the laws will be changed by the new congress, and typically the laws are written by industry groups/etc not politicians, so the difference between one party getting elected or the other is pretty small.

The revolution was televised. It anchored the Monday night reality lineup with a 17-share. It made 20 million on merchandising in the third quarter, and had a lucrative product placement deal with Doctor Pepper.

@ Draugnar: In what way does the current Cuban state resemble the corrupt, poverty stricken american gambling den which it replaced?

@ Redhouse:

ME: "Only the state has the power to solve the challenges facing humanity."

YOU: "Ow? I had a problem with communicating when hanging around on the country-side, and the state did not invent my cell phone.
I have a problem with my stomach every morning and I put food in it to solve it. No state there, I buy groceries in private supermarkets."

I would not define your stomach as one of the major challenges facing humanity at this time. Saying that the state has the power to solve the challenges facing humanity does not mean I think that only the state can solve every tiny stupid little day to day problem that you might have. I expect you to be able to tie your own fucking shoelaces, dumbass. Obviously what I'm talking about are the challenges that will determine whether the human race survives and prospers over the coming centuries - climate change, overpopulation, poverty, etc.

"How so? In a democracy you determine "what is required" by majority vote. Seems fair to me. We're 17 million people here, you won't get a unanimous vote on anything, so majority rule seems very fair. What does a revolution do that a vote doesn't?"

In most democracies the best you get is the choice between one version of the status quo or another version of the status quo. The major political parties represent the ruling elite and it's in their interests, and the interests of their corporate backers, to keep the status quo as it is, whether or not that status quo is actually best for people. It's difficult for ordinary people to challenge the mainstream parties because the mainstream parties have huge financial backing and can dominate the media coverage come election time. Only in times of real crisis do you get any change. A revolution allows the status quo to be challenged.


@ Tolstoy: "How exactly do you expect this statist revolution to happen, when the primary purpose of the [existing] state is to prevent revolutions?"

By grasping the right moment at a time of crisis. That crisis is coming.

A revolution could put power in the hands of a new group of people. Currently, most power is held by economic-political elites whose disagreements constitute the arena of acceptable political debate. A revolution could, in principle, create a truly democratic society in which most political and economic decisions are made directly by the relevant stakeholders, rather than those who are selected to make decisions on their behalf but invariably choose elite interests over the interests of the population at large.

The tentacled one speaks the truth.

*highly functional dumbs

*highly functional dumbass

"A revolution could put power in the hands of a new group of people. "

And therein lies the problem. If there's one thing past revolutions have taught us, it's that revolutions, despite their potential, never return power to all of the people, but to a new group of people, who then become the new elite.

It's naive to think that the problem is that the power is concentrated in the wrong hands, and life would be better if concentrated in different hands. The problem is the concentration of power itself, and the only way to correct that is diffuse systems of power. And I say this as someone who considers himself a statist, too.

This happens not through revolution, but through constant popular vigilance, and governmental and corporate accountability. Political change is not won and lost through sudden awakenings and violent revolutions. It is a slow, dull, maddening, pedantic process of erosion.

@ redhouse: Yeah. So highly functional it takes you two attempts to write the word "dumbass" (jk) ;-p

Can't disagree entirely, although I think it is still accurate to say that we'd be better off with power concentrated in the hands of a state apparatus which is supported and guided by an enthusiastically democratic popular movement, than we currently are under political elites who are only casually and superficially interested in public sentiment but are ~very~ responsive to the interests of the extremely affluent.

Autocorrect did not recognize dumbass, and turned it into dumbs... :(

(it still doesn't. DAMN YOU RED POINTED LINE)

JamieT, you're wrong on this. If the people wanted what you want, they'd vote for parties that want more radical, systemic change such as the LibDems. The Conservatives won the elections in the UK. They are *based on the principle that a revolution is bad*. That is the very essence of their party. And most British wanted them to lead the country. A revolution, in Britain's case, would have nothing to do with helping anyone, but simply forcing the will of an angry minority onto a content majority.

@ Redhouse: "The Conservatives won the elections in the UK...most British wanted them to lead the country."

Wrong. The Conservatives polled only 36% of the vote, so your claim that "most British wanted them..." is bullshit. 64% of those who voted did NOT want the Conservatives. They only got just over a third of the votes cast.

Due to our terrible first-past-the-post voting system this 36% vote translated into over 40% of MPs, but still not enough to "win" the election. They only managed to form a government by agreeing a coalition with the spineless LibDems.

And: "If the people wanted what you want, they'd vote for parties that want more radical, systemic change such as the LibDems."

1. The LibDems are not a party of revolutionary change.
2. The election did not offer voters the chance to vote for what you describe as "what I want"
3. Most voters are brainwashed by the media (who also have a vested interest in the status quo) into thinking that the mainstream parties are the only viable option.

@Redhouse Tories are a minority government, and the majority of voters didn't vote for them.

In the US (example I'm most familiar with), there has been a solid majority of the population which for the past 30yrs has supported the introduction of a optional government-owned health insurance provider. The political system has not turned this strong overwhelming preference into government policy. Why? Even a four year old knows how to connect dots.

I warned you about states bro

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li49jbcvcH1qe00gmo1_1280.jpg

@octopus
No they're not. They form a majority with the liberal democrats, who, evidently, agree with the tories. That a good part of the British population is so out of touch with how politics works that they vote for a centrist party is really a matter for ... you know.. the British population.

"3. Most voters are brainwashed by the media (who also have a vested interest in the status quo) into thinking that the mainstream parties are the only viable option."

No they're not, they are perfectly aware of such parties as the British Independence Party and other parties (whatever it is you call them) but they simply choose not to vote for them.

If the elections did not offer voters the chance to vote for what you want, there are two options:

1. What you want is what no one wants. In that case it is not a political goal worth pursuing, but better is it to compromise.
2. You start a party with revolutionary objectives. That is perfectly legal in England.

Good luck!

redhouse

"Can't disagree entirely, although I think it is still accurate to say that we'd be better off with power concentrated in the hands of a state apparatus which is supported and guided by an enthusiastically democratic popular movement, than we currently are under political elites who are only casually and superficially interested in public sentiment but are ~very~ responsive to the interests of the extremely affluent."

But that's where revolution is the lazy way out. The fact is that if you want a state apparatus that's enthusiastically chosen and supported by a democratic process, you need to educate and organize the electorate and get them to show up to the polls. In the US as least, an appallingly low percentage of the electorate actually turns out for anything other than the quadrennial election for the executive branch, even though it's the legislative branch that does most of the governing.

The "political elites" wouldn't be able to dominate the system if the rank and file voters didn't let them, and to fix that is going to take a lot more than a revolution. It's going to take a long, slow slog through the swamps of civics education.

citizens under democracies are almost as screwed as those under other systems
they have just been taught to accept it
the fact that you are so angry conservatives won and you would be so much happier if some alternative party had one shows that even when you succeed you dont get much
as long as they can put people into a group and then make them happy when their group wins then i guess most people think the system is working
and the elephant in the room is that the elites know that they can swap the parties every few election cycles and if they want to maintain the image of listening to the people they just have to split their ultimate agenda idiologically and advance the parts that are important to whichever party is in power and hold off on the other parts until the next time parties switch

I'm glad to see all the Libs calling for armed revolution (since elections just won't change enough)...because the gun-control-loving-disarmed Liberals will not win said armed revolution...meaning perhaps in our new conservative authoritarian government (which they *seem* to want, since they seem to like elections) all these Libs may find themselves on the dark side of history, which no doubt will be rewritten by the new rulers which such skilled revisionism as to make Liberalism the clear menace to society that is has always been.

I'm going to volunteer my time for the Government TIM Squads (Truth in Media) and help rewrite history books and monitor the "free" press...

Lol... revolution would be disastrous on all ends. We need to reform, not revolt. Congress needs to get their heads out of the clouds and then we can start.

@blankflag,
Who's the "you" in your above comment? Me?

People need to get involved at the PRIMARY level, which are *the* most important elections, and are largely ignored by the majority of voters, who are too ignorant to comprehend this fact. The way you eliminate incumbents is *don't let them run*!

^
Not to mention the local level. A lot of the decisions about what really happens to your money, your community, and your life is decided at school board meetings, city councils, and planning boards.

this jamie character with his comments like

Wrong. The Conservatives polled only 36% of the vote, so your claim that "most British wanted them..." is bullshit. 64% of those who voted did NOT want the Conservatives. They only got just over a third of the votes cast.

so he apparently buys into the system in some way

People should get involved. Like krellin.

@ blankmind:

"so he apparently buys into the system in some way"

Wat?

@Red - "I buy groceries in private supermarkets."

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!! I have two words for yo7u. Farm subsidies.

Seriously, without the federal government subsidizing farms (private and mega famrs), supermarket food would cost a whole lot more.

@ Redhouse: "No they're not, they are perfectly aware of such parties as the British Independence Party and other parties but they simply choose not to vote for them."

I pay pretty close attention to British politics and *I* have never heard of the "British Independence Party". The other point worth making on this is that the smaller parties can't even afford to stand candidates in every constituency, so most voters don't even have the opportunity to vote for them.

And: "You start a party with revolutionary objectives. That is perfectly legal in England."

Firstly please be careful of confusing "England" with "the UK" - there's no reason to assume I'm just talking about England. Secondly if I started such a party, how would you propose I get several billionaire backers to fund it with massive cash donations? Because that's what the mainstream parties have, so that's what the new party would be up against.

@ krellin: We don't have primaries in the UK.

UKIP

Oh, those nutjobs. Yes people are aware of them, I suppose. Unfortunately they are also beginning to get votes. They polled second in the recent Eastleigh by-election.

well they're not exactly establishment are they?

if you are that angry that one party won the election then you must buy into the system at least in some way
someone who really understands it would know that it makes very little difference who gets in

@ blankmind: You need to pay attention to the whole thread. I was correcting redhouse's erroneous claim that "most British people wanted" the Conservatives, rather than making any comment of my own about what I thought of the election result. Paying attention to the results doesn't mean you support the system. But I don't know why I should expect you to understand that when you can barely form a coherent sentence...

The moment he does form a coherent and grammatically correct sentence, he will have made quite an accomplishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IYloD3tyEQ&t=0m8s