babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » USA   » I love the other furious George

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: I love the other furious George
raccoon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7330

posted 09 November 2004 12:54 AM      Profile for raccoon   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I mean the one who just got elected south of the line, not Smitherman.

Somebody will probably think I am being a troll. But I am serious. This is the first time I have come out from under my bridge and posted to this rabble thing. I am curious about the use of these message boards.

I have been rooting for a George Bush win for the same reason Osama bin Laden and his cosympats do. It is because George and the people around him are idiots. They will destroy the American empire the fastest. Guess what, folks, Kerry was never an alternative to Bush. It is a one party state down there; the republicrats, heard this before?

Kerry would be something like Clinton; a Bush with some brains. He would find ways to reconcile Americans and the rest of the world to Republicrat oligarchy. The only way to get the ultra-extremist ying-yangs of "project for a new American century" out of the picture for good is to give them the power they want and let them destroy themselves.

That is a sad solution but there is no other. Nothing can now defeat them but themselves, they have got themselves as well dug in as the Nazis after 1933. I don't think it will be as bad as the calamity the Nazis touched off when they got control of a major industrial power. It already is worse. There are more people dying as a result of globalization and the instability Bush's people are creating, than were dying in any year of world war two.

War, famine, and plague are depopulating big areas of the earth right now; especially in Africa.

It is being said often enough in some circles that it starts sounding like a cliche, but it is true that the only super power to emerge to oppose global corporate America is global civil society. This is part of the growing obsolescence of the nation state; it can not protect its citizens, can not keep capital under control.

Global civil society is not some abstraction, it is a growing thing, spreading out from its origin in Latin America, and to some degree, from south Asia. It might get to Canada some century, if the Toronto Social Forum can ever get going again after overshooting their budget on their first social forum and then getting hijacked, low-jacked, and in between jacked by everything left right and center that would be threatening by civil society, participatory budgeting, and all that.

In other parts of the world they appear to be better at dealing with the coopting crap, but they can not defeat the Imperial juggernaut. All these pacifist people will have to wait until the war mongers destroy themselves with a little help from Al Qaeda and such groups.

There might be a window of opportunity for civil society and genuine democracy to establish itself after the defeat of the American empire. If they fail to get it together it really could be the new dark age that old Jane Jacobs was groaning about lately.

There needs to be established some sort of world government with some means of military force to preserve itself. This is why Chavez in Venezuela is so interesting and instructive. He is developing the democratic capacity of the people there, because he has the military capacity to protect himself. He is an 'armed prophet' rather than a Salvatore Allende.

I wonder how many people on these discussion boards know who Allende was?

Getting back to the nation state, that is the best outcome of the next 20 years or so; a triumph of global civil society and a devolution of power to the local level, down to city states, in which real democracy can be possible.

The bad scenario is the triumph of the death-instinct groups; the Al Qaedas, the ultra-nationalists, the ultra-leftists. The world could then become a collection of little feudal theocracies in conflict with each other and bringing the ‘environment’ to total collapse.

The faster and more complete the collapse of the US is, and with it the collapse of global capital, the better the chances of a good outcome, the globally local, Democratic city states possibility. If the US keeps going for awhile, is lead by people with a little cunning, it can succeed in defeating the global democracy, but in the end it has to fall, and and the more damage it causes, the more delay, the stronger the death instinct folks will become.

And the global capitalist forces, based in the US, are really on the way down. They have not only overrun their military resources, but their economic resources, too. Who on these message boards understands enough of basic economics to understand what a nations current account means? Much more money is going out of the USA than is coming in, because it isn't exporting anything, because it can't make anything other countries want anymore, because for a generation it has invested its coin in making war instead of maintaining its infrastructure. It has a huge current account deficit.

The way in which the alliances of smaller powers building up against the United States will defeat the US is not with any military force, but with economic force. A "tipping point" is coming where the US dollar can no longer be the world's "reserve currency"; the one used for international trade. At some point people are going to get too edgy about the American current account deficit and start using some alternative currency, dumping their Yankee dollars. The Euro is becoming available as a viable alternative.

So, sometime soon, the value of the US dollar will collapse, it won't be able to import oil and other things anymore, it won't be able to sustain its war machine. This point will come faster with a true idiot like Dubya rather than someone like Kerry who can inspire a little confidence and shore up American prestige.

Of course, the Canadian economy has become very tied to the US so if they have a big shakeup, so do we. It has always been obvious that in the end it is the American elite who will tear up the NAFTA when it no longer serves their purposes. Initially, it will be tough in Canada, but with the Americans imploded and trying to sort themselves out, not needing us anymore, we will have the opportunity to rebuild our domestic economy once again.

So, the next 10 or 20 years will be difficult in Canada but will be like paradise compared to what people in the middle east, Africa, and some other unfortunate places will endure yet. And the continuance of the Bush presidency will foreshorten it and , I think, make a better future. Kerry would not have dismantled the destructive system. He would have kept it going longer.

Well, it has been fun writing this. I hope you all enjoy reading it. I might come back and write some more sometime.

Yours Truly,

Trolling for signs of intelligence among The Rabble.


From: toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bernard W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5735

posted 09 November 2004 02:09 AM      Profile for Bernard W        Edit/Delete Post
Some comments:

Famine, war and disease in Africa have little to do with the global economy and/or the USA. Of all continents, Africa's economy is the least tied with the global economy. Most of its troubles have local causes; interventions by Western powers (mostly France) still occur but they are mostly making sure governments are stable enough to keep the flow of natural resources going.

As for the US decline: It is probably started, to a point. Whether it can be reversed is another story. The US were also in sharp decline in the 1970s but recovered strongly. One can never 'misunderestimate' them to paraphrase Mr. Bush.

The US dollar has already lost much value (witness the Canadian $ going from .62 to .83 USD in less than 2 years); more decline will occur. Sooner or later it will affect our exports, which become more expensive.

As for the US decline being a good thing, and something that will usher a new era of 'local democracy' and the like, I disagree.

Like it or not, the USA have been the world's policeman for the last 60 years. By ensuring global peace and stability, they laid the framework on which much of the world's prosperity was built. Just look at the emergence of significant middle classes in Latin America, India, South East Asia, Korea, where none existed one or two generations ago.

If the USA were to collapse to the point of no longer be effective economically or militarily, there would be none to fill the place effectively. The European Union? They are economically strong, but dysfunctional. They could not even pacify Yugoslavia, in their own backyard, without US help. China and Russia? They'll have to contend with serious local issues.

Much of the 3rd World middle class exists thanks to trade with the 1st World. When a north American individual purchases fruits from Chile or wine from South Africa, they help create and keep jobs in those countries. When we become too imporerished to buy those products, all those markets will fall too. Without us purchasing oil from Venezuela, Chavez would not be able to finance any social programs. Local democracy, wherever it exists, will have to contend with oligarchies for the little remaining wealth.

When the Roman Empire collapsed, in came the Dark Ages.

To close: be careful what you wish for, you may get it.


From: Algonquin Park, Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 November 2004 08:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some more comments:

This isn't about a rabble column.

Therefore, I'm moving it to "the rest of the world". Which is where threads about the US should go.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 09 November 2004 01:45 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by raccoon:
I mean the one who just got elected south of the line, not Smitherman.

Somebody will probably think I am being a troll.



Well, you're being somewhat snarky and insulting. There's some substance in what you say, but you are being a bit of a jerk about how you say it. And it's not as new as you seem to think. On to the substance--

quote:
I have been rooting for a George Bush win for the same reason Osama bin Laden and his cosympats do. It is because George and the people around him are idiots. They will destroy the American empire the fastest. Guess what, folks, Kerry was never an alternative to Bush. It is a one party state down there; the republicrats, heard this before?

Yeah, heard it before. There's something to it. But the whole "worse is better" thing requires a level of ruthlessness I find hard to stomach. And it often doesn't work. Still, there is something to it; what's really going to bring down the US is likely to be military overspending, both on incredibly expensive toys and on wars. At this point, the costs are becoming incredibly obvious to anyone who looks at the US military budget and their deficit. Bush will certainly postpone any attempts to put a damper on the expansion of military budgets, and Bush appointments will entrench the military contractors and their buddies even more, making it even harder than it is now to arrest the growth of military spending--much less shrink it back to manageable levels. Plus he's likely to do more brushfire wars and mismanage them because he's not capable of reining in the profiteering long enough to enforce a decent job that won't lead to resistance in any given country he targets. All true. And people like bin Laden can give him the excuses he needs to ram those screwups through. So, yeah, it's kind of persuasive.
On the other hand, what's the point of objecting to the evil things the US does if you're then going to welcome the US doing them as the only way to have the US stop doing them? We gonna do the same when someone else comes along--just hope for them to be as bad as they can be so they'll finish sooner (and make room for the one after that)? There's also a fundamental ethical problem; the "elect Bush because he'll be worse" approach is very much an "ends justify the means" argument. And when people start relying on those is when the rot starts setting in.

quote:

Kerry would be something like Clinton; a Bush with some brains.


Well, yeah, sort of. But he wouldn't be a pseudo-religious, racist nutbar, which is kind of important if you're in the US and either gay, nonwhite, or a woman--a fair chunk of the population. If you're not in the US it's important if you live somewhere that US-funded health organizations work, because they aren't allowed to do things that make sense and would slow the spread of AIDS any more.

quote:
There are more people dying as a result of globalization and the instability Bush's people are creating, than were dying in any year of world war two.

Well, yeah--but then, the population is much larger now. That doesn't tell us much. In terms of percentage of population being killed, there's probably nothing happening now that's as bad as the Belgian Congo in the 1890s to early 1900s. Now there was some vicious corporate colonialism! Globalization is certainly leading to plenty of deaths. Whether it's qualitatively worse than other phases of imperialism is an open question.

quote:

War, famine, and plague are depopulating big areas of the earth right now; especially in Africa.


Agreed. I do think the guy who replied to you was quite wrong about Africa. Much of the conflict and problems there are quite clearly related to the world economy and its impacts on Africa. From mining companies to the IMF, from privatized water to wheat dumping to the CIA assassinating Lumumba to blood diamonds to expensive pharmaceuticals, tragedies there are driven or worsened by the first world, no question.

quote:

It is being said often enough in some circles that it starts sounding like a cliche, but it is true that the only super power to emerge to oppose global corporate America is global civil society.


I'd love to believe it. So, how much impact have they had on policy?

quote:

This is part of the growing obsolescence of the nation state; it can not protect its citizens, can not keep capital under control.


Oh, nonsense. Now this is a cliche. Nation states can keep capital per se under control; what they're having less luck with is the media, which unfortunately is generally owned by capitalists. Every so often you get a place where things are sufficiently bad and organizing sufficiently good that people stop believing the media, e.g. Venezuela. But there are wild difference to how well nation states keep capital under control. Finland does to a reasonable extent, the US manifestly does not, Canada is not doing very well, and Cuba abolished it.

quote:

In other parts of the world they appear to be better at dealing with the coopting crap, but they can not defeat the Imperial juggernaut. All these pacifist people will have to wait until the war mongers destroy themselves with a little help from Al Qaeda and such groups.


Actually, I think that it's kind of a race. The US can only concentrate hard on one or two places at a time. Sure, there's low-level interference that's built into various agencies and runs kind of on autopilot, but for serious intervention it takes top policymakers giving serious attention to a country, and they can only do that with one or two at once. There are military limitations as well, which we're seeing in Iraq. It would be really really tough for the US to hold down two Iraqs at the same time.

But there are a lot of countries in the world. Used to be most of them stayed in line out of a mix of fear and successful US propaganda: Many people around the world thought maybe the US did have good ideas, maybe this pain is short term, maybe socialism is evil. The US were the Leaders of the Free World (tm) and a lot of people in a lot of places more or less bought it. Thanks to Bush, far fewer are buying it. What we may see now is sure, the US is still a superpower, and sure people are still scared, but for effective control you need Fear, Uncertainty *and* Doubt. The US may find that while it concentrates on one place, three more break out of the IMF model. What's Princess Leia's line? "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!" We're seeing it right now in Latin America.
Which in turn means fewer countries buying American GM wheat, fewer countries respecting American drug patents, fewer countries acting as sweatshops for American-based multinationals to profit. So I'd say no, there's no need to wait until the US implodes, they can and are getting busy right now whittling away at the profit centres of the empire.

quote:
There needs to be established some sort of world government with some means of military force to preserve itself. This is why Chavez in Venezuela is so interesting and instructive. He is developing the democratic capacity of the people there, because he has the military capacity to protect himself. He is an 'armed prophet' rather than a Salvatore Allende.

The really interesting thing about Chavez and the military is that he's promoting barrio-class people and above all, he's putting the military in contact with the community, getting them doing work that helps the community. This is a conscious process of making sure they regain, as individuals and as an institution, a connection with the people. The idea is to make it very hard for anyone to use the military for undemocratic purposes. People will be death squads against faceless people they've been propagandized against. Chavez hopes they will not agree to be death squads against the Gutierrez family they helped build the house of, or the Sanchezes who were so grateful when they came to the clinic.

quote:
I wonder how many people on these discussion boards know who Allende was?

Don't be an asshole. First, lots of people on this board know exactly who Allende was. Second, one-upmanship would be a pretty pathetic way of educating them if they didn't know, wouldn't it? This is just a gratuitous (and missed) insult.

quote:

Getting back to the nation state, that is the best outcome of the next 20 years or so; a triumph of global civil society and a devolution of power to the local level, down to city states, in which real democracy can be possible.


I like the devolution stuff up to a point--although it has limitations, I think. Taking a concrete example, devolution of power to the provincial level in Canadian health care has meant mainly an erosion of standards; further devolution would likely make it difficult to move and still get care, have medical records follow you etc. But then, since elsewhere you talk about the need for an armed world government you presumably don't fully mean this.

quote:
The bad scenario is the triumph of the death-instinct groups; the Al Qaedas, the ultra-nationalists, the ultra-leftists.

Amusing. So, which ultra-leftists would we be talking about which are both threatening to triumph and can be lumped in with Al Quaeda in their thought processes? This sentence is one of the more massive oversimplifications I've ever seen.

quote:
Who on these message boards understands enough of basic economics to understand what a nations current account means?

Don't be an asshole. Again, your economic paragraphs make some sense but are by no means new.

quote:

Trolling for signs of intelligence among The Rabble.


Whatever, mr. Genius. I'm sure you're just wincing from bringing your massive intellect down to a level where the unwashed can begin to dimly comprehend your amazing insights. I'm sure your amazing ability to bring people together goes over real well at those Toronto Social Forum dealies you were talking about.

[ 09 November 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
shaolin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4270

posted 09 November 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for shaolin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for a great response, Rufus. When I saw this last post last night I furiously hit 'post reply' but realized after three lines of typing I just couldn't be bothered. You've said all I wanted to say and more.
From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
raccoon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7330

posted 10 November 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for raccoon   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Well, this is an interesting first foray into the world of message boards. The basic dynamics are not much different than e-mail groups/lists. The message board format makes it a little easier. It could be a problem if you get a lot of people posting. Or if you get into a long, complicated interchange with somebody, but who wants that?

And these smilies are so much fun to play around with. I’ll be a today.

So, somebody who thinks he is a “progressive” but buys every neo-liberal concept, lot of those people around, seems to ‘disagree’ with me. And another one who evidently thinks he is a real leftie partly ‘agrees’ with me but thinks I am insulting and snarky and an asshole.

Well, I am probably not as big an asshole as him because I don’t stretch it out by sticking my head up it.

But this is the same thing as with e-mail lists, people with superficial understanding of issues wasting electrons insulting each other and not increasing their understanding of anything. It has some entertainment/recreational value but not much educational value.

Now I am getting into the territory of “what is the usefulness of the net? Is the personal computer a new kind of idiot box that talks back? There are some genius egghead types who pronounce that the internet has not increased people’s intelligence. I wonder if our moderate moderator will now move me to the “deep philosophical musings about the net” now. Last time he/she moved me here at “the rest of the world” from “columns.”

I haven’t checked all the topics. Is there one for geniuses like me to converse with each other at a level beyond that set by the ‘mainstream’ media? I find the same problem here as elsewhere; that people think they are rejecting the mainstream, and corporate bias, and so on, but almost all their information still comes from the mainstream. It takes hard work, and developed evaluative powers, to actually get outside of “The Box.”

And when you get your head out of it, you are outside of it. Everyone else is still inside of it. You are the odd-ball. How to drag everyone else’s head out of whatever bodily orifice they are fixated on, and avail themselves of your hard won knowledge?

O, sharper than “asshole,” you get called “genius.” I am just someone who thinks more than is good for me. But I am thinking at a higher level, based on a deeper understanding, that either Rufus or Bernard or Shaolin. So they do not really get what I am saying. It would take a great deal of time and effort to get them up to speed. I do not have the energy at 1AM.

I think tomorrow after I send this I will hop to these “right Brain” babbles, even if Michelle does not hop me there herself.

But lets see if my mighty intellect can figure out how to quote somebody, especially a quoter of me.

quote:
I like the devolution stuff up to a point--although it has limitations, I think. Taking a concrete example, devolution of power to the provincial level in Canadian health care has meant mainly an erosion of standards; further devolution would likely make it difficult to move and still get care, have medical records follow you etc. But then, since elsewhere you talk about the need for an armed world government you presumably don't fully mean this.

So what use are the provinces, anyway? The original idea of the “fathers of Confederation” was that as the country developed the cities would grow and become a more important level of government. The provinces would wither away. It did not work out that way. We have mother Britain to thank for that. She created our constitution for us colonials and when she decided to trade us to the Americans she left us without a way of amending our political institutions. We can’t get anywhere from here, especially we can’t get to giving the cities what they need. We’re fucked until the city-zens rise up in revolt. Won’t happen soon.

What do we need nation states for anyway? Civilization is something that happens in cities. All human progress after domesticated plants/animals has been made in cities, all wealth created by cities. The only realistic political entities are hub cities and their hinterlands and transplant cities. See, I read my Jane Jacobs. Nations and empires have always been parasitical on cities, and a brake on human material cultural evolution.

What is the contradiction between the need for states to wither away, and the need for some sort of global cop that is a cop instead of a goon? The Marxists talk about the state withering away so that the true producers of wealth could be freed. I don’t think Karl was talking about the city state. The Leninists talk about a simultaneous world revolution to finally uproot capitalism/imperialism. I am not some turkey who goes around calling his/her self a “Marxist” or a “Leninist.” The stupid notions that get attributed to poor old Karl! Bah!

Even Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, two very misunderstood political philosophers, had something worthwhile to say about this. Machiavelli talked about the armed prophet who alone can create a revolution against princes. “An unarmed prophet is soon a dead prophet.”

Hobbes said that “Man to man is wolf” and without some power to curb the predatory instincts, the life of man is “nasty, poor, brutish, and short.” In the post war period, we had some social progress because the predators had been weakened. They regained their strength by going outside national states and acting globally. They have been trying to set up their own global government, but are meeting resistance. Will global civil society have the capacity to outsmart them as well as the death wish forces? To create a collective “armed prophet” who can create the peace in which a world civilization becomes possible?

I will leave this off with a final concept; Uncle Sam as the big bully whose only strength is the weakness of others. He only looks powerful. When he finally runs into some serious opposition, he is going down like a pile of sand.

There is nothing to replace him with, Bernard? Oh, joy! In the case of the Roman empire, you had the dark ages afterward because the haters and fanatics, the death wish people, precursors of the Catholic church, won out over the renewal and revitalization of the Roman civilization that the ‘heretic’ ‘barbarians’ might have brought.

[ 10 November 2004: Message edited by: raccoon ]


From: toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 10 November 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You might want to start your own website to post your deep philosophical musings. You probably lost most people after the first few paragraphs. Even geniuses need to learn to edit themselves.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
raccoon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7330

posted 10 November 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for raccoon   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
My dear Contrarian;
You are playing contrarian to another contrarian. Does it make what you say 'mainstream' or double contrary?

In formal Logic a double negative is a positive. In arithmetic they cancel each other.

Actually, I am plannng to start my own web site. But it won't be full of dep philosophical musigs because I don't beleive in deep philosophical musings for reasons that are too deep and philosophical to go into here.

Actually, I am into deep psychological musings about the way society, and especially those who are its potential leaders and thinkers, are kept down by bullying, physical, emotional, and relational, directed by those with no conscience and who will do anything to get control.

In other words, about the true nature of human propensity for evil.

I suspect this is really too heavy for Rabble. Way too radical.

[ 10 November 2004: Message edited by: raccoon ]


From: toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
FakeDesignerWatch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6901

posted 10 November 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for FakeDesignerWatch   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=editors

The Nation's endorsement of Kerry explains why his victory would have been good for progressives. Essentially, Bush will make it more difficult for us to do our work, dumb down the population, etc.

The idea that revolutions happen when things are at their worst is wrong. Ussually, it comes when things are getting somewhat better, but not fast enought.

I.e. the Nazis came into power after Germany started recovering, and got a little self-confidence back.

The French Revolution occured during the enlightenment, increased economic growth - but people felt they weren't getting their share.

The more Bush, the more radical, but not the way you'd want it.


From: Milan | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 10 November 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not very self aware, is he?
Raccoon, free association does not genius make.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 November 2004 06:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I suspect this is really too heavy for Rabble. Way too radical.

Well, this really worms its way into my heart.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
raccoon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7330

posted 11 November 2004 02:56 AM      Profile for raccoon   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Its called transposition. When some neurotic person finds his/her self threatened/challenged by somebody, he/she transposes his/her personal inadequacies onto the target of insecurity. Where else does this “Mr. Genius” and “not very self aware” stuff come from. Hey, Rufus?

‘Fake designer Watch’ is more interesting to chew on. FDW has made some generalizations about revolutions that lead to a conclusion that Kerry would have been better for ‘progressives.’ Was Bob Rae better for ‘progressives?’ Was Bill Clinton? What happened after them?

Kerry was another Yale ‘skull and bones’ club member, like Bush himself. I have read some American commentaries about the recent election that ask, in relation to electoral manipulation, how it is that such a mediocre candidate could get nominated in the first place. He is faulted for conceding much too easily.

But as for this false dichotomy of ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary’ opposing pairs of candidates, does the phrase pair “soft cop, hard cop” come to mind? A few people have noted a strategy, also being used in Canada, for pushing the political spectrum to the right. The ‘left’ candidate is always almost as bad as the ‘right’ candidate, but all us progressives have to vote for him or we will get something even worse. Curbing this is the main reason for proportional representation, though that will only help a bit.

I am puzzled, no actually I am not, about how the Nazi seizure of power gets categorized with the French revolution. They were very different events. And what do people mean exactly by a ‘revolution’ anyway?

I usually use it to refer to a refounding of a given polity, when the old institutions and elites have proved inadequate and an opportunity occurs to replace it. Usually the professional ‘revolutionaries’ are the last people to get the news when a ‘revolution’ occurs.

Here is what the Nazis and Jacobins had in common; they came along at a time when the old system had fallen down, and the field was wide open for something new to take over. In both cases, something new did. The results could not have been predicted in advance.

But the odds of something good taking over are enhanced if ‘something good’ can get its shit together and be ready with a program and some degree of organization. “Something good’ is not going to happen through voting. It is not going to happen by getting someone slightly better than the baddie into office.

This is the one consistent thing when ‘revolutions’ or major changes in the system happen; they happen after the old system has collapsed. That is why I want to help it to collapse. I don’t want people to try to ‘reform’ it and keep it going.

Why am I not afraid that something worse will come along? Well, something worse might come along. But as I said at the start, if the collapse of the old is not too drawn out, the chances are greater that something better will come up.

It would be a nice thing to see before I kick off. I am not going to live forever. I have been watching the nonsense for 50 years and only in the last ten have I seen some people start to get it. The trouble is, they are mostly in places like Latin America and South Asia. Not too many in Toronto.

One thing about the internet; it enables you to learn how freaking backward is the place where you live, compared to most elsewheres.

And with that, good night.

This smilie is for you, skdadl


From: toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca