Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*

pdw writes "Revolution is not an AOL Keyword* is an entertaining piece of prose, which has been floating around the blogspace for the past month. In reinterpreting Gil Scott-Heron's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Eddan Katz has given us quick worldview, common to most Slashdoters, and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!"

Comments

Eddan Katz

[egg troll]

Jon, even when you change your name we still know its your crappy writing!

Easter Bunny, Dead at 55

[Anonymous Coward]

I just saw some sad news on CNN - popular childrens' figure the Easter Bunny was found dead on a Georgia road this evening. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Easter Bunny, Dead at 55

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. I hope they do Santa next.

Re:Easter Bunny, Dead at 55

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme guess, coal in your stocking last year?

Groovy...

[TopShelf]

So am I supposed to smoke clove cigarettes and snap my fingers to this???

Re:Groovy...

[Anonymous Coward]

after lighting up i am much more apt to eat the pussy (MUNCHIES!), come to think of it, fucking the pussy isnt so bad either.

What was the asterisk for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when you can't tell what the asterisk was for.

Re:What was the asterisk for?

[Samari711]

if you had RTFA you would have seen at the end of the poem:
*See generally Gil Scott-Heron, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rdewald]

The one thing that seemed off about the langauge in the homage to GSH's insightful song about the ultimate irreverence of mass media was the attempt to address "geeks" via a reference to AOL keywords.

I don't know any geeks that use AOL.

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

The web isn't mass media, it just has mass distribution.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

Isn't that exactly what he was saying? I think you misunderstood.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Qender]

uh, he's not making a geek refrence, what he's saying is pretty much what you say in your last sentence

"Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword...."

hence his line

"revolution is not an aol keyword."

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rdewald]

We agree, my comment was to the rhetoric, not the semantics. Using a word like "web surfers" instead of "geeks" would have been more poetic and resonant for me, that's all.

I get it.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[stephanruby]

I guess you're a geek with no TV. The tag line "AOL keyword blahblah" was created for the television market. It's just like Tampax tampons, most of us will never use them and yet most of us know about them.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[GNUman]

I don't watch TV... but I have seen those in movie trailers and teasers when going to the theater.

"AOL keyword: [insert movie short name here]"

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[eenglish_ca]

I don't know anyone who has ever used, is using or ever will use AOL. I don't see why anyone would want all that bloat and the limitations and cripplings that it has. It can't be that good if they have had to come out with 9 versions of their software. That amount of releases is on par with the number of release that any given linux distro has which is not a good thing. My 2C.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[therevolution]

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

No, I don't have a web site... no Apache or Perl scripts either. Sorry.

But feel free to mod me up anyway!

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Anonymous Coward]

The tag line "AOL keyword blahblah" was created for the television market.

AOL keywords have existed since the dawn of AOL - well before "Internet" and "web" became part of pop culture. Their continued existance probably has more to do with AOL/Time Warner marketing than anything else. They certainly weren't created for TV.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[miu]

I don't know anyone who has ever used, is using or ever will use AOL.

Uh huh. And uncle Steve is bringing his friend Bruce to Thanksgiving dinner. Bruce seems nice, maybe he can help uncle Steve find a nice girl to marry.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[dipipanone]

Wow! I want to be as cool as you someday

It's unlikely that you'll ever make it. Posting as an Anonymous Coward and obsessing about the social habits of geeks that you've never met are no way to achieve your goal.

fucken jag-off

So that's what you use *your* TV for? I realize that you're somewhat challenged, but I do think you could find more explicit pr0n on the net if you really put your mind to it.

Just a word to the none-too-wise.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be that good if they have had to come out with 9 versions of their software.

Yeah. You do realise that AOL has been around for over a decade now, don't you? Oh, you don't? Well, then I guess that makes you clueless and spouting on Slashdot.

You'll fit right in!

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[BlowChunx]

It can't be that good if they have had to come out with 9 versions of their software.

Tell RedHat and Mandrake that.....

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[phriedom]

"Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts."

The new version replaces "The revolution will put you in the driver's seat." with "The revolution will increase your Google rank." IMHO it isn't a revolution if it has a website or it blogs. The orginal version says the Revolution will be live. I think you could say that "The revolution will be face to face." keeps more with the spirit of the original.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[stephanruby]

AOL keywords have existed since the dawn of AOL - well before "Internet" and "web" became part of pop culture. [...] They certainly weren't created for TV.

I know I was there. I remember the time when I became excited everytime a company would put up content on AOL (AOL-users couldn't browse the internet at the time). I remember the time when I received my first AOL bill in upwards of $300. And I even remember the first time AOL introduced the idea of thumbnails.

In any case, I probably shouldn't have said "created for television". The tag line was a convenient way to cross-advertise on television. I am not 100% sure it was created for television.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rifter]

He did. RTFP.

That amount of releases is on par with the number of release that any given linux distro has which is not a good thing. My 2C.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[cokane2]

That is not what he is saying at all. His point, as the same with the piece its copied from, is that the internet and all this other wonderful technology surrounding it will not create a revolution. Our past problems persist, etc. The internet will not change humanity, create a utopia, or bring world peace. It wont end starvation, prejudice, poverty, crime, war, disease, hatred, ignorance, etc. This is essentially the same message as the previous one, only that related to a different technology. That is his point. His point isn't that some elitist coder is worthier than a newbish aoler. Wow, remove your bias and study something more objectively next time.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rdewald]

You're on the same line of thinking as I, but I do think all social movements need a journal of some kind. Before the Internet these were on paper, but a community, which is a necessary prerequisite for a revolution, needs a place to exchange ideas.

I mentioned Apache and Perl scripts because these are freely available and more likely to be used by the disenfranchised than AOL.

Now I can't find the reference to "geek" at all that I thought I saw in the text, so along with "intelligent" not being an rdewald keyword, maybe "informed" won't be either.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rdewald]

Gil Scott Heron's point, as I saw it, was that mass media cannot forment revolution because of it's own investment in cultural and economic stability. Once mass media invests in something as content , it assumes an economic and political inertia and possesses a certain cultural enuii.

Another way to put it is once something makes Newsweek, it is already over.

So, if one is interested in things that really can change, you have to find out about them in ways that are alternative to mass media. The WWW is precisely that instrument in our age, something that GSH could not forsee.

Of course we can't rely on the system, whether that be televison or the WWW to be good, we have to be good. But you and I have access to the WWW (this post is evidence of that, it can be seen from anywhere), but we couldn't get on Television to have this discussion (not on a channel with worldwide distribution, anyway) because we have yet to be co-opted as content .

Once one becomes content in the way that I use the term here, changing things becomes at odds with one's own self-interest.

That's why the Revolution won't be televised, but it will be modded-up.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Qender]

That is the same thing, stop being closed-minded. The meaning of:

"Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword...."

could be translated as:

AOL will not endorse this and it will be the sum efforts of individuals withought any corporate sponsorships.

Which is much closer to the point of the piece and has nothing to do with nerds vs not-nerds. It takes place in relation to computers because that is what the piece has been atapted too. And in both the original piece, the adaptation, and the quote I used above, the point still stands that corporate conveniences will not aid in the restructuring of the world.

Wow, do I have to do the thinking for everyone else? I am normally not so rude, but I am not a "biased elitist coder", don't think that you know me, because I doubt that you do.

literary terms

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that piece isn't prose ("Ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure." - dictionary.com) but poetry. Albeit the kind of poetry that doesn't rhyme.

Maybe it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

The Revolution will not be Googled

In summary:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easter, all entertainment and technology businesses are closed, and therefore in slashdot's view of the world it is a slow news day.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[mr_bungle2110]

Dude, relax. I'm sure George Washington stopped to have a beer at least once during the American Revolution. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln read a nice book, just for fun, during the Civil War, and I'm sure that FDR spent a night with his mistress not thinking about the Depression or World War I. I'm sure he spent a hundred.

Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Considering up here in Canada we've held referendums to determine if we should divide the country (first Quebec, and now Alberta is talking about it too) I find it hard to believe we would ever see such an event take place.

Even with Bush going a bit nuts with the whole "You must give up your rights to be safe, citizen." power grab in the US, he can easily be voted out at the next election. No revolution (violent or otherwise) necessary.

You need the support of the majority to have a revolution, otherwise it's called other things.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends. Would you consider the United States Civil War a revolution by the southern states?

Re:Revolution

[geekoid]

you just need power to have a revolution.

Re:Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, against colonial powers, though I admit I know little of the US Civil War so feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong...

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

he can easily be voted out at the next election

That was written on the assumption that he was voted in fair and square the first time... ... which is debatable.

Re:Revolution

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Civil Rights movement in the United States during the 1960's: REVOLUTION!

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this was mid 19th Century (about 85 years after the United States formed). The southern states were facing a crisis as their way of life (large plantations with slaves) was facing extinction. There was a constant battle in the Congress to only admit states in pairs (one pro-slave, one anti-slave) to keep a balance of power. Eventually, some of the southern states decided to succeed from the Union and form their own Confederacy. Anyway, the remaining United States did not like this at all, and they went to war to preserve the original Union. So, the United States exists as a whole today, rather than as two neighboring countries.

Re:Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, I'm beginning to think maybe my definition of revolution may be a bit too narrow...

Perhaps we should include the peace movement, feminism, civil rights, etc... I guess it all depends on how you look at revolution.

I typically think of it as a power change initiated by an oppressed majority, but I guess it could also be initiated by an oppressed minority that gains popularity with the silent majority...

Re:Revolution

[moonbender]

Perhabs Hitler's takeover of the Weimar Republic, which was a modern democracy, converting into an absolutist fascist regime in 1933 could be called a revolution. It was very much inside the system, though, it was not a violent public uprise.

Apart from that, the couple of modern democracies - including first and foremost the USA, the right to bear arms nonwithstanding - have taken great care to keep up a large enough and well-equipped military to prevent a public, violent revolution from happening. And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

Re:Revolution

[rdewald]

The word revolution in this context refers to the overthrow of a government, or form of government, or social system by those governed, usually by forceful means, with another government or social system taking its place.

In recent history, this has happened because of, or has been attempted by, people seeking a democracy is the new form of government. Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy. It's not that it is impossible, it's that it has already happened.

The word can also mean a radical change of any kind. This is sometimes necessary in any social system. Democracy allows for a non-violent method to achieve this kind of revolution every election. While the change from Carter to Reagan in 1981 was not a revolution in the former sense of the word, it was in the latter sense. So, the answer depends in some measure on just what one means by revolution.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviet Communist revolution happened shortly after their democratic revolution, although that was short lived and unstable.

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

Well, given that Bush wasn't elected by the majority, one could argue that the electorial college system actually promotes a kind of revolution. Once you have Texas and Florida, plus the middle states you can ignore the majority opinion for President. Maybe bloodless coup is a better word.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Chile was a democracy prior to Sept 11, 1973 when it was overthrown by a US-supported military coup and became a brutal dictatorship. A new leader wasn't elected until 1989.

Re:Revolution

[bsartist]

The primary issue of the civil war wasn't slavery - it was the balance of power between the federal government and individual states.

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery until late in the war, and not for the reason that many believe. The war was going badly for the north. General Lee, a graduate of West Point, and before the war one of the best commanders the US Army had, had won victory after victory. Many northerners were calling on Lincoln to recognize the secession of the south and sign a treaty with the Confederate States.

Putting an end to slavery was, for Lincoln, a means of gaining support for continuing the war from the abolitionist movement. If the north and south were to remain separate, it would have been largely symbolic, as slavery was not widely practiced in the north at that point anyway. The new law would only have teeth if the war continued, and the south was brought back into the union and subjected to its laws.

An interesting bit of history: Before the civil war, the US was referred to using the plural form - i.e. "these United States are..." It wasn't until after the civil war, and the post-war rise in the power of the federal government, that the singular form began to be used - i.e. "this United States is..."

This post brought to you by Ken Burns - and viewers like you. ;-)

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

Or nothing to loose.

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

Which is oh so convienent since it seems like we are being told more and more what it is we want instead of thinking for ourselves, which is of course part of the message of The Revolution will not be Televised.

Re:Revolution

[jcast]

Once you have Texas and Florida, plus the middle states you can ignore the majority opinion for President.

Think about what `majority opinion' means, then: the opinion of the East and Left coasts. Why is it considered inherently better that we submit to their whim for president than that they submit to ours?

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

Democracies don't force its population into collectivism. Allende's policies were extremely unpopular and yet his regime still managed to retain power; Chile wasn't even a democracy at the time. The coup that destroyed Allende's socialist government was supported by a large number of Chileans angry at his attempts to nationalize the entire economy.

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

If this is about reliving the 60s, you can forget it, buddy. The movement is dead. Yes, of course. Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops. A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

Are people still waving the 'he stole/bought the election' flag? Come on people. If you want things to be fair in this unfair world, how about we get rid of the electoral colege? That would be more fair would it not? Some of you lefties are worse than the fundies.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Fortunately, I strap down anything that's mobile before I start a revolution.

Re:Revolution

[vortmax(OU)]

Even better than that -- IIRC from high school American History, the Emancipation Proclimation didn't actually have any effect on the Union. It only freed slaves in the Confederacy, which really didn't mean anything until the Union armies freed the slaves as they took back the Southern states. So exactly as you said, it didn't do anything unless the Confederacy was brought back into the Union.

Re:Revolution

[Samari711]

except then you get candidates effectively ignoring entire states and just focusing on the major population centers, which is a bad thing. it basically robs voters who live in areas with low population desities of a say in presidential policy, because if no candidate cares about them it doesn't matter who they vote for. i'm not saying the electoral college is great, but it does have some redeming qualities and shouldn't just be thrown out without careful consideration.

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

The Bolsheviks perverted Russia's democratic revolution by swiftly imposing a dictatorial regime that uses terror and violence as its main source of power. The real revolution was killed by Lenin's bloody power grab.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracies ignore the will of the people and force things upon them all the time. Yes, it is undemocratic to do so, but all democracies do it. And there have been many democratically elected governments that have been very unpopular and that have left their countries deeply divided. And yes, Chile was a democracy at the time.

I'm not defending Allende or anything. Chile may well have not continued to be a democracy under his rule. Just pointing to a "modern" democracy that went through a revolution.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Nice rewriting of history here...in other words, you're saying that it's okay to have a military coup if a government has unpopular policies...

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there was only one acceptable way to get rid of Allende if you didn't agree with him: vote him out. Now if Allende had given himself dictatorial powers, like Pinochet did, then maybe you would have a point. The fact is, despite what you think of Allende's politics (which were a lot more popular with the majority of Chileans than with the rich landowners, I'll give you that), Chile was still a democracy, because there were still going to be elections.

But you've touched on the inherent risk of democracy, that it contains the seed of its own destruction: the people can put an anti-democratic party in power if they vote so. Even in the States, with sufficient votes, it would theoretically be possible to amend the constitution in very undemocratic ways - though I doubt this would ever happen, thanks to the numerous checks and balances of the american system).

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right. What you have to do in democratic societies is to educate the masses enough so that they don't vote for fascist/non-democratic/extremist parties. To oppose restrictions on what people can vote for is contrary to the democratic ideal, even though it does carry the risk of less democracy.

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

Well, in the case of the 2000 election, what the "majority opinion" meant was literally more than half of the voters. It isn't whim, but objective, countable (ahem--not counted) votes. Voting makes our system legitimate.

We can bicker about the how legitimate our voting numbers are (my memory is that it was actually about 40% of the registered voters, which was half? (perhaps less) of the eligible voters). But if you are going to call voting a "whim," then you are dumping the premise of democratic government. I don't want to do that.

Your point is valid if we are talking about "political cultures" or "affiliations" within the US, but unless we are going to say that we no longer wish to support the idea that we have a majority system based on representative democracy in which majority vote wins, then the electoral college has become a campaign manipulation tool, not a check on majority passion. Check out this article on find law for a discussion of the college.

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

If there is any revisionism it's done by Allende's Marxist supporters (leftists are the masters of twisting the past to suit their own ends). Allende was supported and funded by the USSR and Cuba (Castro always laments his lost political investments in Chile) and any regime supported by that duo transformed into leftist dictatorships. Asserting that there would have been elections is a socialist pipe dream. We'll never know what would have happened if Allende's schemes succeeded, but looking at other instances of Soviet subversion it probably wouldn't have been very pretty.

Re:Revolution

[n3m6]

Clint Eastwood A lot of crap's coming down tonight. You wanna be a player or not. Wanna know what happened that night or don't ya. Cause I was there

-absolute power

Re:Revolution

[GigsVT]

The new law would only have teeth if the war continued, and the south was brought back into the union and subjected to its laws.

And that was really the key. The emancipation proclamation burned the bridges. There had been active work to restore the union, to restore it back to the way it was, with some possible compromises, including federal programs to buy slaves from slave owners, and resettle freed slaves in Africa, something Lincoln was in favor of. Lincoln burned those bridges, gave up on resettlement programs, and gave the south a strong message: restoration is not an option.

A ballsy move, but it worked in the end.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even in the States, with sufficient votes, it
> would theoretically be possible to amend the
> constitution in very undemocratic ways - though
> I doubt this would ever happen, thanks to the
> numerous checks and balances of the american
> system).
It reminds me of a story saying that Kurt Goedel found a "flaw" in the american constitution allowing to transform the US into a dictatorship.

Re:Revolution

[sedna]

So, just because someone is funded by bad guys, they have to be bad? To me, that is a simplistic world view to say the least. Nicaragua were supported by Cuba and the USSR, but the Sandinista politics were less comunistic than the Swedish social democrats. Yes, they were abusing the human right to a certain point, together with every other Junta in the area. Finland have received huge amounts of support from the USSR and been one of the most conservative countries in Europe.

No one can say how Allende would have led the country in the long run. We do know for a fact were Pinochet took it though. There are more than 50 000 refugees from Chile in Sweden giving testimony of the methods of oppression used in the Country. Torture, Kidnappings, Murders, etc etc. How anyone can even start to defend such a brutal regime blows my mind. Once again, how many were tortured by Allende? Which laws did he pass to decrease peoples rights to free speach etc? How many were tortured?

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

The Sandinistas were brutal totalitarians who tried to force Nicaraguans into to adopt a Soviet-styled economy. The Swedish socialists did no such thing. Pinochet was atrocious but no more so than the many dictators which the Soviet supported and funded. Most of them were far worse (see Cambodia, North Korea). Allende tried to deprive Chileans of basic property and economic rights, a precursor to Sovietization. Countries that complete the process are always worse off than before, a pre-emptive strike on the Allende regime was necessary. It would have been preferable to replace him with a real democracy; it was unfortunate that Pinochet ended up in power. Chances are Allende would have done the same if he stayed in power.

Re:Revolution

[croddy]

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery. The 13th amendment to the constitution abolished slavery. Lincoln ran a PR campaign for the war.

Re:Revolution

[sedna]

Well, it's clear that history and politics easily creates debates depending on your context and background. If you want to read some descripitions about what happened in Nicaraguar you can try these links:

http://www.countryreports.org/history/nicarhist. ht m

http://www.jorian.com/san.html

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central _a merica/nicaragua/history.htm

http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Nicaragua/History

The truth is that the actual politics by the Sandinistas was less soicialistic the in Sweden. Their landreforms was very needed considering the social inequalities in the country. Nationalizing of the industry is something both France, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc etc have done, often to save jobs. Up until the 80's Import substitution politics was alse the most common economical paradigm in Latin America. Spending money on education and healthcare shouldn't be too marxisic i hope...

The most interesting fact with the Sandinistas was that they actually won the polpular vote 1984 with 67% of the voters. International observers considered the election to be fair and reperesenting the will of the people. Reagan, however, didn't accept it because the Sandinistas still were in power. He didn't care about democaracy, only to get rid of the socialists...

Re:Revolution

[WegianWarrior]

I'm about to open my mouth wide enought to stick my foot in here, but yes. The United States of America would take a great political leap towards what democracy means (peoples rule) if they ditched the electoral college and just appointed the one who most citizens voted for as president.

Or you could look into parlamentism; where the head of state has to answer not only to God and the voters, but to the national assembly. Works a treat in a lot of nations y'know... And how about trying more than two parites? Or putting a cap on how much cash various cooperations can 'help' the politicans with? Just suggestions off course, the people of the US must make up their own minds on what sort of goverment they want.

Re:Revolution

[luzrek]

Having grown up in Florida, which was a Slave state, now populated by Northerners, I think that I've gotten a fiarly good education on both sides of the topic. While the US Civil war was not entirely about slavery, slavery was certainly the motivating factor. As the west was settled there was an agreement made to admit one slave and one free state each time any state was created, thus maintaining a balance in the Senate and preventing either side from mandating or abolishing slavery. Shortly before Lincoln was elected it began to become clear that the number of "free" states was going to out pace the number of slave states so the slave states wanted to pass legislation changing the location of the Masson-Dixon line (the line above which the US was "free" and below which it was "slave"). To do this they needed their canadate to be elected (Jefferson Davis). He was not elected despite the 3/5ths of the unrepersented slave population of the south counting towards its electoral tally (which was an even older source of bad-blood). The south then tried to break off and form its own country. From 150 years later (almost) this looks like the south was simply a sore looser. At the time this was a violation of everything that Lincoln beleived in (basically he was a true patriot, very much beleiving in the USofA) and Lincoln acted to prevent the disentigration of the Union. Thus the civil war. In short, the American civil war wasn't about slavery for the North, but it was for the South.

Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory. The Southern politicians assumed that since the cotton for the world's textile mills came from their states that France and/or Britian would come to their aide. This was bad reasoning since Egypt was already producing higher grade cotton and European and Industrial warehouses were full at the beginning of the war. Of course we all know that the war turned at Gettysberg where Lee (despite what you may have gotten from the Ken Burns specials) basically killed 15000 of his own men by ordering Picket's charge over the strong objections of the other southern generals (Longstreet included).

Also, remember that the American Civil war was much more costly for the South than for the North. A greater portion of their 18-40 year old men were killed, what industry the south had was destroyed by Sherman, and the way the social and economic elites lived was fundamentally altered. No Southerner should attempt to glorify the civil war. What the Confederacy stood for, and the war planning of its politicians is an embarassment to all true Americans.

Re:Revolution

[dipipanone]

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

Oh absolutely. Whenever I need astute political analysis, Hollywood is always the first place I turn.

If you want your political insights to be pithy, easily consumed with no intellectual effort, and absolutely content free and lacking any reference to complex reality, Hollywood will deliver.

Which actually explains a lot about US political life, if you think about it.

Re:Revolution

[robbo]

No one can say how Allende would have led the country in the long run. We do know for a fact were Pinochet took it though.

No one can say where Gore would have led the country in the long run. We do know for a fact were (sic) Bush took it though.

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

Re:Revolution

[NeoRete]

Lincoln was a smarter man than most people give him credit for. The war was going badly for the north, and it looked worse because the British were going to intervene.

The southern cotton crops which the British depended on had been halted as a result of many Southern men going off to fight the war, and a quick Southern sucession was determined to be the easiest answer to the problem. At this time, the British were anti-slavery, but they were willing to look the other way if it meant the much-needed cotton shipments would resume and they were willing to use their navy to prove the point.

Licoln, ever the adept manuverer, recognized this and changed the direction of the war, from state's rights to the basic freedom of slaves. The English were then kept out of the war, they did need the cotton, but did not want others to have the impression that they were pro-slavery once Lincoln changed what the war was about.

This post brought to you from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" - a very good read if you haven't read it yet, and also if you have

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Confederacy stood for, and the war planning of its politicians is an embarassment to all true Americans.

A "true" American is just someone eho really is from America. Any true slashdot poster would know that.

Re:Revolution

[Surak]

What you have to do in democratic societies is to educate the masses enough so that they don't vote for fascist/non-democratic/extremist parties.

How would we do that? I mean, we don't even have THAT part down for ourselves! (Think "Homeland Security")

Re:Revolution

[Surak]

The primary issue of the civil war wasn't slavery - it was the balance of power between the federal government and individual states.

True enough. In fact, this was the very balance of power struggle we had been fighting from the very beginning days of the republic, and interestingly enough it was still mostly a division between the north and south. It was also, as futurists Alvin and Heider Toeffler point out in their books, a struggle in the balance of power between the agrarian elites of the south and industrial elites of the north. The economy was changing from one based on agriculture to one based on industry. And the south was still primarily agriculture-based while the north was moving to a more industrial-based economy. The slavery issue was simple: the agrarian elites depended on slaves for their large cotton and tobacco plantations, while the industrial north needed the new class of freed slaves to work for low wages in the factories.

Re:Revolution

[archen]

Who in the hell moderated this guy as a troll? That's exactly why the electoral college was put in place. That's exactly why each state has TWO representatives regardless of the size of the state. The people who founded the U.S. (and recall that acronym means united STATES) realized that each state should have equal power on some level. They also realized that the weight of people in numbers must also have a voice (thus house of representatives). The electoral college is a balance in that states have a minimum amount, and have to go one way or the other.

If your state elects a senator, and the senator votes against what 51% of the state believes, does that mean that we should just take a tally for everything the state does? This isn't a true democracy, it's a democratic republic. While I'm not sure that the electoral college is still necessary, it was made with a purpose in mind. They didn't just pull this shit out of their ass. Why should Wyoming or North Dakota even be in the Union if their say doesn't matter and all the decisions are being made in LA and New York?

Re:Revolution

[CashCarSTAR]

And in order to arm the Contras to fight against the Sandistas, money was funneled through Iran, to repay the Iranians for helping with that little election thing in '80. As well, arms were funneled to the freedom fighters in Afghanastan, arms that which funneled down to the Taliban. As well, in order to be a foil for Iran, military support was given to Iraq.

Some of the parties involved in this whole affair are in the current administration, (Poindexter especially). Finally, back on topic, It will remain to be seen if Iraq is going to be Chile pt. 2, the second great libertarian experiement.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't a revolution, it was a Putsch.

Re:Revolution

[00_NOP]

In the sense that it was a take-over that used vaguely "legitimate" means then you are right. But the fact is that Hitler immediately began to murder his opponents, so the violence was there.

See also Octavian Caesar's (with allies) take-over of the corpse of the Roman Republic.

Little known GSH fact - his father played football for current (and yes! it is going to stay that way) Scottish football (soccer) champions - Celtic. Hail! Hail!

Re:Revolution

[nat5an]

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right.

Hey, the Algerians tried this, but the French said their election wasn't valid. ;-)

Re:Revolution

[ePhil_One]

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States. Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of 100 days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth Gty, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, shall recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in all cases where allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh. By the President: Abraham Lincoln

Re:Revolution

[operagost]

No it's not.

Re:Revolution

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory.

Wars aren't about guns. Nor are they about casualties, or slogans, or tech, or logistics. Wars are contests of wills: Can I push the price of victory higher than the other side is willing to pay? Can I force a negotiated ending? Unlike RTS games, real war isn't about two sides slugging it out for all eternity, pouring men and materiel into a cauldron until one side is eliminated. Real war is about morale and popular spirit.

That's how little powers can sometimes (Vietname) force to retreat of great powers. It was the fundamental miscalculation of Japan in WWII -- that the US would fold rather than respond in wrath. It was the hope of the Confederacy -- that the Union would rather accept secession than spend the treasure and blood needed to end it. Of course in any "fair", drawn-out, blow-for-blow reckoning, the North (with its industries and its population) would win. The South simply didn't expect the North to have the stomach for it.

And despite the rumblings of preodination that you get from textbooks today, the South came very close to being proven right. The North was never entirely united behind the war until the very end.

Re:Revolution

[spike2131]

In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population... and industrialization... was going to eventually lead to its victory.

You would have had a hard time making that point in the winter of 1862, after the battle of Fredericksburg in which the South was clearly the victor terms of casualties (13000 North vs. 5000 South) and strategy, and when the North couldn't even settle on a competent general. It really wasn't untill Gettysburg that anything became clear.

But why are we discussing this on Slashdot?

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading your post when you misspelled "loser".

Learn to spell, loser.

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

Dictatorships hold fake elections all the time to make themselves feel better. Most recent was Saddam Hussein's 99.9% approval. Anyone who recognizes those elections as genuine are shameless apologists. The 1984 Nicaraguan election was bycotted by a vast majority of the opposition groups, it's hilarious the Sandinistas only got 67% of the votes. The Sandinistas participated in one real election in 1990, organized by international organizations. An entire army of leftist monitors descended on Nicaragua to make sure there was no cheating against their darling Noreiga. They lost soundly to a democratic coalition anyways, led by the widow of an executed newspaper editor who dissented against the Sandinistas.

Re:Revolution

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

Its a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY. There is a difference.

Re:Revolution

[Mr. Slippery]

The primary issue of the civil war wasn't slavery - it was the balance of power between the federal government and individual states.

But the issue to which the questionable authority was applied was slavery. The argument wasn't over federal versus state taxation, or which level of government should regulate the cotton trade!

The burning issue was whether slave states could get new states to join their immoral institution. As the territories settled out to the advantage of abolitionists, slaveowners saw no room for the expansion, of their toxic ideology. So they eventually resorted to what we would today undoubtedly label terrorism - the attack on Fort Sumpter.

The issue of states rights vs. the federal government didn't correspond very well with abolition vs. slavery. Dred Scott and the fugitive slave laws trampled states rights, and there were abolitionists who cried for secession. ("No union with slaveholders!") It's well past time to stop romanticizing the civil war as having anything to do with states' rights - it only damages modern arguments to check federal power.

The "Confederacy" was a terrorist organization devoted to race slavery. They managed to draw many ordinary people in, with good propaganda - but so did the Nazis, so has Al Qaeda.

That some otherwise intelligent people still think they had any validity is a sad sign.

Re:Revolution

[Mr. Slippery]

Shortly before Lincoln was elected it began to become clear that the number of "free" states was going to out pace the number of slave states so the slave states wanted to pass legislation changing the location of the Masson-Dixon line (the line above which the US was "free" and below which it was "slave").

The Mason-Dixon line is the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland (and other parts of Maryland's border). It was surveyed in the 1700s, before the American Revolution.

While Pennsylvania was a free state and Maryland a slave state (but one of the few that did not secede), no one was looking to move the Mason-Dixon line.

However, the term "Mason-Dixon line" did come to be use colloquially but inaccurately to mean the extended and winding line between free and slave states.

Re:Revolution

[moonbender]

Granted, there is a difference between republic and democracy in philosophy (eg. political science).

However, for the current discussion, the two are quite synonymous. If you have a look at popular dictionary definitions, eg. in the American Heritage Dictionary, you will find that both words have different meanings ranging from very general to very specific, and share nearly all of the more general meanings.

Of course, you may use either word if you prefer. I'm not sure whether the political system of the Weimar Republic (that last "Republic" is just a name!) is more correctly described as being a democracy or a republic, though.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the chance arabs will always vote for an extremist government that oppresses them. They like to be opressed, especially if the oppressor frequently says down with the US and Isreal. That's all that they want from the government, lots of harshness and excuses. If they lost the excuse of "Isreal and the US are keeping us down" they would have to admit to being total financial, culteral, and especially military failures. They peaked in the hey day of Islam (a truly evil religion in every sense of the word) and want to go back to that day. They cannot conceive of anything else. When the oil runs out, they will go back to being scruffy looking nerf herders sqabbling over water rights and STILL blaming the US and Isreal for their plight.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

A Revolution, by definition, is an overturning of the existing social/political/etc. order. Most things in life, though, are evolutionary. There has been no feminist revolution, though society is evolving toward equality. There has been no civil rights revolution, as racial minorities do not oppress the caucasian majority. Hitler and Lenin, though, were political revolutionaries who overturned the existing political order.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

How can we take you seriously when you affirm that Noriega was a candidate in the 1990 elections in Nicaragua - when almost anyone who knows anything about Central America knows that he wasn't. (Hint: check out Panama instead...)

Basically, the 1990 election was a sham, as the U.S. made it know that they would withdraw all help to Nicaragua if the Sandinistas (who overthrew Somoza, a brutal dictator who had the support of the U.S.) were elected again. Nicaragua couldn't stand up to the U.S., its citizens knew that very well. That's why the Sandinistas lost in 1990.

Re:Revolution

[rifter]

Thanks for the post, but this of course confirms the poster was correct.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Interesting...basically you have no proof at all to support your views and yet accuse others of "revisionism by association." Fact is, there was no indication by the Allende government that there wouldn't be free elections, while we do know that there weren't under Pinochet. So on one hand we have a scarecrow brandished by apologists for a brutal dictator, and on the other hand what really happened (i.e. a definitely non-democratic coup). Just so you know, socialists were in power in France for years, and yet there were elections (which they eventually lost).

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Gee, how more racist can you get in a single post?

Re:Revolution

[rifter]

You're right. According to that article, the answer is that he was undeniably not elected fairly and squarely.

Re:Revolution

[rifter]

What he said was interesting enough. Of course not only was what he said in the context of a work of fiction, the character he was playing at the time was lying when he said it as well. He was pretending to be a revolutionary when in reality all he wanted was money. Then again, this applies to bin laden irl as well...

Re:Revolution

[Ashen]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the US constitution never imagined a scenario where it would have so many citizens that are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO VOTE PROPERLY. Gore won by a small margin under a "a more generous hypothetical revisited recount." I don't see how that agrees with you.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Racism is never based on truth, though it still hurts.

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

I meant Ortega. How can anyone take you seriously when you dismiss a legitimate election with a ridiculous theory? Has it ever occured to you that the Sandinistas were unpopular and their defeat at the polls were caused by their decade-long reign of terror? Nicaraguans realize that they are better off voting for a democratic coalition backed by the US instead of a two-bit socialist regime.

P.S. Most regular people would dismiss you immediately for quoting zmag

Re:Revolution

[SS Sugar Bear]

France was not part of the Soviet bloc. Allende was. Soviet puppets never have real elections. Once again, it is unfortunate that Pinochet ended up in power but if Allende had his way Chile would have become another Cuba, along with all the human rights abuses that leftists never seem to condemn because they love Castro.

Re:Revolution

[jcast]

But if you are going to call voting a "whim,"

I didn't call voting a whim. I called the ideas expressed therein a whim.

then you are dumping the premise of democratic government. I don't want to do that.

I would feel sorry for you, except you are saying that we in the middle should be ruled by the east and left coasts. That is a position I very, very offensive. We no more care to be ruled by New York than we care to be ruled by Britain.

unless we are going to say that we no longer wish to support the idea that we have a majority system

Bingo. We don't have a majority system, and we never have. We have a mostly-majority system, with protections for the minority against tyranny (like the Senate and the Electoral College). I like it that way. If you coastals don't, I don't suppose any of us mid-westerners would mind you leaving. You certainly won't be missed :)

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Has it ever occured to you that the Sandinistas were unpopular and their defeat at the polls were caused by their decade-long reign of terror?

Except that they didn't have a decade-long reign of terror. The only terror in Nicaragua was the product of U.S-backed death squads based in Honduras (the contras), who deliberately killed peasants (as well as a clergymen) instead of Nicaraguan soldiers. There is ample documentation about this. Show me one credible source corroborating any "Sandinistan reign of terror". Just one. (By credible, I mean with sources - not just some rant from a right-wing nut.)

Nicaraguans realize that they are better off voting for a democratic coalition backed by the US

So you do admit that it was US pressure that swayed the election result.

Most regular people would dismiss you immediately for quoting zmag

Really? Funny, I never get that except with right-wingers who think Fox News is fair and accurate reporting. This is nothing but the same ole' "anything a leftist says is false, but I won't actually try to counter the arguments, I'll just attack their credibility." Well, I'll tell you this: dismissing a web site off-hand just because they have an editorial slant that does not agree with your politics is quite lame. So go read the texts and tell me exactly where the author's facts can be proven to be wrong. It's easy, they usually give out their sources. Maybe then we can continue this discussion.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

"France was not part of the Soviet bloc. Allende was."

Yeah, sure.

"if Allende had his way Chile would have become another Cuba"

Again, there is no proof of that, nor any indications that this is indeed what would have had happened. You can't justify a non-democratic coup in hindsight with "what ifs," especially when they're just based on right-wing propaganda.

"along with all the human rights abuses that leftists never seem to condemn because they love Castro"

I disagree with the latest crackdown on dissidents in Cuba, and I do think that Castro should hold elections. However, according to most international monitoring groups Cuba has a much better human rights record than a lot of other South American nations (which are U.S. allies, of course). Of course, I have been in Cuba so I actually do know what I'm talking about.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep this up, you two, and I might just learn something by reading slashdot. :)

Re:Revolution

[lamp540]

Violence is to dictatorship as
propaganda is to democracy.

There are more and better was to control men than violence alone. "None are so enslaved as those that think they are free."

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

I am aware that both the coasts and the middle of the US are often under the impression that they are being dictated to by the other parts. and I was trying to make a different point.

To clarify, the thing that bugs me about the electorial college system is that half the country (in a two-party system) is always being disenfranchised. I used a regional example in my first e-mail (Texas and Florida, I think), but the Republicans in California and the Democrats in Texas are being equally disenfranchised by the electoral college. I'd rather see people's votes being counted precisely because region isn't an especially useful way to protect ourselves from a tyrany of the majority. (Which, for the record, I think is a much less serious problem than the way our campaign system takes advantage of the college system.)

And for the record, I'm from Nashville, and calling me a coastal, that's fightin' words! ; )

Re:Revolution

[lamp540]

The Muslims kept math alive during the dark ages when Christians were busy burning each other at the stake. You think the 0 (zero) is useful? The muslims brought it to the west. Without them we wouldn't be using computers right now, we owe them a great debt.

Re:Revolution

[SubtleNuance]

This post brought to you from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" - a very good read if you haven't read it yet, and also if you have

Absolutely THE BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN on the USA. It should be mandatory reading for all americans.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Castro always laments his lost political investments in Chile

Yeah, he did the last time we had a coffee together anyway.

Re:Revolution

[rifter]

I guess there is still room for debate, then, eh?

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DrVital]

So your solution is to live in a constant state of fear, obsessing over the dead, and the horrible state of the planet?

I'll take the middle ground.

Cowboy Bebop is worthwhile.
Cowboy Bebop has taught me far more about how to deal with this life then you have.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

You people disgust me!

Um, listen the Gil Scott Herron's original,
that this piece takes off of. The guy
is essentially saying that we're wasting
our time on frivolous stuff WHILE WARS
ARE GOING DOWN.

In other words, the author of the piece
might kinda just agree with you. In fact,
that was his ENTIRE point.

So, who disgusts who now? You gotta read
the OTHER links as well, tex, before shooting
off yer mouth.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Shhh! That's the joke! You see, it's because there are all these unspeakable horrors being commited in our names; and all the while, we just surf the net and eagerly await the next Terminatrix sequel. You see, the song is pointing that out in no less a sarchastic manner as Gil Scott Heron did in the 70's.)

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know how to talk to hell? At least most slashdotters know some decent english.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[fussman]

I agree with the parent. There are too many trolls on here that are trying to get a reaction out of people, for the sole purpose of arguing, and try to hard. The result is what looks like a caffeine-fried 14 year old, but really is just a libral troll trying to get people to pay attention like a two year old does when it gets a new sibling.

Oh, and Mr. Bungle, RIGHT ON!

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like one of the brainwashed...

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Qender]

Here's a bigger hint to the clueless moron: If everyone sat around and ate "shreddies" while watching TV, there would be much less violence in this world, the problem is that people put down their toys and picked up guns. Just because some people in this world fight each other doesn't mean I will destroy my life. My life is made of many things, my life is made of the people I know, My life is made by a consumer culture and it's governing systems. My life is made of the plants in my yards and the shows on my TV. Whether or not I choose to watch TV is a different matter, it's a choice I make in my life. Personally, I don't have time for TV, I've not watched it in a long while. But if I did have time, I would watch all the cartoons I wanted.

YOU WANT SOME DAMN PRIORITIES? How can you solve your problems?!, in your life?!, right now?! If you are so concerned over the deaths in this world, why don't you go do something about it. Don't sit in front of a computer and tell everyong else not to talk about anything but the wars. Go solve the damn problem. Fight against the war, fight against the iraqis, fight with the iraqis, whatever you want. If I want to sit at home and play diablo, I will. If I want to go down to the store and buy a sandwich, I will. And nothing you can say, about any other part of the world, will make me feel guilty about eating my sandwich.

I don't like death, I agree with you, death is bad. But life includes "shreddies" and "cowboy bebop", so get over it.

Whitey's on the Moon

[waldoj]

For any newfound Gil Scott-Heron fans, my favorite GSH piece:

Whitey's on the Moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
And whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now, I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
'Cos whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me
'Cos whitey's on the moon?
Well, I was already givin' him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin' up
And as if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Associate]

Hey! That sounds like my old place. And the rent was $195. And it ain't because whitey's on the moon.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

So this Scott-Heron guy is an innumerate racist, eh?

Thanks for warning me!

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[bedouin]

Not Gil Scott, but somewhat related, the Last Poets "E - Pluribus - Unum," my personal favorite.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that. If the rest of GSH's work is anywhere near this self-involved, ill-informed, resentful and bigotted, you just saved me the trouble of trying his music.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote Nils Arne Eggen:

The moon? Yeah, there's a shitload of people living there!

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

That was in the sixties. I think back then they were about 80% human. Most white people still thought them as farm animals.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, go back to listening to Eminem.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[balthan]

A moose once bit my sister...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[BitHive]

I appreciate the sentiment, but while a few whiteys were actually on the moon, a hell of a lot more were living in the same kind of poverty the poem brings to mind. Maybe I should publish that poem I wrote, Darkey's Slam Dunking*

*I didn't actually write said poem.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Who?

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

>Thanks for that. If the rest of GSH's work is anywhere near this
>self-involved, ill-informed, resentful and bigotted, you just saved me
>the trouble of trying his music.
>
>
GSH was right then and he's right now. Dumping a bunch of white people on the moon or mars won't improve the lives of the vast majority of the people living on earth. Someone should forward GHS's work to Jerry Pournell and the bunch of simpering idiots like you who hang on his every word

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Gumshoe]

"B-Movie" is worth a listen too...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, lets hear you try and stand your argument up, asshole.

self-involved,
How?
ill-informed,
How?
resentful
How?
and bigotted
How?

you just saved me the trouble of trying his music.

Oh, tell the truth. A racist cracker like you was never going to listen to any black man's music ever. Not unless it's first filtered through Elvis or Bobby Darin or The Rolling Stones someother whitebread pop-music motherfucker.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[James_Duncan8181]

Not that it was me that made the original comment, but:

self involved
Because he is taking his own situation as the only relevant one.
ill-informed
The strong implication that the negro population was being taxed large amounts by 'the man' (which, being British, I will hazard a guess represents the caucasians of the world) to pay for the space program which, in addition to having large tech spinoff benefits that enrich all of a society, were a very small part of the US tax bill, either through direct payment or via 'the man'.
resentful
The entire song is centered around the fact that one ethinc group is percieved as keeping another down. This is a gross oversimplification of an economy, and blaming all of your ills on one ethic group (see 'the man') is both racist and self-deluding.
and bigotted
See above points. Also see that all white members of society are portrayed as 'the man' which is quite offensive, both as a generalisation and as a rasist stereotype. Consioder if I was to charaterise the Negro population as 'poor slave trash'. This, while being a view that I emphatically do not agree with, is merely this attitude reversed.

Racism is not only bad going in one direction.

Oh, tell the truth. A racist cracker like you was never going to listen to any black man's music ever. Not unless it's first filtered through Elvis or Bobby Darin or The Rolling Stones someother whitebread pop-music motherfucker.

Actually one of my favorite artists is Nina Simone, but thank you for demonstrating that racial stereotypes, slurs and tensions remain a problem in American society better then I ever could have.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[_xeno_]

Dumping a bunch of white people on the moon or mars won't improve the lives of the vast majority of the people living on earth.

Odd, it did the last time we tried...

Let's see, where to start... well, there's Velcro and Tang... Er, anyway. Some things that benefit everyone:

Weather satellites, which warn of impending storms and helping people to be prepared, saving thousands of lives. As well as helping reduce property damage by warning people to board up before they get hit.

Smoke dectors, which almost everyone has, to help people get out of their houses should fire break out. Fire fighters wear materials developed by NASA which help them save lives. Medicine has been improved as well.

Now for some links: Space program benefits us all, an article on how the space program is important (although it doesn't list any good examples), and Inventions (Spinoffs) from Space, a list of space inventions, including a game for children to play.

The space program benefits everyone, even if they don't immediately recognize the benefits. Yeah, the deal that blacks/African Americans/whatever is PC got sucks, and racism plagues America to this day. But there's no reason to take it out on the space program, which has helped everyone.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

That shut you the fuck up, bitch.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Cainxinth]

I appreciate the sentiment, but while a few whiteys were actually on the moon, a hell of a lot more were living in the same kind of poverty the poem brings to mind. Maybe I should publish that poem I wrote, Darkey's Slam Dunking*

That's disgraceful and ignorant. Scott was commenting on the disparity of socioeconomic status between African Americans and Caucasians. What the hell does pointing out the fact that there are millions of white people living below the poverty line and a couple hundred or thousand black people making millions as athletes prove other than that blacks in America have three tried and true paths to the American dream: Catching a ball, rappin on mic, or slinging crack. There are more African American men in jail than college. The fact remains African Americans are still in a socioeconomic strata well below that of Caucasians, and President Shrub's 'upward redistribution of wealth' economic policies are only aggravating the situation.

The kind of unwitting reverse racism you have espoused makes me ill, so does the fact that I'm the only person to criticize you for it.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[morgue-ann]

If you give GSH a little credit, you might see an explanation for the poem that you could agree with.

"he is taking his own situation"

Perhaps he's writing this from the point of view of a fictional character or perhaps it's documentary. First person != autobiographical.

GSH is college educated (my dad taught at Lincoln when he was a student there) and might not even have a sister named Nell.

"a gross oversimplification"

Hyperbole maybe? Consider that GSH might be smart enough to know it's not that simple, but is highlighting a single issue on purpose to make you listen, to provoke.

GSH can express the anger that people living in a tenement seeing the moon landing feel without agreeing with it. Maybe its a warning that inequity breeds resentment or a comment on fiscal policy in general rather than a slam against big science in particular.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Shads]

> The kind of unwitting reverse racism you
> have espoused makes me ill

Your comments makes me ill, I'm so damn sick and tired of this 'oh xxx is so repressed bs.' There are alot of paths available to non-caucasians who CHOOSE to look beyond those three choices... and lets be real here, if we are getting into discriminated against minorities, black are at the bottom of the list, asians receive more descrimination in society today, hispanics, etc. because generally not only do they have caucasians discriminating against them they have *shock* black discriminating against them *shock*.

*Anyone* who chooses to do something with their life will. Anyone who offloads responsibility for the way their life goes on to society won't and they will be drain on society, and there are increasingly more caucasians that fall into that catagory.

The only real discrimination in society today is economic. Period. If you are low income, it doesn't matter if you are black, white, yellow, red, orange, or polka-dotted... you are descriminated against, you will be passed over, you will miss out, but even then you can move beyond that, it just takes alot more work.

That is the root of the problem right there, work. People think society owes them, got news, society doesn't owe anyone shit... be you white, be you black, be you hispanic, be you asian, be you whatever, if you don't like your place in the world-- do. something. about. it. Don't sit and whine about how you can't do anything because society is holding you down, just get off yer ass and take responsibility for your own actions and do whatever you need to do to reach your goals.

No matter your race it takes a ton of work to get from the lower eschelon's of society to the upper... and if you are truely determined and willing to go the distance the only thing that can stop you is yourself.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[lamp540]

What's important to remember here is that it's a song, not a position paper. There really aren't that many words in it, so for you to so precisely decern what he means is just not possible. It's open for interpretation. My interpretation is just that he's comparing his situation to that of whites. There was then and there still is a wide division between the living conditions of blacks and whites. That's what he's talking about and that's true no matter how you slice it.

I'm white. I don't feel hurt, put upon or misrepresented by reading "whitey's on the moon." All the men that landed on the moon WERE white. I'm not offended by the song-- why be so sensitive?

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[lamp540]

"No matter your race it takes a ton of work to get from the lower eschelon's of society to the upper... and if you are truely determined and willing to go the distance the only thing that can stop you is yourself."

So you're saying black people and minorities are lazy? Everyone that's poor is poor because they just don't work hard enough. Could we all live in mansions if we would just get a little more training and put in a few more hours?

The system is setup to be a pyramid with only a few spots on top and a lot on the bottom. Yes it is possible for certain individuals to rise from the bottom ranks to the top, however there is still pressure from those at the top to retain their positions. There is not room for everyone, so people ARE competing with others, not just themselves as you said.

You can't deny that nearly all positions of power in America are held by White Males. That's just a fluke? Or again it's because blacks, other minorities and women are just lazy whiners?

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Shads]

No, I'm saying everyone is lazy, white, black, whatever skin color doesn't matter. Like I said, color isn't so much the issue these days its more monetary status.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Cainxinth]

And that's why you have no idea what you're talking about. Black people as a whole have LESS money than white people as whole. Until the late 1990's there were ZERO African American CEO's, now there are four I think. So according to your logic, if everyone is on equal footing that either means there is something inherently wrong with blacks that prevents them from succeeding.

And then there's the truth...

Color still is an issue these days, and unintentional racists like you who try to say it isn't are part of the problem. Our Boys Club President and the tax cut he's giving to benefit the richest Americans isn't helping either.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[Shads]

Oh I fully agree about the president, he's humpin anyone who isn't a millionaire... but did the people who helped elect him expect anything different (including those who didn't bother to vote)? Trickle down economics again... just like daddy, regan... *sigh*.

However, I do not agree that I'm a racist. How many start at poverty level ceo's do you see? Not a whole lot, white or otherwise. I'm also willing to bet that the majority of minority ceo's are also from families with money. My only real issue is that from where I stand and look, I don't see racism, I see discrimination based on income... and I think confusing it with racism is a mistake alot of people make.

Gil Scott-Heron

[jefu]

If nothing else, this will have served well by reminding us of Gil Scott-Heron whose voice and words have haunted me since I first heard him many years ago. If you don't know his work, give it a listen. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is likely to be the easiest to find - but there's more than that worth listening to.

Re:Gil Scott-Heron

[Snuggly_Soft]

Yes indeed...Slashdot should have a poetry category. Now I just gotta update "Whitey's On The Moon" for this modern age and hyperlink the heck out of it, and I'll be a blog star!

Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations

[MichaelCrawford]

A little over a hundred years ago, John J. Chapman gave a commencement address that I found so inspiring that I copied it to my website after I first came across it:

• Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations

I found it in the dead-tree edition of The Cluetrain Manifesto, which I think makes the case that the revolution will be networked. However I agree that it won't be taking place on a sanitized, controlled system like AOL, but on the wilds of the real Internet.

And to show that I walk the walk, I invite you to read my recent article, "Living with Schizoaffective Disorder" parts I, II and III.

Re:Fascist Spelling Bastard from Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, the word succeed is spelled correctly. It is just the wrong word. Also, the comma should go inside the quotation.

Is it just me...

[deblau]

or did anyone else go through that looking for links they regularly click on?

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword,

[Anonymous Coward]

and 'Intelligent' is not a rdewald keyword.

thx

Re:Revolution is not an AOL Keyword,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! Harsh, but very, very funny!

Re:Fascist Spelling Bastard from Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

A. It's not spelled correctly - he doesn't want to use "succeed", he wants to use "secede". QED.

B. Check your nearest style manual - both styles are now acceptable.

Creative Writing 101

[Ayandia]

...the revolution is apparently going to be spearheaded by people taking creative writing classes at community colleges everywhere.

On a side note, the credit for spearheading the revolution will be taken by their middle-aged failed artist vegan bead-wearing creative writing teachers.

Re:Only a month old?

[Klugheitsucher]

We have to get that server down even if it is a month ex post facto, and what better way than /.?

The trolls right

[Treeluvinhippy]

here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life

You know he's right, that really isn't getting on with life. You should see that our time here is very finite with so much out there to see and do it's a shame to waste it, enjoy and cultivate life for it really is a precious commodity that can not be sold our bought only given.

Enjoying life can be a walk in the park, dinner with some one you love, or watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies.

Wasting life can be letting a addcition get out of control, intentional harming someone and spending a long ass time in prison or being an unoriginal /. troll. Sorry dude I've heard the bebop/cereal statement by other trolls. Maybe it's time for you to get away from the computer and find a girl.

Re:The trolls right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, sorry my feathered friend, you COULDN'T have heard the bebop/cereal statement by other trolls. Because I'm the original troll who came up with the "priorities" thread just after the WTC buildings were bombed on September 11, 2001. So don't hand me that line of shit, liar! Next you'll be trying to convince us that U.S. troops are not even CLOSE to Bagdhad!

Re:The trolls right

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it back. You are an original troll.

Unfortunately, you are still a dick

Re:The trolls right

[dpt]

So *you're* the half-wit who keeps posting this *over* and *over* again?

You are clearly an idiot. This has been refuted many times, yet you *still* post it!

No one is impressed by your nonsense. Your statements are moronic, ill-conceived and lame. No-one's souls are "looking down in horror". If you believe that, you are a fuckwit.

And, finally, these are *not* "unprecedented events". For all you annoying whiners out there, here's the news: September 11th was *not* the worst thing to happen in history, ever. Not even close. Cut it out. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Especially when fighting wars. We had better all get used to the people that don't like us using non-traditional means of striking at us wherever they can. It's fundamentally war between cultures and ideology, and the whole civilian/soldier dichotomy is merely a comfortable illusion that our enemies may or may not buy into. If it took 9/11 to make you aware of this basic reality, then it's *way* past time to wake up to yourself!

Please, get a life if you really *are* spending all of your time moaning and wailing over something you have zero control over. We aren't buying into your transferred guilt, sorry, and there's no point constantly whining about it here.

Hope that helps.

Re:The trolls right

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not listen to him!

There is no original troll! Never! Never did anyone say anything about Cowboy Beebop or this shredded breakfast material! It does not even exist! These are only lies spread by the media!

Re:Fascist Spelling Bastard from Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "C. Profit!" HTH, HAND.

Re:Only a month old?

[devilspgd]

They were waiting on the original to go through so somebody could post a dupe...

Re:Fascist Spelling Bastard from Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the comma, the parent has it perfectly correct if he's speaking British English.

The revolution...

[clambake]

...will be made of luddites?

What is Revolution?

[huphtur]

answer...

Re:What is Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

"revolution is deferred by aleksandr tsipko"

Well, I guess we know who to blame now!

Re:What is Revolution?

[rifter]

slashdot is a plot by microsoft to destroy the productivity of linux users

Hmmm... :)

Selecting a new dictator every 4 years...

[Anonymous Coward]

...does not a democracy make.

The US is hardly a democracy.
Democracy ends where Capitalism begins.

Re:Selecting a new dictator every 4 years...

[D iz a n k Meister]

Wouldn't that be more of an anarchy? No rules, etc.

"common to most Slashdoters"

[Daniel Quinlan]

Speak for yourself.

I'm not a citizen of the net. I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people on the net could really care less about me and my well-being. Many -- I don't know if it is "most" or "some" -- of them are downright hostile to me and the things I believe in. There's no need to go into a full list. Actually, I'd love to go into a full list, but I'd probably just be moderated down by the people who are hostile to my views.

There is nothing magical about the net. People are still people. Some of them are out for power, some are not. Some agree with me, some do not. Some people will be able to manipulate net media just like some people can manipulate mass media now.

What obvious to me is that many bloggers have just as overinflated ego about their importance that many talking heads in the media have right now. For the moment, I'm avoiding the blog popularity contest. While I do read a few interesting blogs, I try to avoid ones run by people with big heads who think (right or wrong) that the internet will be the vehicle that will make them powerful. I'd rather vote in an election (even with limited realistic choices) than let pagerank decide what I believe.

Daniel

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Flakeloaf]

I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people in my country could really care less about me and my well-being. Many -- I don't know if it is "most" or "some" -- of them are downright hostile to me and the things I believe in. There's no need to go into a full list. Actually, I'd love to go into a full list, but I'd probably just be beaten and imprisoned by the people who are hostile to my views.

There is nothing magical about my country. People are still people. Some of them are out for power, some are not. Some agree with me, some do not. Some people will be able to manipulate mass media just like some people can manipulate net media now.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[evilempireinc]

Damn right. Those people talking about the "Second Superpower" in their blogs are living in a fantasy world.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Malcontent]

Well nobody cares about you in your country either. Other then your familiy and few friends nobody really cares about you anyplace. Even then I don't think you'd want to know how much your friends are willing to stand by you if the cops ever questioned them about anything.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Surak]

I'm not a citizen of the net. I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people on the net could really care less about me and my well-being.

I don't know what country *you* live in, but in the country *I* live in, most people couldn't really care less about me and my well-being, either.

That's gonna be the same in any population of people. Most people don't know you, and hence don't care.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[lysurgon]

Dan,

There are a lot of people who don't think the interet will make them powerful per se, but believe that the internet will make the world a better place and help them lead a happy and fulfilled life at the same time. That's where I and my blog stand. I think if there's one thing that the internet can do, it's to increase the prevalence and vitality of communty/personal-level networks and culture (e.g. things that only 100 - 1000 or so people pay attention to and tend to be responsive and lively) in response to the overwhelming preponderance of political-level networks (things that 10,000+ people pay attention to and tend to be one-way and bombastic).

I'm not articulating very well, so I'll just refer you to this link. It's not about personal agendas, it's about changing the framework in which everyone (regardless of agenda/ideology) operates.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

Maybe he lives in a communist country. You know, one that has a community..

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Surak]

Maybe he lives in a communist country. You know, one that has a community..

Yeah, 'cause I'm sure they care about people in communist countries. I mean look at Russia, once the very model of communism. It's not like their people are starving over there or that their entire economy has collapsed or anything.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

But aren't they capitalist now?

I'm rather ignorant about these things. But I'm real curious. What was it lik ein Russia before the "collapse" Did they use money? Was there a sense of community? And how has it changed over the years? Do they use money now?

I think that whenever money comes into the picture the form of society has become capitalist. But maybe I'm wrong. Communism, in my mind, can function almost like capitalism just without the money and inefficiency caused by commercialism, monopolies, world-class corporations, WTO, etc.

You can read one of my favorite articles on this topic here.

Interesting, deoxy.org seems to be down so that's the cached google copy.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Surak]

Yes, Russia is nominally capitalist now, but the Communist Party is still in a position of some power. Remember that while Boris Yeltsin was thought to have rid Russia of the Communist Party, he did not. So it's not quite that simple.

The country didn't become broke by turning capitalist. The country became broke because they lost the Cold War. They spent all of their resources trying to keep up with United States, and the U.S. just basically outspent them, particularly during the Reagan Administration.

To my knowledge, there are no communist countries that don't have money. Surely you know that China has currency, right? And China, by any accounting today, is the largest communist country in the world. Most people in China have a much lower standard of living then elsewhere in the world, particularly in comparison to the U.S.

Chinese citizens recieve only about US$35 a month from the Chinese government. This is expected to meet the basic needs of those in poverty. Could *you* live on $35 a month? Anyway, according to the article, there are about 14 million impoverished city residents in the country, and only about 4 million of those recieve even the minimum allowance.

The yearly per capita disposable income of the average Chinese person is about $620 for urban residents and $250 for rural dwellers, compared with the national U.S. average of $25,000. (Disposable income is the amount of money available for spending or saving.) Considering China has something like the 4th or 5th largest GDP in the world, this sucks. So if you measure the success of a sociopolitical/economic system by the standard of living of its people, the U.S.-style capitalism beats Chinese-style communism hands down. The results are similar for other communist countries.

Quite honestly, your post comes off as quite naive. Just guessing, but I'd have to guess you're a high school student right?

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

That's why I don't agree with the term most people use to refer to communism. Communism in my mind is a system built around the people. People in this system don't use money and nobody owns a significant amount of property more than anyone else. Not that people can't own property, but in a communist society, one that is not based on money, there should never be any concerns about money or property. Everyone should be given everything they need and it would be societies duty to see to it that the system provides for everyone.

But I guess it'll take a few more world wars, several millions of innocent deaths and a lot of dotcomcrashes before people start really questioning the value of that almighty dollar.

Oh, and thanks so much for your last comment. That makes me feel so good. No, really. Thanks.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Surak]

That's why I don't agree with the term most people use to refer to communism. Communism in my mind is a system built around the people. People in this system don't use money and nobody owns a significant amount of property more than anyone else. Not that people can't own property, but in a communist society, one that is not based on money, there should never be any concerns about money or property. Everyone should be given everything they

I had a high school teacher, I don't remember his actual name, but everyone called him Father[*] Moe because he was a Native American from the Northwest (i.e., an Eskimo).

He taught a class called 'Social Justice', which really should have been called 'everything you ever wanted to know about liberal politics.' It was -- interestingly enough for a high school run by the largest Christian organization in the world -- a required class for juniors. This was a number of years ago. (I'm 30 ;)

Fr. Moe said something that has stuck with me ever since. He said Communism works -- but only on a small scale and only if nobody cheats. Which is true if you think about it. That's the problem you're faced with: it's *human nature* to cheat. It's human nature to be greedy and try and beat the system.

[*] I went to a Catholic high school.

As far as the rest of your comment goes, I have to say that you contradict yourself. It isn't possible to have property and not have money.

Little history lesson for you. There was a time when there was no money. People had to barter for what they wanted. "You want my cow? I'll trade her for 5 of your goats." Well, after a while this doesn't work out so well because if you don't have what your potential trading partner needs, (i.e., you have no goats, but everyone who has cows wants goats), you starve. So people came up with the intermediary system of money -- you work, you get a token. Then you can exchange that token for something you want, and that person can exchange the token you gave him for a goat.

Yeah, yeah, get to the point, right? You say that people can own property in a truely communist system. No, no one can own any property in a truely communist system. The whole idea of communism is that everybody owns everything. Which is where the cheating comes in because if everyone owns everything, what happens if someone hordes? And it will happen...greed is simply part of human nature.

Which is exactly what caused the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union. The elite horded everything so that they could afford to fight the Cold War.

Don't get me wrong. If I could make communism work on any scale, I'd be the first in line to sign up. But the human race isn't ready for it and may never be.

Feel free to drop me an e-mail if you'd like to carry this debate on, as this story is likely to close pretty soon. :)

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

As far as the rest of your comment goes, I have to say that you contradict yourself. It isn't possible to have property and not have money.

So what you're saying is I can't own a CD without having money?

Little history lesson for you. There was a time when there was no money.

Thanks for the history lesson. I'll have to remember that.

Once upon a time there was this race of humans. At first they were really dumb. They couldn't even make a wheel. But quickly they learned. Eventually they met up with a genius from some Catholic high school who knew everything. He taught them how to build machines and started something known as the industrial revolution. Now these really dumb people didn't know they stumbled upon. They had never heard of a revolution before. And soon after that the genius taught them how to build computers. And another revolution came about, known as the computer revolution.

Why are computers a revolution? Because of automated industry.

When you base money off the work people do then money is equal to physical labor or mental labor or sometimes social status with execs. When you build a factory to build your products you create an automated industry that, after the initial costs of building the factory, only costs the energy to run it and the resources to create those products. The factory and the automated industry can be refined, modularized, and made environmentally friendly when you put enough thought behind its design. In other words if all factories are designed in the open with many many additional engineers lending their imput it should be possible to build modular factories that are easy to build, maintain and retool, etc.

That's the economics of communism as I see. We're limited only by the resources available in the universe. And that, I'm sorry to say, is more than enough for EVERYONE.

I would argue that you can own some things in a communist system because its not likely your roommate is going to take your toothbrush whenever they want. Respect and morals and ethics and laws are still required in any society. I'm not talking about anarchy yet, just communism. People also must be educated for a society like this to function. They must be taught that for society to function they need to be creative and do something that they're interested in as a career at some point in their lives.

Owning a toothbrush and owning a car are two entirely different things. A car could be shared and easily replaced. A toothbrush is far more personal.

I think most people would love to have access to a shared car lot with thousands of really nice cars that are always properly maintained than owning an old broken down wreck that ends up right next to all the others in your front yard.

Being selfish doesn't help anyone.

See, that's exactly it. The elite should not exist in communism. Everyone is EQUAL. What's wrong with you people? Why can't you understand a very simple idea? That everyone can be equal without money. With money they have something to hold over your head, a status symbol that means they are worth more than you, they are above you. Without that and with the proper rules everyone gets an equal share of the profits and the economics of trickle down theory never need to be brought up again.

And who needs to fight a cold war against capitalism or anything else? If you're communist, just take care of your people. Use the concepts of capitalism such as competition and a media and school system designed to make people want to work and think creatively. But don't fight cold wars, have elite leaders that pretend they're maintaining a communist society when they're really just interested in the same level of control as the capitalists.

Society must be free. And we're not ready for it because we're not educated. That's the only thing holding us back. We've got the technology.

Yeah, I'd like to carry this on in email, but I commented as I read through your post. I'll email next time.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

Oh, also, this communism society I'm talking about needs to have a webpage or something where everyone in the society tells everyone else what they want, so society knows what factories it needs to build and how many jobs it needs to have filled. These can be posted on a public website as well so everyone can browse through the jobs close to them and pick and choose what they want to do from a queue instead of being forced to work to eat.

So it is partially dependent on the people understand that the system only works through cooperation and participation. But it will work with a large enough population of honorable people who believe in their country. However, it won't work with a bunch of uneducated greedy cowards.

Maybe I have too much faith in human nature to be good and just.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

There were at least 2 school shootings within the last two weeks here in America. Just thought I might add something to give people a little perspective into how American society and capitalism without love or community causes severe social problems that will only get worse. What I recommend is to take our culture and society back from the government and corporations that have chosen to control us.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Surak]

As far as the rest of your comment goes, I have to say that you contradict yourself. It isn't possible to have property and not have money.

So what you're saying is I can't own a CD without having money?

Yes and no. If you own the CD, and other people want the CD (and anything that can be owned, someone else will want), and there is no money, then the CD *becomes* money.

You've never been to jail in the U.S., I take it? (I haven't, but I've had friends in jail.) There's no money in jail, because they don't let you have it. So what becomes money are things of value that they *will* let you have that you can't get from the jail itself: cigarettes, certain food types, sex, etc. Cigarettes are the big one. You can trade cigarettes for just about anything in jail.

Owning a toothbrush and owning a car are two entirely different things. A car could be shared and easily replaced. A toothbrush is far more personal.

Then you base money off the work people do then money is equal to physical labor or mental labor or sometimes social status with execs. When you build a factory to build your products you create an automated industry that, after the initial costs of building the factory, only costs the energy to run it and the resources to create those products. The factory and the automated industry can be refined, modularized, and made environmentally friendly when you put enough thought behind its design. In other words if all factories are designed in the open with many many additional engineers lending their imput it should be possible to build modular factories that are easy to build, maintain and retool, etc.

Social status is based on money. Who has what. In a communist system there IS no social status, everyone is equal. But obviously you haven't read George Orwell's Animal Farm. In a communist system, sure everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, right? Because someone's gotta be in charge, right? It boils down to power. Humans have a natural tendency to want power over others. Power exists in nature. Watch a pride of lions as they fight each other to decide who is the leader of the pack. Then you will know what I'm talking about. That basic instinct is *part* of who we are.

I think most people would love to have access to a shared car lot with thousands of really nice cars that are always properly maintained than owning an old broken down wreck that ends up right next to all the others in your front yard.

Sure, but everyone wants the only Jaguar on the lot? Who gets it?

See, that's exactly it. The elite should not exist in communism. Everyone is EQUAL. What's wrong with you people? Why can't you understand a very simple idea? That everyone can be equal without money. With money they have something to hold over your head, a status symbol that means they are worth more than you, they are above you. Without that and with the proper rules everyone gets an equal share of the profits and the economics of trickle down theory never need to be brought up again.

But without money, there still IS money. Everyone wants the Jaguar on the shared lot. Guess what? The right to use the Jaguar for the day *becomes* money. Anything scarce is money. Hence gold is money. Hence diamonds are money, albeit through artificial scarcity.

It all boils down to basic human instinct. Are we as a society ready to shed our basic human instinct? Nah, we've got a *long* ways to go.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

So because of our instincts to desire power and be greedy we won't even attempt to build a system based on logic and reason that just might expect a little more out of these lions you equate us with.

A few of us are vicous and evil. Which is why a system must be designed so "someone" can never be in charge. But most of us are honest, hard working, good people. And collectively we're stronger than the few that would prefer to rule over us.

Are you saying is costs more to manufacture a jaguar than a dodge or chevy? If everyone wants a jaguar build jaguars. Its just some wood, plastic, steel, rubber and various other materials put together by a very specific algorithm. That algorithm and can be built into a factory so very few humans need to do any work to make jaguars. So again you entirely missed my whole point about not having money or property not being worth any value. You can't break the common assumption that people are not equal. Is this because you're in your 30s?

Artificial scarcity. There you go.. See, there's really enough for everyone, only some of us own more property than we'll ever use or ever need, while some could be completely content owning a fraction of what you do. Love is giving without expecting anything in return. I love humans enough to make an attempt at constructing this type of society. I'm guessing you do not. And that, my friend, is the problem.

Because honestly even capitalism and money are a perfectly good society if the people within that society care about eachother. But when anyone could be a terrorist what incentive, what economic insentive does anyone have to love or care or give? See the problems inherent in our society and our nature? We must be educated to overcome these problems, they won't magicly go away because some of us have money.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Surak]

A few of us are vicous and evil. Which is why a system must be designed so "someone" can never be in charge. But most of us are honest, hard working, good people. And collectively we're stronger than the few that would prefer to rule over us.

That's what Marx said. Then Stalin came along and killed a bunch of people. It takes only one Stalin to spoil the pot. Promises of power, luxuries beyond what everyone else has is all it takes to get people to cooperate with a Stalin or a Hitler.

Are you saying is costs more to manufacture a jaguar than a dodge or chevy? If everyone wants a jaguar build jaguars. Its just some wood, plastic, steel, rubber and various other materials put together by a very specific algorithm. That algorithm and can be built into a factory so very few humans need to do any work to make jaguars. So again you entirely missed my whole point about not having money or property not being worth any value. You can't break the common assumption that people are not equal.

Okay, so all the cars are Jaguars. But then everyone wants the *black* jaguar. So they make all the Jaguars black. Then someone bitches that black Jags are too hot in the summer time, so they make a few red Jags. Everyone wants the red jags now because there are a 100 black jags only 3 red jags. Don't you see? People will categorize *anything* and inevitably there will be only a scarce number of items in one of the categories, which means everyone will want *that* one.

Children in a family are a lot like a communist system, in a way. Everything is provided for by the parents (the "government" -- someone has to make the rules, so there HAS to be a government, right?). When I was growing up, my mother had two different spoon sets. There were like a whole bunch of one kind of spoon which had a wildflower pattern on them, and a few spoons that had a rose pattern (or whatever) on them. There were no differences between the spoons. They were both very fine, well-made stainless steel spoons. They were all in excellent condition (my mother kept everything in excellent condition). But the spoons with the rose pattern were just *cooler* so my sister and I would fight over them if there were like 10 wildflower spoons and 1 rose spoon left, we'd fight over the stupid rose spoon. We had no concept of money, no concept of work. So the one with the rose spoon had the power. That person could trade the rose spoon for something else -- an extra TV privilege or a blue crayon or whatever.

There will ALWAYS be one thing that is better than the rest. And that will always be valueable. Hence, there will always be "money."

I'm guessing you do not. And that, my friend, is the problem.

It's not that I don't love my fellow humans. It's that my fellow humans don't always love me.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Cyno]

But you can't force your fellow humans to love you. You can only treat them how you would like to be treated, or not. Its your choice.

Money disappears as soon as you recognize that each and every individual is worth more than all the money and property in the world. Their psyche, their mind, their soul is capable of creating all the things you value. But only when they are loved.

What's most important of all

[Anonymous Coward]

and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!

If you're reminded of how important this is, why the hell are you sitting on your can posting on /.?

Economic Democracy?

[composer777]

If I were to devise a system of government where Bill Gate's got 40 billion votes and the rest of us got 1 vote, we wouldn't even laugh. Calling capitalism democracy is absurd.

Re:Economic Democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is calling democracy capitalism. Generalizations obscure the truth.

Re:Economic Democracy?

[WiKKeSH]

"Calling capitalism democracy is absurd."

Who would call capitalism a democracy?
Capitalism is an economic system and a democracy is a form of government.

Re:Economic Democracy?

[hackwrench]

Economic systems are a form of government.

Vintage MTV ads

[Texas_Refugee]

Anyone remember the MTV promo ads that ran in the mid-90s with the tag line "MTV keeps you plugged in?"

One of the ads featured a performance artist who held a power drill up to a microphone while repeating the phrase "the revolution will not be televised."

Thus the expression became seared into my 14-year old mind right alongside Nirvana and Bush videos etc.

Damn I am on-topic.

Fascist Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The late 20th Century has seen a global fascist revolution, pushing the world towards an "Orwellian State". The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before. With Television promoting the mythes of the two-faced so called democracies the world over, people are duped into a life of consumerism and apathy, leaving the gate right open for the rulers to wage war on weaker nations, and tighten their grip on their own populations in name of "security".....ahhh fuck it, who is listening, this is slashdot....

Re:Fascist Revolution

[beakburke]

"The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before."

Do you realize that on balance that income equality became much greater over the last century? Yes, it really sorta peaked during the 50s in the US, but on the whole, the industrial revolution and the end of the Guilded Age created and cemented the concept and notion of the middle class. Before that, you had subsistance farming (everyone was poor) with a very few well to do people in the ruling class and the later robber-barrons of the 19th century. You will never achive perfect income equality, and even if you could, the costs of doing so would be far greater than whatever benefits it would provide. At some point, the redistribution of wealth ceases to be productive to the overall well being of the people.

Re:Fascist Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

When I said "The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few" I meant more than just money. The ruling class today have much greater power than in any by-gone era. As I said through TV, as well as other technologies, such as computer networks coupled with surviellence technology (face recognition, fingerprints, DNS), bigger and fiercer war machines...the list goes on.

Re:Fascist Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash: Chomsky is a crackpot. Go read a bit of news and a few political science textbooks and get a grip on reality. Is it fun living in your dystopian fantasy land?

Re:Fascist Revolution

[blissful ignorant]

There never was a situation in the United States resembling what you described. At one point in time, before industrialization, the majority of farmers were self-sufficient, which is not to say subsistence. They grew crops for profit. This, of course, did not happen in the South, where the rich owned the plantations and the poor worked the plantations(continued past the Civil War in slightly different form, well into 20th century).

After industrialization, more and more people became workers, getting a pittance of an income while the "robber barons" got rich. Unionization, after decades of struggle, finally started seeing tangible results in the 20th century.

Income equality has not gotten closer this century. While the ultra rich may have spread out the riches among the rich a bit, the rich are still getting richer at a pace far faster than the poor - even comparing the 1980's to the 1990's, the difference is dramatic.

I find it sad that you think people must be poor. The goal of the redistribution of wealth is not to have total equality, as you seem to think, but to give everyone in a country a decent living. Working toward that goal will never be unproductive.

PS - The middle class has existed in the US as long as there's been a US.

Re:Fascist Revolution

[default luser]

"The goal of the redistribution of wealth is not to have total equality, as you seem to think, but to give everyone in a country a decent living. Working toward that goal will never be unproductive."

It's always unproductive. Every change you make to "the system" results in a return to balance.

The Free Market system dictates that the market must react to supply and demand.

For example, what do you think was the reaction to the huge increase in college graduates starting in the 50/60s? Better salaries for everyone? Hell no, it just means that more jobs now required a college education.

The market didn't spread the wealth, employers simply felt justified to expect their employees to be better trained before being hired than they were in the past.

The balance of education shifted, so the balance of job requirements shifted. Businesses become more productive due to less training overhead, but the workers see almost nothing. Nothing except the "college degree required" for anything having to to with technical concepts or management.

You think it's amazing that you can make 50k+ a year with that fancy degree of yours? Bah, what the hell can you buy with it? Ask your grandfather how he paid a mortgage and supported an entire household with his high school degree on a single income in the 1950s without having to live in a shack. NOW THAT's BUYING POWER.

As said above, the income equality has never been better than 1950, and that was only because of the economic overdrive impetus we got from our incredibly fast mobilization into WWII, and the rash of families built in its wake. Income gaps grew and money inflated, the rest is history.

Re:Fascist Revolution

[soren100]

You missed the point -- it's not about income redistribution, it's about the Orwellian police / propaganda state that's being created around you. If the government has it's way, you won't be able to make a purchase or a telephone call without them knowing about it.

The state has full control of the news media, too. It doesn't matter if you're poor or middle class, you only get to hear what the government wants you to hear. For an example, check out the New York Times article (on Yahoo) about the supposed Iraqi scientist spilling all about the supposed WMD's. (And keep in mind the government's fake nuclear WMD evidence) -- The whole article is just reprinted government propaganda.

"A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said. ... An American military team hunting for unconventional weapons in Iraq, the Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, or MET Alpha, which found the scientist, declined to identify him, saying they feared he might be subject to reprisals. But they said that they considered him credible and that the material unearthed over the last three days at sites to which he led them had proved to be precursors for a toxic agent that is banned by chemical weapons treaties."

Here is the part where she is nice enough to tell you that her article had to be approved by the military, after she wrote what the military told her to write:

"Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials."

Meanwhile Bush is working on his OWN $768 billion income redistribution plan ("Tax Cut"). Do you really think it is going to you or any people poorer than you? No, it is going to the rich, and everyone knows it.

As long as you keep thinking you're not sheep, then the whole plan is working. You'll keep getting sheared of your tax dollars, and believing that Iraq is somehow threatening the US, or that we invaded them to "Free" them, or whatever the lie of the day is.

here's the URL for the story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor y2&cid=6 8&ncid=68&e=3&u=/nyt/20030421/ts_nyt/illicit_arms_ kept_till_eve_of_war__an_iraqi_scientist_is_said_t o_assert

Re:Fascist Revolution

[sean.peters]

You will never achive perfect income equality, and even if you could, the costs of doing so would be far greater than whatever benefits it would provide.

Who said anything about equality? I'd settle for a little fairness.

At some point, the redistribution of wealth ceases to be productive to the overall well being of the people.

Let's see... Bill Gates is worth, what, $60 billion? Warren Buffet, Jack Welsh, etc, etc, are worth more collective billions? I think we're an awfully long way from diminishing returns.

Sean

Re:Fascist Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no middle class, it's only a ploy to help pacify the poor class.

Re:Fascist Revolution

[djp928]

Who told you life was going to be fair? Whoever that was is the person you need to be complaining to, not Bill Gates for having more money than you.

-- Dave

In Revolutions

[Nikkos]

In Revolutions people die.

How many slashdotters would truly be willing to die in order to see their beliefs come to light? How many would be willing to kill friends/neighbors because they don't agree?

It's too late for first-world countries to have a revolution that would help them more than hurt them. The intelligent use of democracy is the only way - and that would take getting off one's ass, turning off the computer, writing letters, actually _voting_, and being active in society. Things _I_ can say truthfully I've done.

If you don't have a solution, stop screaming about the problem.

Nikkos

Re:In Revolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too late for first-world countries to have a revolution that would help them more than hurt them.

Only for the well off upper and upper middle classes, which is the minority really. That's the problem with slicing the world up into "Nations" and giving them labels. In every nation there are people living under first and third world conditions, it's just a matter of what mix. And you know what, there is a hell of allot of people in the USA living below the poverty line.

If you don't have a solution, stop screaming about the problem.

I often hear this said by overprivileged middle class prats. The solution will come in the process, as more people are made aware of a problem, the more minds can get onto fixing the problem.

Re:In Revolutions

[BKX]

I would but then again I am a revolutionary communo-anarchist so maybe I don't represent the general slashdot crowd. It'd be sweet if I did though.

Re:In Revolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

The intelligent use of democracy is the only way - and that would take getting off one's ass, turning off the computer, writing letters, actually _voting_, and being active in society. Things _I_ can say truthfully I've done.

So now that you're feeling all better-than-thou... tell me... how many of those letters and votes actually made a verifiable change?

Re:In Revolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

How many slashdotters would truly be willing to die in order to see their beliefs come to light? How many would be willing to kill friends/neighbors because they don't agree?

What are you, recruiting for suicide bombers? Declaring jihad against the DMCA?

Re:In Revolutions

[Beautyon]

That definition of revolution is way too narrow.

A revolution happened in South Africa, and not a shot was fired. No one has to die or even suffer for a revolution to take place. It is in no way too late for first world countries to have revolutions.

There is a revolution going on right now in the first world; everyone is switching to the Euro as their currency of choice for all transactions.

The effect of this will be felt world wide. The face of everything will be changed.

That is revolution.

Re:In Revolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have a solution, stop screaming about the problem.

This is like refusing to call for help when you get shot in the stomach, because you are not a doctor and thus cannot heal yourself.

Re:In Revolutions

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. Unfortunately, there's a huge job to be done just informing people of the problem. If some asshole like you wants to go forcing an opinion on others, so be it. I would rather "scream about the problem" to inform people and let them draw their own conclusions.

Re:In Revolutions

[JonToycrafter]

Some compadres who read /. regularly include:
www.techcoop.info
www.riseup.net
www.resist.ca
www.tao.ca
The collective I work with:
www.shiftcontrol.org
I know that the editor of anarco-nyc.net is a /. reader as well.

Cool

[Com2Kid]

I feel rather nifty, as I know at least a few of the people whose websites where linked too. :)

But yah, they are right, it is NOT an AOL keyword. We all know that AOL censors free speech too much to let any revolutions happen on it. ;)

Re:Let me get this straight...

[unitron]

"If everyone sat around and ate "shreddies" while watching TV, there would be much less violence in this world, the problem is that people put down their toys and picked up guns."

I think you'll find that people without TV, toys, or enough to eat are often a big part of the causes of wars, if not by acting out of their own desperation then by having that desperation exploited by others for their own power-hungry ends. War isn't always the result of people with options preferable to violence choosing violence anyway.

Nice one

[Anonymous Coward]

good to see there is others out there like me.

Re:Nice one

[BKX]

Sweet. (unless you're being facetious (sp?))

Re:Nice one

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet. (unless you're being facetious (sp?))

Na man, I'm serious. I'm out there in the Black Bloc fighting the power.

BTW, I like the way you say communo-anarchist, instead of anarcho-communist, it puts the emphasis where it should be.

Question

[visvogel]

and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!

Have you been watching Oprah again?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaha. oh, that's a good one. teeheheeheeeheeh.

how does that go again?

[Hecubas]

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

C'mon people, you have free will. Especially if this is America, you have a choice.

--
hecubas

Lies!

[Tuxinatorium]

"Revolution is not an AOL keyword"

Yes it is!

GSH May not see 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

GSH may not see 2004 unless he repents of his drug problem ... "home is where the hatred is" rings true

I am a big fan of GSH, but he has proven as tragic as his writings

Re:GSH May not see 2004

[dipipanone]

GSH may not see 2004 unless he repents of his drug problem ...

Why not? He isn't ill. He's out of prison. He's been consuming drugs for a great many years now, and he hasn't gone yet. I see no reason to assume 2004 will be any different.

"home is where the hatred is" rings true

"The Bottle" as well. You know the bit,
'Look around on any corner,
If you see some body,
Looking like a goner,
It's gonna be me...'

I am a big fan of GSH, but he has proven as tragic as his writings

I rather think his life reflects the sensitivity and pain his writings express. You can't condemn him for the the former and applaud him for the latter. Well, you can, but I rather suspect that one is a direct result of the other.

DNS should say DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

my bad!

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Tailhook]

followed by a WAR against Islam

Such a war would involve the destruction of Islamic holy artifacts, such as mosques and holy cities. It would also involve the slaughter of Islamic leaders (and dictators don't count.) Finally, it would witness the enforced adoption of something other than Islam.

All of this is within our power. Nassiria can be erased from existence with a few hours effort. Every mosque in the Middle East could be precision bombed to dust. We could hunt down and execute every Moslem leader of consequence anywhere we care to.

None of the above has, is or will occur. Rational people know this. That's why the vision of multitudes of enraged Moslems descending on the western forces remains a vision. They know, as you do, that calling recent events a "war against Islam" is a hysterical stretch.

Keep stretching. The world is better off with you marginalizing yourself as much as you possibly can. The only damage that may attributed to you is the degree to which real atrocities against Islam are discounted as you fill the air with your noise. Rest assured, however, that ultimately the rational amongst us will still be able to tell the difference.

Excuse me?

[robinjo]

Finland have received huge amounts of support from the USSR and been one of the most conservative countries in Europe.

Care to explain where you got this nonsense from?

Re:Excuse me?

[sedna]

Finland had *very* lucrative trade agreements with USSR during the entire cold war era. They were officially neutral, but with a non-aggression agreement with the USSR. How much they actually benefited from these deal are disputed but some believe that cheap oil etc from USSR was one of the founding stones for Finland's industrial development

I also believe that the USSR helped Finland building roads etc which later could be used in an attack on Sweden, but I'm not sure.

Re:Excuse me?

[garbs]

Well, I read something years back, dunno if it's true or not, as how Finland got 1/3 of it's military equipment from the west, developed 1/3 of it owns equipment, and it got the other 1/3 from the USSR.

Maybe that's what he is referring to or something.

Re:Excuse me?

[10Ghz]

I also believe that the USSR helped Finland building roads etc which later could be used in an attack on Sweden, but I'm not sure.

Part of the peace-treaty with Soviet Union (for those who do not know history: we fought two wars against them during WW2) was that Finland was required to build a railroad from the eastern-border to the Swedish border. Soviets wanted that in case there was a war with Sweden so they could use it as a supply-line.

As to the Soviet "aid". Well, we didn't really get any aid from them, quite the contrary: we had to pay huge war-repatations to them (not to mention cede large amounts of the country to them). Yes, later we did have big trade-agreements with them, and they did benefit Finnish economy. It was transito-trade, as in Finland provided Soviet Union with goods, and SU paid back with their own goods (usually oil).

Re:Excuse me?

[Reziac]

I've always thought Finland occupied a rather precarious position...

[compares Finland in 1929 and 1956 atlases]

Wow, almost a third of the country (looks like maybe some of the best farmland, per what I can see on a low-detail map). On the newer map, the ceded territory is named "Karelo-Finnish USSR". What happened with that after the breakup of the Soviet Union?

Re:Excuse me?

[robinjo]

Well, if you're not sure, you should check your facts instead of spreading hearsay, shouldn't you?

It's a pain to drive across Finland from east to west and vice versa. The roads were specifically built to make attacks (and travelling across the country) difficult.

Finland also paid huge war reparations to Russia after WW2. After that, trade was just trade.

Bullsh*t.

[Anonymous Coward]

Selective memory of the petrol-filled tyres, eh?

Plenty of people died in that one.
Why bother to deny it?

Re:Bullsh*t.

[Beautyon]

They were not the cause of the revolution. The necklassing was not like the cutting off of royal heads in France, or the shooting of a president or government minister, or a mass armed uprising. Peoples arms are being cut off in Sierra Leone, but no one is calling that a revolution.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[rifter]

The tire necklacing of government informants is not like the beheading of aristocrats? Not a shot fired in South Africa? Man. You have some very strange ideas about history.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[Beautyon]

The tire necklacing of government informants is not like the beheading of aristocrats?

No, it is not. These acts were not acts of revolution. When I say "not a shot fired" I mean there was no revolutionary overthrow and replacement of the Government. This is a fact.

If you want (obviously need) an example of what revolution means in this context, look at Cuba.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[rifter]

The fact is that the revolutionaries did engage in violent acts. The government was ultimately overthrown democratically, but there was a lot of violence involved on both sides in getting there. I really don't see how you can say that killing informers is not an act of revolution.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[Beautyon]

I really don't see how

Ok, ill give you another example. The type of revolution we are talking about when we say "violent revolution" is like the one that happened in Russia, The Bolshevic Revolution.

The South African Revolution was not like that.

Just because there are violent acts before or during a revolution does not mean that the revolution itself should be termed "violent". The Bolshevic revolution was a textbook violent revolution, complete with regicide.

The South African Revolution was non violent, by definition. The transition between governments was peaceful. There was not an armed mass uprising. There were elections. There was reconciliation.

The difference couldnt be more clear.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[rifter]

In that we agree, but you likewise claimed "not one shot was fired" and marginalized the many acts of terror on both sides. I was trying to point out this is a distortion of history and ignores the struggle which led up to what point. A similar scenario would be the Civil Rights movement in the United States. Yes, most of the leaders, like Martin Luther King, were non-violent, and ultimately these rights were secured through nonviolent means (legislation, court cases, etc). But to say even in this case "not one shot was fired" is to disregard the truth of the matter. There were many shots fired on both sides, and dogs and firehoses and axe-handles were involved. People went to jail. The National Guard and the Police got involved at various points.

I guess what you meant to do was say that the ANC's rise was due to non violent struggle and they did not violently take over the government. But in South Africa, as in the United States, there were many who did not agree with the non-violent stance, and acted on their beliefs. Likewise those in power used every kind of violence, including torture, chemical and biological warfare, and yes, many many shots fired. There were even reports the South African government had bought nuclear weapons from Israel, and recently it surfaced that they were trying to come up with a virus tat would attack people with specific genetic markers in hope of coming up with one that would kill only black people.

Ultimately, through non violent and democratic means, power changed hands. But there was a mightily violent struggle in the interim.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[Beautyon]

A similar scenario would be the Civil Rights movement in the United States.

I was talking about revolution, in a very particular sense (Bolshevics, Cubans), and the use of violence in that context when a revolutionary forces through arms, replaces a government. The Civil Rights movement in the USA really isnt relevant to this at all.

I did not mean to "marginalize" the many acts of violence, (most of them perpetrated by the Racist Government in SA). What I am saying is, that the change in government in SA was not due to a violent revolution, as defined by the Cuban and Russian examples, and this is simply a fact.

the revolution WAS televised!

[Anonymous Coward]

first one of the 21st century anyway! an amazing piece of film at that too!

http://www.chavezthefilm.com

Why was parent modded to Troll???

[Anonymous Coward]

bizarre

Orwell's Animal Farm

[NigelJohnstone]

"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"

If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm

Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.

The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him.
A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[Cyberdyne]

"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"

If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.

Not the "base state", but the one any true revolution would aim to achieve. (What kind of idiot would fight to impose anything other than a democracy on himself?!)

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm

Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.

The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him. A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.

I'd disagree there: a revolution is replacing one form of government with another. When an existing government evolves (or degenerates) into another form - like the Animal Farm example of becoming a dictatorship, as happened in Germany, and Russia with a committee in place of a single dictator - that's not a revolution. The EU is much further down this road than the US, having started from a much less robust design: the "parliamentary system" (effectively, "let's give absolute unchecked power to a single House of Representatives") represented a single point of failure - and it turned round and handed power to the corrupt and unelected EU Council of Ministers. Now, that body is starting to flex its muscles, and people are starting to wonder if that was a good idea after all...

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[Mr. Slippery]

Not the "base state", but the one any true revolution would aim to achieve. (What kind of idiot would fight to impose anything other than a democracy on himself?!)

Depends on how you define "democracy", I suppose.

If we take it in its original meaning, "government by the citizens", then we must understand that that can include all sorts of repressive practices against non-citizens - the Athenians kept slaves, after all. Just keep citizenship a rare priviledge. (Of course, there's always conscription of the non-citizens to keep your armies full.) It works depressingly well. "Democracy for me, slavery for you" is not an uncommon theme of revolutions.

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[jsoderba]

The EU is much further down this road than the US, having started from a much less robust design: the "parliamentary system" (effectively, "let's give absolute unchecked power to a single House of Representatives") represented a single point of failure - and it turned round and handed power to the corrupt and unelected EU Council of Ministers. Now, that body is starting to flex its muscles, and people are starting to wonder if that was a good idea after all...

I really have no idea what you're talking about. The European Parliament was virtually powerless when it was created in 1957, but almost every new treaty has its powers. Most talk I've heard from the Future-Europe convention also talks of further increased power for the parliament.

As for the parlimentary system, it seems to work well for most European states, which either have one-chamber parliaments or lopsided two-chamber systems where one chamber is essentially powerless. In a way, the Council of Ministers serves as an upper house to the Parliament, appointed by the parliaments/presidents of the member nations, similarly to the way US senators were once appointed.

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[Jucius Maximus]

" Not the "base state", but the one any true revolution would aim to achieve. (What kind of idiot would fight to impose anything other than a democracy on himself?!)"

A would-be dictator, obviously.

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[lamp540]

A lot of people, mainly outside the west, are engaged in revolutionary struggles to create theocracys. That's what our good friend osama wants to do. Anarchists would like to get rid of the government completely, democracy or no. We can say all these people are just crazys who if they weren't so brain washed would wanted liberal democracys, and they probably are, but doesn't that sound pretty assinine?

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[Cyberdyne]

A lot of people, mainly outside the west, are engaged in revolutionary struggles to create theocracys. That's what our good friend osama wants to do.

Good point. That's a case of a group of people fighting to impose their will on others, though: Al Queda and the Taleban are both small but powerful subsets, rather than the sort of "popular uprising" the word revolution usually describes.

Anarchists would like to get rid of the government completely, democracy or no.

In a sense, though, that is an extreme form of democracy: everyone "rules" themselves. Democracy is not just a matter of everything being decided by a vote: freedom means the freedom to say and do what you want, even when other people don't like it or agree with it! (It's not an absolute, of course: there are always some restrictions for various reasons.)

We can say all these people are just crazys who if they weren't so brain washed would wanted liberal democracys, and they probably are, but doesn't that sound pretty assinine?

Anarchists want freedom for themselves - a bit more freedom than other people want them to have. Groups like Al Queda and the USSR's Communist Party want to impose their rule on other people - not on themselves. It's not a matter of brainwashing, it's a simple power grab. (They do often have supporters, who believe they benefit personally from the power grab - but if they had the support of the majority, their rule could as easily be a democracy anyway!)

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[SubtleNuance]

Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm

So you see that the True Soviets were REALLY Democratic. The idea is the Democratic control is maintained over Industrial Capital - this is (conveniently) dropped when discussing "Communism", where Stalin's Fascism created the popular American Understanding of "Communism".

Ownership of Wealth enabled fiefs/serfs/fiefdoms and monarchy(oppression), so does countries/citizens(powerless) and Capitalism.

If Democracy is ever to work, where Citizens have control over the direction of their communities, Nations must be abolished (global democracy) and Decentralized but Democratic Control of Industrial Capital must be achieved. The trick is to keep your Democracy from becoming stagnant and unresponsive - from turning into Fascism (Nazi Germany/USSR) *or* Plutocracy (USA)

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[SubtleNuance]

What kind of idiot would fight to impose anything other than a democracy on himself?!)
I can assure you, those who decided to name the United States a Republic HAD read Plato's Republic --- which I suggest you do now... here is a Gutenberg txt

As alot of Libertrians are oft to cite, the USA was not founded as a Democracy but a Republic.

As for your assesment of the EU, its it by far the most promising democratic effort on the planet today. I look to it as a work in progress yes, but successfull thusfar, and likely to be the most successfull "state" in the history of the Planet in very short order. And as a more medium term goal; Will they Admit Canada (or will I have to move) and/or Russia... :) *THAT* is my hope.

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[SubtleNuance]

ahem, here is the Gutenberg Text

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[SubtleNuance]

as for your .sig; I personally PREFER the legal right to copy ANY Audio CD I want.

The tarrif needs to goto artists and not RIAA sluts, and non-audio CDs shouldnt pay the royalty... but you gotta admit, its a step in the right direction (destroying copyright control by RIAA)

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[Cyberdyne]

What kind of idiot would fight to impose anything other than a democracy on himself?!)

I can assure you, those who decided to name the United States a Republic HAD read Plato's Republic --- which I suggest you do now... here is a Gutenberg txt

"Democracy" and "Republic" aren't mutually exclusive. In this context, by democracy I meant the people being the ultimate authority (as they are in the US), as opposed to - for example - a dictatorship or a monarchy in the way the UK was centuries ago: the government ruling without needing the people's consent to do so. The US is a democracy in that sense.

As for your assesment of the EU, its it by far the most promising democratic effort on the planet today. I look to it as a work in progress yes, but successfull thusfar, and likely to be the most successfull "state" in the history of the Planet in very short order. And as a more medium term goal; Will they Admit Canada (or will I have to move) and/or Russia... :) *THAT* is my hope.

Interesting. Having lived in it for almost all my life, I regard it not as a democratic work in progress, but a bureaucratic disaster in progress! It is not in any sense a democratic anything (the entire Council of Ministers was fired for corruption recently - and promptly reappointed), and their auditor refuses to certify their accounts as being honest. For any private entity, this would mean huge fines, jail terms and perhaps closure of the company; for them, it's business as usual.

Perhaps, a decade from now, the corruption will have been solved and they will have implemented some form of democratic accountability instead of bribes and propoganda. (They recently issued a "free" 1 Euro coin to each school kid, in an effort to boost support...) Until then, I hope Canada stays out: I want a backup option in case I can't emigrate to the US yet!

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[SubtleNuance]

in time, the EU council will be democratically elected.. and a EuroPresident as well. Some nations will resist, politicians will want to wield nationalism to retain power... but people will have advocates who will transform the central gov.

as for your desire to move to the US, i recommend strongly against it. their mindless, shallow and ignorant... the cities are dirty and filled with the worst poverty and crime. in 10-15 years, they will be so absolutely committed to imperialism to defend against a collapse of their consumer culture, the plutocracy will drive them to utter chaos.. im thinking another depression, a collapse in their currency and states going bankrupt... the result of this threat to their 'standard of living' will be war abroad... Canada will be all by colonialised by this time, because the AmericanMindVirus is incredibly infectious, alot of Canadians watch too much "American News." -- which is horribly Pro-USA propaganda... have you ever seen Fox News Network?

Re:Orwell's Animal Farm

[Cyberdyne]

in time, the EU council will be democratically elected.. and a EuroPresident as well. Some nations will resist, politicians will want to wield nationalism to retain power... but people will have advocates who will transform the central gov.

Yes, they might one day evolve a democracy. Until then, I'm not holding my breath. From a corrupt and unaccountable body which has previously legislated the shape of bananas, almost any expectation would be optimistic.

as for your desire to move to the US, i recommend strongly against it. their mindless, shallow and ignorant...

At least most of them can find their shift keys, and know the difference between "their" and "they're" ;-) Cheap shot, I know, but calling others ignorant in a short sentence containing two grammatical mistakes is too tempting a target... Would you happen to be a native French speaker...?

the cities are dirty and filled with the worst poverty and crime.

Funny. While US crime levels plummet, the UK is importing American crime-fighting tactics in an attempt to deal with a surging crime level. Meanwhile, ozone and PM2.5 pollution levels are projected to be dramatically lower in the US over the next 20 years, with lake acidity falling significantly as well. Poverty is also at almost a 40 year low in the US: not perfect, but much better than it has been, and still improving overall. (It's cyclical; slowly rising at present, due to the poor economy.)

in 10-15 years, they will be so absolutely committed to imperialism to defend against a collapse of their consumer culture, the plutocracy will drive them to utter chaos..

Perhaps, but it seems to be doing pretty well so far. As for imperialism, it's ironic you say this in defence of the EU, which just expanded to cover a further 10 countries, as France deployed troops into the Ivory Coast...

im thinking another depression, a collapse in their currency and states going bankrupt...

Well, that's happened to most of the EU member states at least once in the last century: maybe it's America's turn now. Or maybe it'll be the Euro which collapses: France and Germany are both in violation of the "Stability and Growth Pact", as well as heading for recessions...

the result of this threat to their 'standard of living' will be war abroad...

Unlikely; while that is how Germany handled the situation you describe, the US isn't heading in that direction at present - and managed to deal with the last depression without starting a war anywhere.

Canada will be all by colonialised by this time,

By the British Empire^WCommonwealth again? The US has never "colonialised" anything, unless you count displacing "Indian" tribes back before most of the EU member governments existed...

because the AmericanMindVirus is incredibly infectious, alot of Canadians watch too much "American News."

You mean, a lot of Canadians choose to know what's happening in their only close neighbour? I wonder why.

-- which is horribly Pro-USA propaganda... have you ever seen Fox News Network?

Of course I have. Before you attack it any further, you should probably be told: it's not American. It's owned by an Australian, through a largely British media company. (News International, parent company of Sky and the Times of London.)

As for your complaints of pro-USA "propoganda": which country spends over $1bn "to enhance pride in X, to contribute to X's economic growth and prosperity, to protect X's heritage, to ensure access to X voices and X space, and to encourage participation in and contribution to X society."? Hint: it isn't the US. There is no "AmericanMindVirus": people are (in the US, but not in Canada or France) free to choose and develop their own culture and language, instead of having it dictated to them by a committee.

We aplogise...

[interactive_civilian]

We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

;)

Actually... revolution IS an AOL keyword.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a blatantly anonymous and highly cowardly Anonymous Coward, I use AOL and enjoy it. And honestly, I am forced to announce that not only is "Revolution" an AOL keyword, it's an ad for "Matrix Revolutions." Which half of you "revolution"-type people are waiting your butts off for. I'd get flamed.... but I'm an AC! Heh.

You are one of them

[Anonymous Coward]

you are either brainwashed, or benefit from the fascist dictatorship. and yes, chompsky is a bit of a crackpot.

Blatant rip-off

[mvdwege]

Dear God! Call me an old curmudgeon if you like, but this is not original; someone already did something similar in 2002.

Mart

Dear God,

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Please kill me now. It was bad enough when people started to use "google" as a verb. Today, though, I saw the word "blogspace". I cannot imagine living in a world where this term is used regularly, nor do I want to know what words will come next.

Thank you for your time.

Reference

[tastydarb]

This reference sounds more like Mao's quote:

"A revolution is not a dinner party."

While it is close in idea to "the revolution will not be televised," this also got its base from Mao; "... is not an AOL keyword" is closer to the original germ.

Incorrect. The war was about slavery....

[lysium]

...because you had two essentially different societies sharing the same country. Slavery enabled a social order and economic system that would completely collapse if slavery was ever outlawed. So saying the war "wasn't about slavery" is missing the root-level big picture -- were you referring to the use of the slavery issue as a military/politcal expident during the war? Different topic altogether.

As long as slavery existed, Southern civilization would have drifted further apart from the North, failing to industrialize and sinking into an aristocractic fantasy where all the labor was done by non-people. If the first war had not settled the issue, there would have been more wars, until it was.

-----------

Once Again...

[@ngel]

Once again this generation shows that it must take from the past to create in the present, and that a modicum of cleverness is all that is needed to be brandished brilliant today.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is poetry. This is garbage. And it's not even original garbage, just a Mad-Lib'd piece of garbage.

We need our own thoughts...

Not necessarily prose.

[xZAQx]

pdw writes "Revolution is not an AOL Keyword* is an entertaining piece of prose

Merely because the lines do not end-rhyme does not mean this piece is prose. In fact, I would characterize it as poetry, and good poetry at that. The author did a fine job of captivating the essense of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Re:Fascist Spelling Bastard from Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "3. Profit". Profit schemes are labeled numerically, NEVER alphabetically.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Guppy06]

"I'm sure that FDR spent a night with his mistress not thinking (...) World War I."

President Wilson, on the other hand... :)

you do yourself a disservice

[bobalu]

...if you miss out on him. You also have to remember the times.

And by the way, my sig here has *always* been:

The Sage Speaketh

[BTM1001]

Not sure what it becomes when you comment on a comment, but I thought it was sort of neat that Wil Wheaton Read the poem and responded, being a subject of the poem and all. I also think Wil would take the purple pimple no problem.

Hey, that was really cool.

. . . and I'm not just saying that because I'm in it. ;)

Posted by: wil on April 20, 2003 08:59 PM

Re:short sighted

[sploxx]

Of course a bit of inequality seems to be necessary to stimulate competition...
But.... if one citizen has 100 times more money than another one, things go clearly wrong.
NO ONE can work >100x harder or more effective compared to an average person.

And this much money means power. Too much power in hands not allowed to have so much power.

The figure "100" is of course subject to argument :)

mmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

doting on slashdot??

Is this Jon Katz's brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be possible because Eddan Katz is cool and Jon Katz is a bisexual pudwhacker.

the revolution!

[themusicgod1]

actually i think it does run apache now come come to think of it...honestly though, what do you expect - html 1.0 ?

not much on the original

[cokane2]

Seems weak, there's nothing but listing. With the old one at least we get absurdist connections, that make sense in a way "John Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary." This new AOL one is devoid of any interesting figurative language of that level, hardly a homage to the original. The only thing that seems clever in it is, "The Revolution is not an AOL Keyword" but that's just a weak derivation on the original. It definitely doesn't engage my imagination.

So offtopic it's not even funny any more...

[Zwack]

"Any fool can peel the Apple...It takes a real man to eat the core." - Stephen King, Everything's Eventual

Thanks... It's nice to have some sort of justification of my feelings of masculinity. I have eaten the core of the apple for most of my life. All, but the little stick bit... In my mind, it takes a real masochist to eat the stick too.

Z.

Poverty logic...

[hackwrench]

Funny I thought that his logic was that nobody was on equal footing.