Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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.
The best way to do is to be.
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.
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.
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.
Well, that depends. Would you consider the United States Civil War a revolution by the southern states?
he can easily be voted out at the next election
... which is debatable.
That was written on the assumption that he was voted in fair and square the first time...
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!
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
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...
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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.
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.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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.
The best way to do is to be.
-
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.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
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.
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.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Someone hates these cans.
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
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.
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.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
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....
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
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.
Reminder: find a new sig
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.
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...
C'mon people, you have free will. Especially if this is America, you have a choice.
--
hecubas
Hecubas
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.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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
http://www.jorian.com/san.html
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/centra
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...
"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.
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.
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.
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
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.
-----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.