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

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

[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

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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

[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.

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: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:"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.