Does anyone actually believe that the US is capable of any kind of revolution during our lifetimes?

[SunnySara]

It seems like a lot of hard line leftists that I've seen on these forums characterize western politics as indistinguishable from imperialism, fascism and maintained by an unbroken socio-sexual circuit that can only be described as "the patriarchy".

Okay, fair enough. It's a sector of perspective, which I respect and I can certainly see the parallels between these ideas and the way modern western democracy operates. But I've noticed over the last ten years that this line of thinking tends to be associated with idealism and a passionate irrationality that spills over into an individual's belief that their ideas are perfectly reasonable and that the status quo needs to be changed for its own good.

Okay, fair enough again. But considering the logistics of combatting something like "patriarchy" (which seems eerily similar to combatting terrorism - waging war on an ideology), I just don't see it. People seem to be banging on about how divided everyone is now but I think our lifestyles over the last 50 decades have been so sedentary that there will never be a strong enough movement to revolutionize the west into something that is supposedly better.

I agree that 1st world luxury is at the expense of the 3rd world, but who really cares?

I just want to enjoy life and take advantage of the opportunities it provides me.

I see no evidence for any universal social justice, so why bother?

Social justice, to me, is becoming more and more disconnected from basic human nature and, in fact, more of a manifestation of deeper psychological issues (physically ugly, uneducated, abused, whatever); the great dramatic irony is that, passionate allegiance to social justice in the west seems to come from a mentality that totally removes personal accountability and allows the individual to living in a bubble where all their distress is caused by literally the entire world around them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It seems like a lot of hard line leftists that I've seen on these forums characterize western politics as indistinguishable from imperialism, fascism and maintained by an unbroken socio-sexual circuit that can only be described as "the patriarchy".

Okay, fair enough. It's a sector of perspective, which I respect and I can certainly see the parallels between these ideas and the way modern western democracy operates. But I've noticed over the last ten years that this line of thinking tends to be associated with idealism and a passionate irrationality that spills over into an individual's belief that their ideas are perfectly reasonable and that the status quo needs to be changed for its own good.

Okay, fair enough again. But considering the logistics of combatting something like "patriarchy" (which seems eerily similar to combatting terrorism - waging war on an ideology),

Firstly, "terrorism" isn't an ideology.

Secondly, what is wrong with opposing a system (ideological or otherwise) that you disagree with?

I just don't see it. People seem to be banging on about how divided everyone is now but I think our lifestyles over the last 50 decades have been so sedentary that there will never be a strong enough movement to revolutionize the west into something that is supposedly better.

And yet evidence shows the growing popularity of progressive voices in western cultures, and evidence further suggests that the younger generations of voters are extremely interested in voting for them. I'm also struggling to understand your attitude here. You seem to be saying "Why bother to try and achieve something you believe will make the world a better place?" Which is literally answering your own question.

I agree that 1st world luxury is at the expense of the 3rd world, but who really cares?

A lot of people. Especially people in the 3rd world.

I just want to enjoy life and take advantage of the opportunities it provides me.

I see no evidence for any universal social justice, so why bother?

This statement doesn't even make sense. Again, the concept of "social justice" is fundamentally predicated on the idea of social equality and the acknowledgement and fair treatment of groups that, up until now, have either been treated indifferently or unfairly or not even acknowledged at all. What does "not seeing any evidence of universal social justice" mean in this context? Are you saying that there is no reason to assume people should be treated equally and fairly?

Social justice, to me, is becoming more and more disconnected from basic human nature and, in fact, more of a manifestation of deeper psychological issues (physically ugly, uneducated, abused, whatever); the great dramatic irony is that, passionate allegiance to social justice in the west seems to come from a mentality that totally removes personal accountability and allows the individual to living in a bubble where all their distress is caused by literally the entire world around them.

This is all just nonsensical, baseless rambling. You accuse others of living in a bubble while simultaneously saying things like "I just want to enjoy life and take advantage of the opportunities it provides me" and "I agree that 1st world luxury is at the expense of the 3rd world, but who really cares?"

Your entire argument seems to boil down to "I don't want any personal accountability and I want to live in my bubble, and I hate people who in my view wish to remove personal accountability and live in their own private bubble".

 

[icehorse]

The title of the thread seems different than the post. Speaking to the title I would say that I can - sadly - easily imagine an anti-oligarchy revolution.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems like a lot of hard line leftists that I've seen on these forums characterize western politics as indistinguishable from imperialism, fascism and maintained by an unbroken socio-sexual circuit that can only be described as "the patriarchy".

Okay, fair enough. It's a sector of perspective, which I respect and I can certainly see the parallels between these ideas and the way modern western democracy operates. But I've noticed over the last ten years that this line of thinking tends to be associated with idealism and a passionate irrationality that spills over into an individual's belief that their ideas are perfectly reasonable and that the status quo needs to be changed for its own good.

Okay, fair enough again. But considering the logistics of combatting something like "patriarchy" (which seems eerily similar to combatting terrorism - waging war on an ideology), I just don't see it. People seem to be banging on about how divided everyone is now but I think our lifestyles over the last 50 decades have been so sedentary that there will never be a strong enough movement to revolutionize the west into something that is supposedly better.

I never really believed that there was any such thing as "the patriarchy." I'm not sure if that's a typo or if you actually meant 50 decades, but the West has gone through a lot over that period of time.

There are divisions in this country, although they've been around for a long time and have found some measure of mutual coexistence, at least in terms of liberals and conservatives. Especially back in the post-war decades, labor unions were strong, the economy was booming, and more Americans were enjoying a level of affluence which previous generations could only dream of. Despite whatever anger and divisions existed, relatively few people really wanted to take it to a more violent level, since people had too much to lose if the country fell apart in revolution or civil war.

That's really the key to national stability. If you give the lower classes a decent enough share of the pie, then they'll be content enough to keep it under control and remain loyal. That's a lesson that the West learned in the first half of the 20th century, but for some reason, we seem to be forgetting these lessons from history.

I agree that 1st world luxury is at the expense of the 3rd world, but who really cares?

Well, we should care where our resources come from. But this process of the West gaining "first world" status while other parts of the world became the "third world" has been going on for the past 50 decades. It was slow at first, but then started to accelerate by the 18th and 19th centuries. In America and elsewhere in the world where Europeans walked in and pretty much took over, there were some rather nasty, ugly atrocities.

To be sure, it did lead to enormous profits and wealth for the West - and it no doubt led to the luxurious standard of living many Westerners have come to enjoy. But the downside of that is that the West was threatened by other European nations which felt that they were getting cheated out of their share of the world's spoils. The colonial territories were also starting to get restless, as they could clearly see that they were getting the shaft.

So, while the West built up a great deal of wealth in all of this, it might be said that we're reaching a point of diminishing returns. Apart from the moral considerations, enjoying a life of luxury at the expense of the third world is, in itself, a high-maintenance endeavor which has an ever-increasing expense, if the US military budget is anything to go by.

I just want to enjoy life and take advantage of the opportunities it provides me.

Nothing wrong with that. Good luck to you.

I see no evidence for any universal social justice, so why bother?

Universal social justice doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. Or maybe it does, somewhere in the universe.

Social justice, to me, is becoming more and more disconnected from basic human nature and, in fact, more of a manifestation of deeper psychological issues (physically ugly, uneducated, abused, whatever); the great dramatic irony is that, passionate allegiance to social justice in the west seems to come from a mentality that totally removes personal accountability and allows the individual to living in a bubble where all their distress is caused by literally the entire world around them.

I have nothing against social justice as a general principle, although I think when people talk pejoratively about so-called "social justice warriors," they don't really strike me as "revolutionaries" or even "warriors." If there is any kind of revolution in the West, I doubt it will come from that crowd.

Even if there is any kind of revolutionary threat from the left, that would likely scare the bejesus out of the ruling class and the conservatives of Middle America which would probably shift further to the right. There are some people who have been planning for this for decades, stockpiling guns and ammo, building bunkers - and just itching for some sort of attempted communist revolution that they can come out and crush. Any revolution in the US would also entail a civil war. Any would-be revolutionary should be aware that not only will they be taking on the full might of the US government, but also countless, heavily-armed patriots and loyalists who would fiercely oppose any kind of serious revolutionary activity from the left.

But by the same token, there could potentially be a threat of right-wing revolutionary activity, since they often attack the government from the other side. The government itself may also be divided, and if these divisions permeate into the military, then their ability to keep order may be compromised - which is usually the death knell for any regime. When the military starts joining the revolutionaries, then you know you're in trouble.

In Russia, for example, the moderate Kerensky government tried to keep both right and left happy, but ended up pleasing no one. When they were threatened with a right-wing coup led by General Kornilov, Kerensky armed the Red Guards to help defend the regime. But then after the coup was put down, the Red Guards didn't want to give up their weapons, and themselves seized power a few weeks later, which Lenin called the "golden moment." Germany also had upheaval and unrest between far-right and far-left factions, although in their case, it was the far-right which prevailed.

Revolution is kind of a crapshoot, I suppose. You never really know how it's going to turn out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see no evidence for any universal social justice, so why bother?

Don't. I far prefer to associate with those who do "bother."

 

[Laughing Coyote]

The man who promoted revolution nevertheless put it aptly, "People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please." I think ultimately it has something to do with the laws of thermodynamics which are driving the universe, but I haven't quite figured out the connection.

 

[DavidFirth]

No.