- 1,024
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
That comic strip is brilliant. I have never read Brave New World. Should really get on that...
Do you know what it means to have a REVOLUTION?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by hueyp in louiev,
- Start date
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
Nyota de la star wrote:
Speaking of revolutionaries...
I'm feeling that Lumumba avy
- 1,024
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
Thanks!
Ahh yes Lumumba! My parents are from Zaire...so I have always been interested in him. It's a shame the CIA ordered a hit on him though...
Ahh yes Lumumba! My parents are from Zaire...so I have always been interested in him. It's a shame the CIA ordered a hit on him though...
- 18,737
- 1,626
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
Jan. 24 is my birthday
- 6,528
- 15,717
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
There are times when a ruling regime is so intolerable that there is no choice but to resist with force of arms. That should be a last resort. Armedrevolutions typically cause more problems than they solve. The new society usually ends up poorer and replaced one tyrant and set of injustices with a new andoften times worse ones.
Most positive change has come about through hard work, creativity, cooperation, innovation, empathy, persistence and an exchange of ideas. It is definitelymore gratifying to shoot or decapitate a ruler that you do not like but in most cases it will eventually be you who is killed violently and even if you are notyour country will usually over only have poverty in its future.
Most positive change has come about through hard work, creativity, cooperation, innovation, empathy, persistence and an exchange of ideas. It is definitelymore gratifying to shoot or decapitate a ruler that you do not like but in most cases it will eventually be you who is killed violently and even if you are notyour country will usually over only have poverty in its future.
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
Thats why you're my dude Rex....you took it to the next level, which I wanted to touch on.
What elements do you all see asneeding to be completely and constructively changed in todays society? And what ideas do you have to rightthese wrongs?
A true revolution must be a means to an end....thats what made the Panthers and the American founders so great. They had carefully constructed plans forrevolution and alternative systems in place to compensate for the powers, which they sought to replace.
Whats your revolutionary blueprint?
Do you want to destroy the big pharmaceutical companies? Corrupt systems of governance? Backwards education system? Racist correctional system? The propagandaspewing mass media outlets? Inhumane economic systems? Degenerating American cultural values? Hypocritical religious institutions? A complete rebuilding of ourentire society?
What segments of modern society do you see as most needing a REVOLUTION and how would you replace thoseinstitutions?
What elements do you all see asneeding to be completely and constructively changed in todays society? And what ideas do you have to rightthese wrongs?
A true revolution must be a means to an end....thats what made the Panthers and the American founders so great. They had carefully constructed plans forrevolution and alternative systems in place to compensate for the powers, which they sought to replace.
Whats your revolutionary blueprint?
Do you want to destroy the big pharmaceutical companies? Corrupt systems of governance? Backwards education system? Racist correctional system? The propagandaspewing mass media outlets? Inhumane economic systems? Degenerating American cultural values? Hypocritical religious institutions? A complete rebuilding of ourentire society?
What segments of modern society do you see as most needing a REVOLUTION and how would you replace thoseinstitutions?
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
did you just give niketalk homework?
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
That's exactly what I am trying to figure out, I know +!%! needs to change and I feel like I can be a catalyst among my peers, I just don't have knowwhat needs to happen. I really wish I had someone to throw ideas off of, but I feel like out of all my friends one would be interested in discussing +!%! likethat.
- 6,402
- 193
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
Remove political parties.
Remove federal government control on education, the economy, and basically anything they don't need to control. Give the control back to the communitiesand the States.
Remove the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Not sure how to do this one smoothly.
Remove federal government control on education, the economy, and basically anything they don't need to control. Give the control back to the communitiesand the States.
Remove the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Not sure how to do this one smoothly.
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
did you just give niketalk homework?
Nah just an outlet to sound off on things that they are trulydissatisfied with and would like to see changed by any means necessary.
- 2,406
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- 2,044
- 129
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
i hear you on all of these fam, except maybe the first. Remove the Two Party System, yes, because there are too many individuals with distinctlyseperate ideologies than either of the two parties but they are forced to join with whichever one fits them closer
I suggest we effectively dismember both the Republican and Democratic parties, allowing newer and existing, but small, parties to become popularized
- 4,901
- 16
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
REAL POWER IS PEOPLE.
once we realize that then we can achieve critical mass
- 3,179
- 109
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
I for one believe that the ruling powers are too deeply entrenched to be overthrown...remove a two party system? Remove the Federal Reserve? Pipe dreams
The key instead is to infiltrate and stimulate change from within
The key instead is to infiltrate and stimulate change from within
- 564
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
I feel exactly the opposite. What exactly do you feel that, right now, the government need not control? Why education for example? If anything our educational system needs MORE government funding.
They government already controls everything. There is a government mandate and regulation for damn near everything. Billions and billions and billions ofdollars are pumped in to public education and you say it needs MORE?
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
They government already controls everything. There is a government mandate and regulation for damn near everything. Billions and billions and billions of dollars are pumped in to public education and you say it needs MORE?
Except they are pumped into the wrong thing's like testing and the majority of the money goes to school's who perform well instead of the school'sthat underpefrom and need more money pumped into them.
- 2,406
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
Except they are pumped into the wrong thing's like testing and the majority of the money goes to school's who perform well instead of the school's that underpefrom and need more money pumped into them.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
b smooth 202
Banned
- 10,295
- 106
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
It's our time. The only person than can stop you is yourself.
- 551
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
i'm just sick of turning on CNN and seeing them gossip about David Letterman or some kidnapped kid for a half hour
- 6,528
- 15,717
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
If you guys want an end to two part hegemony, there would have to be major changes in how we elect our representatives. There would have to either be nationwide elections or super, multi seat districts. In either case, seats in the legislature must be handed out based on a proportion of votes received and not in awinner take all system like we have. As long as we have winner take all elections there will never be viable third parties, let alone several viable parties.
With the exception of Maine and Nebraska dividing up their four electoral votes, every Federal Office in this Country is elected on a State by State ordistrict by district basis with a single winner emerging to fill the one seat for that one election. Under this system, it is inevitable for broad coalitionsto be formed and the equilibrium number is two because the losers will merge and compete with the winner. I would be in favor of the House of Representativesbeing elected in Statewide elections with political parties (which could be ad hoc parties formed based on single issues or for an individual who ispolitically viable) getting a proportional number of seats and then deciding upon who actually will be sent to Congress.
At that step, the choice would vary State by State and party by party. For example, if there are 15 Republican seats in Califonia, the GOP of CA would divideup the State in districts and then allow local Republicans to to vote to fill the seat and meanwhile the CA Dems would decide the people who fill those 15seats with 5 being appointed by the party leadership and ten being selected based on a state wide party election. Those parties in those States that would havevoters decide who fills the newly won seats could then essentially have congressmne picked in non partisan elections. This way in a state like Texas orCalifornia, there could be quite a few Green or Libertarian candidates winning because those not voting for the two major parties would never feel like theyare "throwing their vote away" and the GOP and Dems would still be there but not the only two parties holding holding Federal Office.
In the Senate, I would like a return to the days of Senators being appointed by State Legislatures but I would like to see State legislatures elected based onproportional representation. That way, there would be a politically diverse State legislatures that would appoint a Senator who would officially not be part ofany political party (similar to Supreme Court Justice). This way they would be less controlled by political parties, could have more independence but willstill ultimately be accountable to voters because the State Legislatures could be allowed to recall them if they abuse their power.
Finally on the politics front, lt the president be elected nationally and directly by popular vote. Supporters of the Electoral College always say "ifthere was a popular vote, candidates would spend most of their time campaigning in the big cities and places where most people live," as if Iowa and NewHampshire are entitled to disproportional control over the President's agenda. Presidents should campaign where the people are since it is the people andnot the land that votes. Furthermore, it is unfair to let our national policy be so strongly influenced to placate the interests of a half dozen "swingstates." Presidents are supposed to serve the nation not Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa almost exclusively.
By having what I consider an updating on the concept of checks and balances, we can avoid national bankruptcy. When the Founders established this system, theylived in a time when peacetime national debts were almost unheard of in government, there was no concept of massive, perpetual entitlement programs andKeynesian "stimulus" where not considered. While locally elected representatives have always represented the interests of their districts, they wereall committed to balanced budgets, ultimately, so any largess earned for their district would ultimately have to be paid for by the people in their district.
Today, with deficit spending being the norm, there is a dangerous asymmetry of goals. Taxes can be deferred and benefits can be enjoyed anytime and inlegislature, working under those conditions, there will be far more spending than taxing and it is because all congressmen are expected to bring home the baconto their own districts and then disperse the costs onto other districts and they will be punished if they support tax increases or spending cuts in their owndistrict. Furthermore, since money can be borrowed and/or created out of thin air, it almost always the case that Congressman "A" will agree to giveCongressmen "B," "C" and "D" votes to give goodies to districts "B," "C" and "D" so Congressman"A" will have the votes he needs to bring home the bacon to his district, district "A." So the quid pro quo of spending and debt continuesand that is why we always run deficits (and no the Clinton/GOP Congressional "surpluses" of the late 1990's were never true surpluses becausethere was so much taken from the social security "trust fund" that we were only in the black after clever accounting was done).
If we have a President who is nationally elected and no beholden to special interests of a few places, we would get a stronger commitment to fiscalresponsibility. The President should also have a line item veto to fight special interest spending. Furthermore, we should have a Constitutional amendment toban corporate subsidies and other forms of largess that motivate special interests groups to form in the first place. If you want to get money and corruptionout of politics you do not do it through unconstitutional campaign finance reform, which is more or less a ban on certain political speech. We need toeliminate those opportunities for corruption to even happen at all and when it is not legally possible for big firms, trade groups and other pressure groups toeither buy largess, in the form of subsidies or barriers to entry or exemption from the law, nor be intimidated to pay for "protection" frompredatory congressional committees (Congressmen will destroy you if your business is large, successful and refuses to contribute to their campaigns), we willnot have to worry very much about "money in politics."
By revamped and somewhat shifting our political structure and its focus and by constraining the power of the legislators, the American system of checks andbalances would address the asymmetry of costs and benefits that skew decision making toward recklessness. These are my more prosaic recommendation forstrategic reforms in our body politic. If this thread continues on, I will continue with a meta-philosophy of society, dynamic evolution of society and how wecan advance into alternatives not yet conceived in the minds of humanity.
BTW, This is why I love political science so much and why I studied it quite bit in college. When you combine it with economics and what it teaches you aboutscarcity, incentives and utility maximization and when you combine the study of economics and politics with with history and its wealth of empirical examplesand means to see theories being put to the test already, you can start to not only see faults in how the political system is structured but begin to see cluesthat could lead to viable and perhaps even better alternatives.
With the exception of Maine and Nebraska dividing up their four electoral votes, every Federal Office in this Country is elected on a State by State ordistrict by district basis with a single winner emerging to fill the one seat for that one election. Under this system, it is inevitable for broad coalitionsto be formed and the equilibrium number is two because the losers will merge and compete with the winner. I would be in favor of the House of Representativesbeing elected in Statewide elections with political parties (which could be ad hoc parties formed based on single issues or for an individual who ispolitically viable) getting a proportional number of seats and then deciding upon who actually will be sent to Congress.
At that step, the choice would vary State by State and party by party. For example, if there are 15 Republican seats in Califonia, the GOP of CA would divideup the State in districts and then allow local Republicans to to vote to fill the seat and meanwhile the CA Dems would decide the people who fill those 15seats with 5 being appointed by the party leadership and ten being selected based on a state wide party election. Those parties in those States that would havevoters decide who fills the newly won seats could then essentially have congressmne picked in non partisan elections. This way in a state like Texas orCalifornia, there could be quite a few Green or Libertarian candidates winning because those not voting for the two major parties would never feel like theyare "throwing their vote away" and the GOP and Dems would still be there but not the only two parties holding holding Federal Office.
In the Senate, I would like a return to the days of Senators being appointed by State Legislatures but I would like to see State legislatures elected based onproportional representation. That way, there would be a politically diverse State legislatures that would appoint a Senator who would officially not be part ofany political party (similar to Supreme Court Justice). This way they would be less controlled by political parties, could have more independence but willstill ultimately be accountable to voters because the State Legislatures could be allowed to recall them if they abuse their power.
Finally on the politics front, lt the president be elected nationally and directly by popular vote. Supporters of the Electoral College always say "ifthere was a popular vote, candidates would spend most of their time campaigning in the big cities and places where most people live," as if Iowa and NewHampshire are entitled to disproportional control over the President's agenda. Presidents should campaign where the people are since it is the people andnot the land that votes. Furthermore, it is unfair to let our national policy be so strongly influenced to placate the interests of a half dozen "swingstates." Presidents are supposed to serve the nation not Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa almost exclusively.
By having what I consider an updating on the concept of checks and balances, we can avoid national bankruptcy. When the Founders established this system, theylived in a time when peacetime national debts were almost unheard of in government, there was no concept of massive, perpetual entitlement programs andKeynesian "stimulus" where not considered. While locally elected representatives have always represented the interests of their districts, they wereall committed to balanced budgets, ultimately, so any largess earned for their district would ultimately have to be paid for by the people in their district.
Today, with deficit spending being the norm, there is a dangerous asymmetry of goals. Taxes can be deferred and benefits can be enjoyed anytime and inlegislature, working under those conditions, there will be far more spending than taxing and it is because all congressmen are expected to bring home the baconto their own districts and then disperse the costs onto other districts and they will be punished if they support tax increases or spending cuts in their owndistrict. Furthermore, since money can be borrowed and/or created out of thin air, it almost always the case that Congressman "A" will agree to giveCongressmen "B," "C" and "D" votes to give goodies to districts "B," "C" and "D" so Congressman"A" will have the votes he needs to bring home the bacon to his district, district "A." So the quid pro quo of spending and debt continuesand that is why we always run deficits (and no the Clinton/GOP Congressional "surpluses" of the late 1990's were never true surpluses becausethere was so much taken from the social security "trust fund" that we were only in the black after clever accounting was done).
If we have a President who is nationally elected and no beholden to special interests of a few places, we would get a stronger commitment to fiscalresponsibility. The President should also have a line item veto to fight special interest spending. Furthermore, we should have a Constitutional amendment toban corporate subsidies and other forms of largess that motivate special interests groups to form in the first place. If you want to get money and corruptionout of politics you do not do it through unconstitutional campaign finance reform, which is more or less a ban on certain political speech. We need toeliminate those opportunities for corruption to even happen at all and when it is not legally possible for big firms, trade groups and other pressure groups toeither buy largess, in the form of subsidies or barriers to entry or exemption from the law, nor be intimidated to pay for "protection" frompredatory congressional committees (Congressmen will destroy you if your business is large, successful and refuses to contribute to their campaigns), we willnot have to worry very much about "money in politics."
By revamped and somewhat shifting our political structure and its focus and by constraining the power of the legislators, the American system of checks andbalances would address the asymmetry of costs and benefits that skew decision making toward recklessness. These are my more prosaic recommendation forstrategic reforms in our body politic. If this thread continues on, I will continue with a meta-philosophy of society, dynamic evolution of society and how wecan advance into alternatives not yet conceived in the minds of humanity.
BTW, This is why I love political science so much and why I studied it quite bit in college. When you combine it with economics and what it teaches you aboutscarcity, incentives and utility maximization and when you combine the study of economics and politics with with history and its wealth of empirical examplesand means to see theories being put to the test already, you can start to not only see faults in how the political system is structured but begin to see cluesthat could lead to viable and perhaps even better alternatives.
- 2,165
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2002
thanks for taking the time to type that up rex
- 12,843
- 13,807
- Joined
- May 9, 2004
damn...and theres me thinking this thread was about running riot
- 1,146
- 131
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
the real power is in the people.. but all depends how you look at it.. if you agree with hobbes..
we really gave all of our power when we allowed democracy to govern us so that we would escape the state of nature..
or if you look at karl marx.. the majority is the proletariat(working class) but the bourgeois socially construct these ideologies..
that control the way we live and extract our labor power(most prized possession) at an early age through religion, education, media etc.
but..
for americanized africans.. this is one the best times.. revolution always had music.. we have hip-hop..
we already have a blueprint to success with the black panthers and/or martin luther king..
but first you have to address the problems within the black community..
we are so consumed by corporations that we forget to flex our purchasing power..
yet we cop the same thing with money.. cars, jewelry and material goods..
we can't keep degrading women and glorifying the "hood" for its negative aspects..
understand that the american dream is corrupting the minds of black..
we have to stop the black on black crime/genocide.. (BET, guns, drugs)
erase the crab in the barrel philosophy set forth by Willie Lynch.. (that is where the verb lynch comes from)
side with cipher complete and take "hip hop back"..
GO TO SCHOOL and get an education..
watch out for the prison industrial complex and stay out of jail..
watch out for the military industrial complex and stay out the military..
"i am... a revolutionary" - fred hampton
we really gave all of our power when we allowed democracy to govern us so that we would escape the state of nature..
or if you look at karl marx.. the majority is the proletariat(working class) but the bourgeois socially construct these ideologies..
that control the way we live and extract our labor power(most prized possession) at an early age through religion, education, media etc.
but..
for americanized africans.. this is one the best times.. revolution always had music.. we have hip-hop..
we already have a blueprint to success with the black panthers and/or martin luther king..
but first you have to address the problems within the black community..
we are so consumed by corporations that we forget to flex our purchasing power..
yet we cop the same thing with money.. cars, jewelry and material goods..
we can't keep degrading women and glorifying the "hood" for its negative aspects..
understand that the american dream is corrupting the minds of black..
we have to stop the black on black crime/genocide.. (BET, guns, drugs)
erase the crab in the barrel philosophy set forth by Willie Lynch.. (that is where the verb lynch comes from)
side with cipher complete and take "hip hop back"..
GO TO SCHOOL and get an education..
watch out for the prison industrial complex and stay out of jail..
watch out for the military industrial complex and stay out the military..
"i am... a revolutionary" - fred hampton
- 996
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
The Thing about a revolution is as time goes along the less and less this generation is capable of doing it. the minds of today have been filled with much morenonsense and foolishness than those of the 50's 60's 70's. IMO education has gotten worse, in a time where info is so abundant we choose to takethe media's word as rule. The way the US has gained power of not only are money but our minds makes it seem as if there bulletproof to a revolutiion of anysorts
Similar threads
