|
cowboycoco (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I partially agree with that. Anarchy wouldn't be a viable option. New government maybe. But there really needs to be two revolutions. One of government but first one of apathy. You're right people suck. They need to take back the power. They've gotten apathetic and lazy and gave that power away.
UcanbeGOD (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
But what WOULD be the point? Anarchy: The idea that people are selfish and flawed, the government is made of people so the government is bad. And the Anarchist answer to this dilemma: Take away power from people. But what they don't see is that people will still exist and they don't need a system to enslave others. So why bother changing it? Governments don't suck people do!
Shawnruss (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
If the lesser mind could measure the greater as a footrule can measure a pyramid, there would be finality in universal suffrage. As it is, the political problem remains unsolved.
George Bernard Shaw
You can't take all of Mr.Shaws quotes literally man....
Shawnruss (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Your full of contradiction and hypocrisy in this video; also, "Your revolution will not work"? I hope that your talking specifically to someone when you say that, because who are you to tell anyone what action they take will not work. Maybe it would be better if revolutionists all got web cams and blew a lot of hot air in peoples faces, all the while doing nothing. And all the things you assume people care about is the dollar worth and gas prices? Only if you watch and believe what you see on TV
gugagagagreprpr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
AND that is because america is TO stupid to see that you need to be saved not you TJ you are cool
comicstripdude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Earlier this week, my friends and my Economics teacher were talking about oppressive politics, (Prop 8 and the like), when my friend said that if there ever were to be a revolution, it will be when gun-rights are taken away. He also said that in our lifetime, he expects to hear the term "camps" come up. Somehow, I don't think we'll be revolting during the latter, though.
Kind of sad how that's where our priorities lie.
hillbilly1500 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
what do you do for for a living mr. atheist man?
JohnnyDope (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Cuba became another oppressive regime because of the succeeding wing within the communist party who wanted to adopt the Soviet/stalinist model. That wasn't in any way given on beforehand.
JohnnyDope (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
If you really believe there is no point in revolutions whatsoever, then ask yourself what you would prefer by the time humanity revolted from feudalism. Would you prefer to stay with the monarchic establishment?
Furthermore, considering revolutions a destruction of material possesions like iPod and PCs is simply flawed.
The realities of the Cuban revolution you're mentioning does not need to account for revolutions. It mainly depends on the nature of the people in charge of the revolution.
cowboycoco (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
What it means is the rational person accepts the world as it is and simply tries to find his place in it. The irrational person doesn't care that the world doesn't conform to him and tries to shape it. Which of these two models sounds more likely to affect change? |
