Revolution

[tovaris]

So more and more people are chronically discontent with their government. Regardless of the shades of political colour which change the sets of power.

Do you guys thing revolution (as in a violent revolt) is morally right to do in such times? Would you personalty take part?What would YOU fight for? And what to do with the revolutionaries after the revolution (kill them? send them to a far of place with no means of communication?

................................................................................ ................................................................
ž
Personaly i think we should revolt, under the read baner to victory.
And yes i would participate. And yes we should get rid of the revolutionaries after the revolution, preferably by keeping them (us) alive
ž

[Judean Zealot]

I hope for a Red Revolution daily. I always wanted to see natural selection up close.

[thatcountrykid]

Communism isn't exactly a fight for freedom is say. In extreme circumstances as in rights being taken away and tyranny id say yes a revolution is necessary and you'd most likely find me on the side that brings the country to the way it used to be.

[phuckphace]

I'd like to see Merkel swing regardless of who drops the trapdoor

[james wolf]

I think my government - the UK - is far far from being bad enough for me to support any violent actions against them.

[Porpoise101]

I would fight against an oppressive government that doesn't benefit me or a super weak state controlled by plutocrats. Right now it's not so bad that I would revolt. And usually Red Revolutions don't work out happily and usually depend on a few people. That's the problem though. Humans are variable, they can live, die, and change their minds. So I would need to have trust in the revolution. I will admit that revolutionary music is nice, especially from early USSR and DDR.

[Stronk Serb]

I would stage a coup, but if an uprising is the only way, yeah. If needed, I will hang the fuckers myself on the Terazije, Kalemegdan or Branko's bridge. Also confiscate their property, sell it and redistribute them to the ones who suffered most under their thefts and budget syphonings, middle class and lower class. Then I would clear out the independent bodies of the government and have them be voted in by people. I would also change voting laws to decrease idiots voting, provide political literacy exams for national voting licences. Also I would make it so that during elections, MP's are elected on a municipal basis, as in the candidates from one municipality get voted by that municipality.

[tovaris]

I would fight against an oppressive government that doesn't benefit me or a super weak state controlled by plutocrats. /.../

For what side? I mean read/black/brown...


/.../Right now it's not so bad that I would revolt. /.../

Where are you from? From where i sit it looks like we are heaqded for war. And if you ask me, the nations is responsible, we alwayis have the oprtion to do something against the sistem and not alowe it to become like the III Reich.

/.../. And usually Red Revolutions don't work out happily and usually depend on a few people. That's the problem though. Humans are variable, they can live, die, and change their minds. So I would need to have trust in the revolution./.../

Im only asking of revolution in general actuly, and about people:
/.../ And what to do with the revolutionaries after the revolution (kill them? send them to a far of place with no means of communication?
/.../

.............................................

I think my government - the UK - is far far from being bad enough for me to support any violent actions against them.

How about independance?

............................................

/.../In extreme circumstances as in rights being taken away and tyranny id say yes a revolution is necessary and you'd most likely find me on the side that brings the country to the way it used to be.

A reactionary revolution? Realy? :what: :what:

............................................

I hope for a Red Revolution daily. I always wanted to see natural selection up close.

Don't tell me you want your black shirts to take power.... :!:

.............................................

I'd like to see Merkel swing regardless of who drops the trapdoor

#putin

[Porpoise101]

For what side? I mean read/black/brown...

Where are you from? From where i sit it looks like we are heaqded for war. And if you ask me, the nations is responsible, we alwayis have the oprtion to do something against the sistem and not alowe it to become like the III Reich.
I'm for whatever side will benefit me the most. That may be red or white, but definitely not black. For example, in the Russian revolution I would have fought for white or republicans while in the Spanish civil war I would have fought against the nationalists.

I'm from the US, which is pretty stable. When things go wrong we have a history of turning inward and not caring, but this has changed in the recent past.

[tovaris]

I'm for whatever side will benefit me the most./.../

Not much of a revolutionary are you

/.../ That may be red or white, but definitely not black. For example, in the Russian revolution I would have fought for white or republicans while in the Spanish civil war I would have fought against the nationalists./.../


White are traitors, regressives, monarchists... Also Spain was black vs. read.

/.../
I'm from the US, which is pretty stable. When things go wrong we have a history of turning inward and not caring, but this has changed in the recent past.

You did not have a war since the south tried to become independant and you denied them the right. But mark my words, you people will see a war on your soil before the half of this century.

[Porpoise101]

Not much of a revolutionary are you

White are traitors, regressives, monarchists... Also Spain was black vs. read.
No I'm not an idealistic zealot who imposes ideas by force. As much as propaganda shows revolutionary soldiers as heroes and patriots, most are normal people who have nowhere else to go or nothing left to lose. Only the leaders of a revolution have the ideas that drive it. That being said revolution is still justifiable sometimes.

I might have not been clear before but as in white I meant anyone not anarchist (which I thought was black), or red. If anything I would have fought with the Caucasian rebels or the Ukrainian rebels that weren't under Makhno.

[tovaris]

No I'm not an idealistic zealot who imposes ideas by force. As much as propaganda shows revolutionary soldiers as heroes and patriots, most are normal people who have nowhere else to go or nothing left to lose. Only the leaders of a revolution have the ideas that drive it. That being said revolution is still justifiable sometimes./.../

While mostly true, those who join the revolution to drive it forard are usualy believing solders, i mean there is always the possibilety of joining reactionary or staying at home. Take Franc Rozman Stane for example, he was an anytifascist frew and frew, he went to etiopia when Italy invaded, he went to spain when franco, he came than to Slovenia to fight the gemran beest.

/.../
I might have not been clear before but as in white I meant anyone not anarchist (which I thought was black), or red. If anything I would have fought with the Caucasian rebels or the Ukrainian rebels that weren't under Makhno.

Here is a shnel course of political colours:

black=fascizm
brown=hitler
white=tzar
blue=king
dark read=soc demokrats
blod read=comminists/socialists

http://www.renton.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/politicni-spekter-TLDR-620x328.jpg

[Dalton_Holt]

We do need a revolution. And of course I would participate, even if it's a communist revolution, as long as it's for true communism (stateless.) I don't get what you mean by getting rid of the revolutionaries though. So everyone who helped overthrow the government should be killed? I really don't understand that question.

[tovaris]

/.../I don't get what you mean by getting rid of the revolutionaries though. So everyone who helped overthrow the government should be killed? I really don't understand that question.

I ment as in leeders of the revolution, those who had the vision those who started the revolt and drove it forwrd.

[Dalton_Holt]

I ment as in leeders of the revolution, those who had the vision those who started the revolt and drove it forwrd.

So why the hell would you want to "get rid of them?"

[tovaris]

So why the hell would you want to "get rid of them?"

Experience with past revolutions. They will either lay on their back expecting everione to blow them, refuze to finish the revolt or start a new one, put themselves up as dictators. It is a long established thaught thatt after a revolution you need to get rig of the "revolutionaries".

[Uniquemind]

No a revolution will do nothing to solve the foundation of why societies collapse in the first place.

A real revolution will be of intellectual merit, hopefully a technological one that solves a huge chunk of why societies are unstable in the first place:

The mismanagement of finite resources.

The other cause of human discord are mass societal belief systems which have mutually exclusive details that will not allow the two belief systems to co-exist, without also both camps water down the pointed extremist views into more moderate ones.

I've thought about solutions for societies ills for a while now, and the solution runs much deeper than anything mankind has done before.

We've tried the revolution thing through violence, it doesn't work, ultimately whatever new government is set up, ends up suffering from the same problems that plagued the former government.

There is something at the core of human nature that must remain less rigid and stay flexible without feeling offended or feeling like they compromised their principles and therefore identity, que the guilt waves etc..

No it does no good to revolt violently. Violence is only good for self defense in small situations.

[Vlerchan]

MP's are elected on a municipal basis, as in the candidates from one municipality get voted by that municipality.
I'd be wary of this It's what happens in Ireland. What it tends to produce is lots of representatives that have been described as "little more than messengers for local constituents". This has resulted in a broad abdication of nation-centric policy-making. Because that's not where the votes are found in a system like this.

It's combined with certain other factors in Ireland to make it more harmful - but it's still problematic in it's own right.

[tovaris]

I'd be wary of this It's what happens in Ireland. What it tends to produce is lots of representatives that have been described as "little more than messengers for local constituents". This has resulted in a broad abdication of nation-centric policy-making. Because that's not where the votes are found in a system like this.

It's combined with certain other factors in Ireland to make it more harmful - but it's still problematic in it's own right.

Well here you describe this problem. While we have the problem of a parlament described as a "voting machine" for the elected parties, since MPs will normally cast a vote the party casts rearguards.

[Vlerchan]

While we have the problem of a parlament described as a "voting machine" for the elected parties, since MPs will normally cast a vote the party casts rearguards.
That's the same in Ireland. There's also that there's no effective distinction between the executive and legislature. The Economic Management Council then dominates the executive itself. Not to mention that government has excessive power to limit and curtail intra-parliament debate - through 'guillotine-ing' in particular.

But that won't be as problematic as it should be until Irish people start voting in nation-orientated representatives. It doesn't matter what the potential for debate and divergence is, if Irish people are just looking for a tax-cut and a local swimming pool in the end up.

[tovaris]

No a revolution will do nothing to solve the foundation of why societies collapse in the first place.
/../


I was sorta taking about the state of our countries, not the societies demise the way of the Romans.


/.../
A real revolution will be of intellectual merit, hopefully a technological one that solves a huge chunk of why societies are unstable in the first place:
/.../


Wasn't aiming for the industrial revolution 3. But 1 and 2 sorta solved the problem of production, we could basically produce everything automatically while people focused on what forfils them, makes them happy. (Marx was first to describe how machine will liberate man).


/.../
The other cause of human discord are mass societal belief systems which have mutually exclusive details that will not allow the two belief systems to co-exist, without also both camps water down the pointed extremist views into more moderate ones.
/.../


Religion to be banned? They tried that, Albania #Hoxha, now they are even more fanatical than ever #jihad. To get rid of religion you mus start slowly and sooner or later people realize how stupid it is.


/.../
I've thought about solutions for societies ills for a while now, and the solution runs much deeper than anything mankind has done before.
/.../


What do you propose?


/.../
We've tried the revolution thing through violence, it doesn't work, ultimately whatever new government is set up, ends up suffering from the same problems that plagued the former government.
/.../


Yes but each revolution contributed to pushing humanity forward. The entire world praises the ideals of french revolution to this day (UN, ect.), If there wasn't for October Russia would to this day be les developed than German Est Africa. List goes on...


/.../
There is something at the core of human nature that must remain less rigid and stay flexible without feeling offended or feeling like they compromised their principles and therefore identity, que the guilt waves etc..
/.../


Do not understand what you mean, pleas elaborate.


/.../
No it does no good to revolt violently. Violence is only good for self defense in small situations.

What do you propose to dethrone the old kliks who rule our lands?

That's the same in Ireland. There's also that there's no effective distinction between the executive and legislature. The Economic Management Council then dominates the executive itself. Not to mention that government has excessive power to limit and curtail intra-parliament debate - through 'guillotine-ing' in particular.

But that won't be as problematic as it should be until Irish people start voting in nation-orientated representatives. It doesn't matter what the potential for debate and divergence is, if Irish people are just looking for a tax-cut and a local swimming pool in the end up.

I think you now understand why I myself support the idea of The International. Why i argue people should vote for the grated good of their nation, of all nations. Why people should vote for the five pointed star.

[tovaris]

accidental duble post

[Stronk Serb]

I'd be wary of this It's what happens in Ireland. What it tends to produce is lots of representatives that have been described as "little more than messengers for local constituents". This has resulted in a broad abdication of nation-centric policy-making. Because that's not where the votes are found in a system like this.

It's combined with certain other factors in Ireland to make it more harmful - but it's still problematic in it's own right.

We have a different problem, most of the elected MPs are there to spout their party's rhetoric, and since the Progressives got in power, they keep shooting down every debate and silence the opposition. They vote against and shoot down meaningful laws because their coalition forms more than 50%. Last time they refused to support the law that the opposition proposed, which would confiscate firearms from owners who were convicted of family violence. Also many MPs, especially the ruling coalition's have dubious education, spread rumours and disrupt the course of discussions. Not to mention they siphon money, two times the average wage + what they can steal on the side. I might scrap the Parliament, replace it with my party's council and have an popularly elected group of people act as tribunes, to keep power in check.

[Vlerchan]

We have a different problem, most of the elected MPs are there to spout their party's rhetoric [...]
That's what tends to be what happens in a number of states with entrenched party systems.

You'll find states like Serbia with list systems are worse for it though.

They vote against and shoot down meaningful laws because their coalition forms more than 50%.
The pointing of being the ruling party is to be able to decide what laws pass and what don't.

If they vote out meaningful laws they find themselves in a worse position heading into the next election.

I actually don't have too much of a problem with this when there's an active electorate.

Also many MPs, especially the ruling coalition's have dubious education, spread rumours and disrupt the course of discussions. Not to mention they siphon money, two times the average wage + what they can steal on the side.
This is another issue that probably won't be helped with changing to the system mentioned in your last post.

[Stronk Serb]

That's what tends to be what happens in a number of states with entrenched party systems.

You'll find states like Serbia with list systems are worse for it though.


The pointing of being the ruling party is to be able to decide what laws pass and what don't.

If they vote out meaningful laws they find themselves in a worse position heading into the next election.

I actually don't have too much of a problem with this when there's an active electorate.


This is another issue that probably won't be helped with changing to the system mentioned in your last post.

Well, our electorate is dead pretty much. On the last elections, only 40% went to vote, and those percentages are inflated. MP money syphoning should be punished. Every damn politician should be under financial surveillance for corruption.

[Miserabilia]

I don't see atm why I or anyone should have a revolution.
Naturaly if a situation occurs where I do think a revolution is neccecary I would join it..

[tovaris]

Vlerchan what Stronk is describing is pretty much the entire exYU political scene. Not to mention the governments that keep palling before their term is out.

I don't see atm why I or anyone should have a revolution.
/.../


Where are you from?


/.../
Naturaly if a situation occurs where I do think a revolution is neccecary I would join it..

Black or read? How would you deal with revolutionaries after the revolution? Is revolution a moral act?

Ok tovaris, I have a question for you that someone else brought up earlier. Would you consider new thoughts and radical beliefs a revolution? Was the industrial revolution really a revolution according to you?

I do believe you accidentally posted in the wrong thread, so i quoted you in another one.
Now that we are where we are supposed to be pleas be more precise in your question