How did we even get to talking about a revolution? (Chris Hedges article on Salon)

[Chessic_Sense]

@TriPolar

I doubt any of us grew up in the 1890s.

Are you sure? Cuz we have people posting stuff like this…

@Smapti

Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.

@Happy_Fun_Ball

We ALL want to change the world.

[John_Mace]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Especially as the SLA didn’t exist in the 1960s.

“The 60s” lasted until 1973.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Miller

Huh?

I stand corrected. The last I’d heard of anything like this was when they wanted to march through Skokie in the 1970s. But I also stand on the essence of my point: how much of a thing is this, really?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@John_Mace

“The 60s” lasted until 1973.

In certain cultural attitudes and expressions of style they probably lasted until about 1980. With regard to popular music, I’d argue they ended a lot earlier, as the focus turned more to country rock, singer songwriters, and funk of the pre-disco era.

Well, in my opinion, at least, FWIW.

[Stately_Greek_Automaton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If there was ever going to be a revolution, it would be over income inequality. And given that one didn’t happen in the late 1800s, when income inequality in the US was at its peak, it’s probably not going to happen now.

The thing with income inequality is that if there ever was a problem which could be disarmed by throwing money at it, this is it. Maybe not solve it, but at least reduce its support sufficiently to be able to be overcome by typical means.

[BrainGlutton]

@madsircool

Hitler and the Nazi Party campaigned on what we would consider leftist economic principles for the most part.

However:

Political economy of Nazi Germany

Early in his political career, Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that “world history teaches us that no person has become great through its economy but that a person can very well perish thereby”, and later concluded that “the economy is something of secondary importance”.[9] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration. Hitler went as far as to blame all previous German governments since Bismarck of having “subjugated the nation to materialism” by relying more on peaceful economic development than on expansion through war.[10]

For these reasons, the Nazis never had a clearly defined economic programme. The original “Twenty-Five Point Programme” of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including “the abolition of all incomes unearned by work,” “the ruthless confiscation of all war profits,” “the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations,” “profit-sharing in large enterprises,” “extensive development of insurance for old-age,” and “land reform suitable to our national requirements”),[11] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. Several attempts were made in the 1920s to change some of the program or replace it entirely. For instance, in 1924, Gottfried Feder proposed a new 39-point program that kept some of the old planks, replaced others and added many completely new ones.[12] Hitler refused to allow any discussion of the party programme after 1925, ostensibly on the grounds that no discussion was necessary because the programme was “inviolable” and did not need any changes. At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the programme and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the programme in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as “the so-called programme of the movement”.[13]

Hitler’s views on economics

Hitler’s views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that “we are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”,[14] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,” saying that “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[15] At a later time, Hitler said: “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”[13] In private, Hitler also said that “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[16] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[17] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: “There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can’t escape…What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings”.[18] He clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party’s strengths, saying: “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”[19] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism (“Jewish Bolsheviks”) and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[20][21] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted “superior individuals” to higher positions in society.[22] At Berchtesgaden Hitler held his final speech, drafted by Albert Speer, in front of an audience. He emphasised the “self-responsibility of industry”. After the won war “private initiative of German business will experience its greatest moment”, and Hitler expressed his belief in “the further development of humanity through the promotion of private initiative, in which alone I see the precondition for all real progress.”[23]

[BrainGlutton]

@Measure_for_Measure

Given that they were funded by industrialists, quoting that position paper is sort of misleading, ya? Not to mention the Nazi’s enthusiasm for privatization of public industry.

In practice, the Nazis’ policy was to exercise just as much state control over “private” industry as seemed to them to serve the state’s interests at any given time.

[BrainGlutton]

@Stately_Greek_Automaton

The thing with income inequality is that if there ever was a problem which could be disarmed by throwing money at it, this is it. Maybe not solve it, but at least reduce its support sufficiently to be able to be overcome by typical means.

But, who is to throw the money? Not those who have it, you may be sure, and therefore not the state they control.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@BrainGlutton

But, who is to throw the money? Not those who have it, you may be sure, and therefore not the state they control.

Income inequality is being managed by “throwing money” at the problem… in the convoluted sense of “Well, you have a 60-inch flatscreen on your wall; what are you complaining about?”

[Shodan]

How is that convoluted?

Revolution happens with the combination of grinding poverty for the many and wealth for the few. It makes no sense to claim that any significant number of people in America are suffering grinding poverty, except for very strained values of “grinding”. If someone has a TV (and a cell phone and expensive sneakers and name brand jeans and a car and more to eat than is good for you), the fact that someone else has more and bigger TVs doesn’t make your situation worse.

ISTM that the question “if you have an expensive TV what exactly are you complaining about?” is a good one.

Regards,
Shodan

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Shodan

How is that convoluted?

Revolution happens with the combination of grinding poverty for the many and wealth for the few. It makes no sense to claim that any significant number of people in America are suffering grinding poverty, except for very strained values of “grinding”. If someone has a TV (and a cell phone and expensive sneakers and name brand jeans and a car and more to eat than is good for you), the fact that someone else has more and bigger TVs doesn’t make your situation worse.

I’m not sure anything I say in this thread is going to get noticed much, since the yack is firmly rooted in bedrock economic/political debate and thus effectively self-cancelling. (No matter what position you take, you’re still on the same chess board.)

First, I think “income inequality” is a greatly overstated issue - real, with consequences, needing to be addressed, but the endless comparisons of how many Walmart night stockers add up to one Walton is almost pointless in its extremity. You can make meaningless comparisons between the tips of almost any bell curve.

That said, the real economic oppression of the wage classes has failed to stir up any real revolutionary fervor because they drive their new (leased) car home to their comfy (upside-down) house and flop down in front of their (rather inexpensive) giant “cool fire.” They don’t really care that they’re as big a loser as the guy getting shut out in a poker-table scam. They’re playin’, ain’t they? They’ve got ‘everything they want,’ right? Why fuss when it’s March Madness and they can watch four games at once? Yeah, yeah, their company owner makes 100X as much… so how many flatscreens can HE watch at one time, anyway?

ISTM that the question “if you have an expensive TV what exactly are you complaining about?” is a good one.

Bread. Circuses. Beer. Kardashians. Life is good.

[Shodan]

@Amateur_Barbarian

That said, the real economic oppression of the wage classes has failed to stir up any real revolutionary fervor because they drive their new (leased) car home to their comfy (upside-down) house and flop down in front of their (rather inexpensive) giant “cool fire.” They don’t really care that they’re as big a loser as the guy getting shut out in a poker-table scam. They’re playin’, ain’t they? They’ve got ‘everything they want,’ right? Why fuss when it’s March Madness and they can watch four games at once? Yeah, yeah, their company owner makes 100X as much… so how many flatscreens can HE watch at one time, anyway?

Bread. Circuses. Beer. Kardashians. Life is good.

If you are saying that people are going to revolt because they have everything they need and most of what they want, I agree.

Marie Antoinette’s alleged line would fall flat in 21st century America - they do have cake. And ice cream, and tons of it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Dob]

If the right couldn’t get more than 5 trucks to “ride on washington” and the occupy movement couldn’t accomplish a single thing… i’m tempted to think that any revolution (if it comes) comes from the center, not the fringe. and it wont be with guns and armies but with votes and new faces on the national stage.

but i’m an eternal optimist and would probably be the first one gunned down anyway…

[BrainGlutton]

@Dob

i’m tempted to think that any revolution (if it comes) comes from the center . . .

Demanding what?

[Rick_Kitchen]

@BrainGlutton

Demanding what?

Demanding more moderation, if that’s all right with you.

Oh, wait, that would be a Canadian revolution.

[jayjay]

WHAT DO WE WANT?!

More moderation!

WHEN DO WE WANT IT?!

Whenever it’s convenient for you, I guess!

[Dob]

@jayjay

WHAT DO WE WANT?!

More moderation!

WHEN DO WE WANT IT?!

Whenever it’s convenient for you, I guess!

Awesome! who said revolts have to be bloody? in todays climate being polite could be considered revolutionary!

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Shodan

If you are saying that people are going to revolt because they have everything they need and most of what they want, I agree.

Marie Antoinette’s alleged line would fall flat in 21st century America - they do have cake. And ice cream, and tons of it.

Yes, our slave collars are so damned stylish! Yours is lovely, too, with all those cloisonné logos!

[Shodan]

blushes prettily

Just something I slipped on. You should see the Sunday one!

Regards,
Shodan

[astorian]

Hedges has his own list of issues the Left is angry about. I could just as easily create a lengthy list of issues the Right is angry about.

The question is, do we have enough angry people on either side to rise up and start anything worth calling a revolution. And, in my opinion, the answer is…
Nah.