7 ms·

Start a revolution. I'm only half joking. I think we can't solve these problems within the current political and economical and system. We have to found a new

Start a revolution. I'm only half joking. I think we can't solve these problems within the current political and economical and system. We have to found a new radical political movement. A lot of the problems we face: the crisis of representational democracy, populism, unemployment, xenophobia, the surveillance state, terrorism, ... cannot be solved individually, but I believe must be fixed simultaneously. We got to get over the fear of the last 40 years against dreaming up Utopias. We should look at the past, at western democracy, socialism, meritocracy, communism, and see what worked and what didn't, and come up with an alternative. It will be as big a break as hundreds of years ago when people came up with the idea of a republic in absolutist times. And here's why I believe the movement will grow: we can make the same promises Trump made, about prosperity, keeping one's identity, leading a meaningful life again... But as opposed to him, we can actually fulfill these promises. And then we become really powerful, create parallel structures, and question the power of governments head on. It worked several times in history. I'm intentionally leaving the deals vague, since I can't speak for everybody. But I believe core values will be tolerance, individual rights, decentralism, and openness to learn from mistakes and change. I know it sounds crazy, but I think we won't get more freedom without a major rewrite or at least refactoring of society...

Ntrails 9y ago
> But as opposed to him, we can actually fulfill these promises. Man on internet claims that his statements are totally more trustworthy than man on TV. I'm not disagreeing with you per se - but "fuzzy on the details but this will totally work I promise" is not exactly a radical new line of thought
hutzlibu 9y ago
So you say start the revolution first and then figure out how things will work afterwards? "tolerance, individual rights, decentralism, and openness" sounds nice, but are not enough alone to bring food on the table, keep the lights on and the warm water running, which is something most people want to be sure of, before they join your revolution ... Otherwise I am with you on the dreaming part about how a new society could look like. But I think this is something which needs to be much more concrete, before you can start to think about "revolution", unless you want something like a October Revolution, but then count me out ...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
scaryspooky 9y ago
> the crisis of representational democracy This is only a crisis if you're the loser, though, which seems a bit like sour grapes.
- Retric 9y ago
  The problem is not specifically Trump or even throwing out the filibuster in the senate. It's the kind of highly targeted gerrymandering and ad hock messaging based around new technology. Combined with doubts that votes are even being counted that's corrosive to the very idea of democracy. Of course Obama was going to cause a backlash, just like Bush did and Trump will. But, we have gotten to the point where 'power' and 'the will of the people' have got little to do with each other. And that's not a stable path long term. EX: We don't talk about it, but several million Americans don't get representation in the house or senate. Sure, that's the way the system is built, but frankly that's not a good enough reason on it's own.
  - scaryspooky 9y ago
    The US was not designed as a direct democracy, though. Bemoaning the design only when 'your side' loses is a problem that should be relegated to young children. I haven't voted for the winner for quite a few elections now but I don't think throwing out the entire system is the right answer because I didn't get my way. If you want to start movements in individual states changing the first past the post system, I think that's a logical first step. Colorado recently changed their primary system to be more open, so we will see what that impact has on their elections soon. But what I see is people wanting to throw out the entire system and start over, which is the rhetoric that got Trump elected in the first place. I assume by 'several million Americans' you're talking about the territories and Washington DC. The territories consistently vote to keep themselves territories, so they choose to remain "unrepresented" in Congress. I don't think letting DC have a vote in Congress will help diminish the 'power' and 'will of the people' problem you are concerned about.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Sure, the current system is based on past choices. That does not mean it's a good system. I don't really care about Trump vs Hilary. I do care that because I moved my vote went from token effort to completely pointless. If you look at the history of US presidential elections the map used to be a lot more fluid. Compare say 1972 with 1964: http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ And compare that with the string from 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016. That recent trend is not by accident. Both party's have carefully crafted their message to maximize their chances of winning. But, that divide is all about minimizing the power of choice which is inherently corrosive.
cryoshon 9y ago
>we won't get more freedom without a major rewrite or at least refactoring of society... correct you are. our problems are too intertwined with the current political system to be solved by them. without exception. there's no point in waiting for the perfect moment, because it won't ever come. our best bet is to make use of the utter chaos the current administration is causing as an excuse for destroying our moribund institutions and remolding them into something fresh and more useful.
SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
The American Revolution is one of the few outliers in history were such revolutionary action actually lead to such good results (relative to more likely possible alternatives). The cost of a revolution is heavy, and generally the outcome is almost certainly as bad or worse as the states of affairs that sparked it. I'm a hopeless cynic, but I always find a bit of reluctant optimism about the present after reading a bit of history. Especially the dirtier sides of American history, politics, business, social norms, discrimination, etc. When I do, I can't help but conclude we Americans are living in the best version of America that has ever existed, to date, even with all the shit in front of us. And possibly even one of the least divisive and polarized versions of it as well, even though the popular consensus is just the opposite. Basically, the system actually seems to kind of... sort of... work. No thanks on the revolution.
- Kalium 9y ago
  There's a strong argument to be made that the American Revolution was successful because it was actually a rebellion. Organized polities broke their ties, but largely preserved themselves and their leadership structures.
  - williamscales 9y ago
    Wow, that's a striking point that never occurred to me before. Do you have any source that discusses this viewpoint in greater detail, perhaps with some comparisons to other revolutions?
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Today a revolution would be illegal. Not just illegal but even talk of a revolution, or openly espousing that the idea should be considered.
  - williamscales 9y ago
    Well, the American Revolution was illegal at the time. And it was illegal to plan. So I think that just kind of comes with the territory of having a revolution.
mirimir 9y ago
Decades of organizing and advocacy against the US War on Drugs got medical marijuana legalized in 29 states, and recreational marijuana legalized in eight states plus DC. Psilocybe spp are legal nowhere in the US. Darknet markets have made all drugs available everywhere. Just sayin'.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but the Federal government is still trying as much as possible to continue the War on Drugs no matter what the states' laws actually say.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    True. But I haven't seen news about mass arrests of buyers after Silk Road got pwned. Not in the US, anyway. I mean, could the courts handle the volume?
  - 5ilv3r 9y ago
    State lawmakers move on to federal lawmakers and generally appear to continue try to please their voters. By starting at the state level we have kicked the legs out from under the thing. It is falling.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      That's excellent, no doubt.
asdkjaskdjqi 9y ago
> the crisis of representational democracy, populism, ... Oh jeez what a travesty - the people getting what they want rather than a focus on "everyone but us first"! > xenophobia, the surveillance state, terrorism, ... Yes a reasonable fear of mass immigration from places that don't vet their refugees well enough isn't a legitimate concern and should be mixed in with an actual fear like the surveillance state. > last 40 years against dreaming up Utopias Venezuela is doing pretty good with their attempt at a utopia. > But I believe core values will be tolerance, > individual right Choose one. Sorry bud, I don't mean to be rough. But I'd love to see the world through your rose colored glasses.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  A good time to remember Mencken: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
logfromblammo 9y ago
As someone who has dipped into the libertarian infinity pool of crazy, and flopped right over the side into the freefall insanity of pragmatic anarchism, I am aware that most lasting societal changes have only been accomplished by creating rivers of blood--the Reign of Terror, the Soviet Revolution, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, etc. And I am also aware that the new boss is usually either the same as the old boss, or quite a lot worse. But nevertheless, after the reset, things often get better for a while--if you survived, that is--before they get worse again. So you can either screw yourself up to do some bloody murder against those whom you believe to really deserve it, and make a real change, for better or worse (usually worse), or you can parade around making some fake change that lets you feel better about yourselves, but probably won't do any real damage, such as a devastating nuclear winter, or another miserable dark age of terror, brutality, serfdom, and slavery. You can pick out your targets now, and wait for the right time to pull the trigger. Or you can make signs and sing Kum-Bai-Yah. But maybe there's another option, that has never been tried before. The usual problem is that the masters of the universe have no incentives whatsoever to change their own behavior or give up their own power. But there is a magical, mythical substance in the Illuminatus! trilogy called AUM. This was described as a drug that permanently changed someone from a neophobe into a neophile. It changed minds with one dose. So perhaps, like so many sci-fi speculations later found to have landed near the marks discovered by future science, a cocktail of known hallucinogens and entheogens might be employed to bestow an artificial chemical sense of compassion and empathy upon those who lack one of their own. In short, black-bag some elites, and shoot them up with a witches brew of MDMA, LSD, DXM, Datura, nicotine, cannabis, salvinorin-A, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, chemtrail distillate, et cetera (Poe's Law disclosure: the latter three were satire), and see if that can cure them of being selfish assholes. You flip the enemy to your side, and you gain power without killing anyone--or at least without producing dead bodies, as forcibly making permanent changes to someone's brain against their will could be construed as psychological murder. It's the same problem as eradicating any parasite. If you kill 99% of them, that just leaves the niche open for that remaining 1% to repopulate. So you capture some, sterilize them, and release them back into the wild. Those continue to compete among their own kind, and then die off without progeny, which crashes the whole population enough that it can now be controlled by other means. Just as the parasites subvert others to work for them, you subvert the self-interest of the parasites so that they destroy themselves.

Ntrails 9y ago

> But as opposed to him, we can actually fulfill these promises. Man on internet claims that his statements are totally more trustworthy than man on TV. I'm not disagreeing with you per se - but "fuzzy on the details but this will totally work I promise" is not exactly a radical new line of thought

hutzlibu 9y ago

So you say start the revolution first and then figure out how things will work afterwards? "tolerance, individual rights, decentralism, and openness" sounds nice, but are not enough alone to bring food on the table, keep the lights on and the warm water running, which is something most people want to be sure of, before they join your revolution ... Otherwise I am with you on the dreaming part about how a new society could look like. But I think this is something which needs to be much more concrete, before you can start to think about "revolution", unless you want something like a October Revolution, but then count me out ...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

scaryspooky 9y ago

> the crisis of representational democracy This is only a crisis if you're the loser, though, which seems a bit like sour grapes.

Retric 9y ago
The problem is not specifically Trump or even throwing out the filibuster in the senate. It's the kind of highly targeted gerrymandering and ad hock messaging based around new technology. Combined with doubts that votes are even being counted that's corrosive to the very idea of democracy. Of course Obama was going to cause a backlash, just like Bush did and Trump will. But, we have gotten to the point where 'power' and 'the will of the people' have got little to do with each other. And that's not a stable path long term. EX: We don't talk about it, but several million Americans don't get representation in the house or senate. Sure, that's the way the system is built, but frankly that's not a good enough reason on it's own.
- scaryspooky 9y ago
  The US was not designed as a direct democracy, though. Bemoaning the design only when 'your side' loses is a problem that should be relegated to young children. I haven't voted for the winner for quite a few elections now but I don't think throwing out the entire system is the right answer because I didn't get my way. If you want to start movements in individual states changing the first past the post system, I think that's a logical first step. Colorado recently changed their primary system to be more open, so we will see what that impact has on their elections soon. But what I see is people wanting to throw out the entire system and start over, which is the rhetoric that got Trump elected in the first place. I assume by 'several million Americans' you're talking about the territories and Washington DC. The territories consistently vote to keep themselves territories, so they choose to remain "unrepresented" in Congress. I don't think letting DC have a vote in Congress will help diminish the 'power' and 'will of the people' problem you are concerned about.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Sure, the current system is based on past choices. That does not mean it's a good system. I don't really care about Trump vs Hilary. I do care that because I moved my vote went from token effort to completely pointless. If you look at the history of US presidential elections the map used to be a lot more fluid. Compare say 1972 with 1964: http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ And compare that with the string from 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016. That recent trend is not by accident. Both party's have carefully crafted their message to maximize their chances of winning. But, that divide is all about minimizing the power of choice which is inherently corrosive.

cryoshon 9y ago

>we won't get more freedom without a major rewrite or at least refactoring of society... correct you are. our problems are too intertwined with the current political system to be solved by them. without exception. there's no point in waiting for the perfect moment, because it won't ever come. our best bet is to make use of the utter chaos the current administration is causing as an excuse for destroying our moribund institutions and remolding them into something fresh and more useful.

SmirkingRevenge 9y ago

The American Revolution is one of the few outliers in history were such revolutionary action actually lead to such good results (relative to more likely possible alternatives). The cost of a revolution is heavy, and generally the outcome is almost certainly as bad or worse as the states of affairs that sparked it. I'm a hopeless cynic, but I always find a bit of reluctant optimism about the present after reading a bit of history. Especially the dirtier sides of American history, politics, business, social norms, discrimination, etc. When I do, I can't help but conclude we Americans are living in the best version of America that has ever existed, to date, even with all the shit in front of us. And possibly even one of the least divisive and polarized versions of it as well, even though the popular consensus is just the opposite. Basically, the system actually seems to kind of... sort of... work. No thanks on the revolution.

Kalium 9y ago
There's a strong argument to be made that the American Revolution was successful because it was actually a rebellion. Organized polities broke their ties, but largely preserved themselves and their leadership structures.
- williamscales 9y ago
  Wow, that's a striking point that never occurred to me before. Do you have any source that discusses this viewpoint in greater detail, perhaps with some comparisons to other revolutions?
Overtonwindow 9y ago
Today a revolution would be illegal. Not just illegal but even talk of a revolution, or openly espousing that the idea should be considered.
- williamscales 9y ago
  Well, the American Revolution was illegal at the time. And it was illegal to plan. So I think that just kind of comes with the territory of having a revolution.

mirimir 9y ago

Decades of organizing and advocacy against the US War on Drugs got medical marijuana legalized in 29 states, and recreational marijuana legalized in eight states plus DC. Psilocybe spp are legal nowhere in the US. Darknet markets have made all drugs available everywhere. Just sayin'.

ekianjo 9y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Federal government is still trying as much as possible to continue the War on Drugs no matter what the states' laws actually say.
- mirimir 9y ago
  True. But I haven't seen news about mass arrests of buyers after Silk Road got pwned. Not in the US, anyway. I mean, could the courts handle the volume?
- 5ilv3r 9y ago
  State lawmakers move on to federal lawmakers and generally appear to continue try to please their voters. By starting at the state level we have kicked the legs out from under the thing. It is falling.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    That's excellent, no doubt.

asdkjaskdjqi 9y ago

> the crisis of representational democracy, populism, ... Oh jeez what a travesty - the people getting what they want rather than a focus on "everyone but us first"! > xenophobia, the surveillance state, terrorism, ... Yes a reasonable fear of mass immigration from places that don't vet their refugees well enough isn't a legitimate concern and should be mixed in with an actual fear like the surveillance state. > last 40 years against dreaming up Utopias Venezuela is doing pretty good with their attempt at a utopia. > But I believe core values will be tolerance, > individual right Choose one. Sorry bud, I don't mean to be rough. But I'd love to see the world through your rose colored glasses.

maxerickson 9y ago
A good time to remember Mencken: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

logfromblammo 9y ago

As someone who has dipped into the libertarian infinity pool of crazy, and flopped right over the side into the freefall insanity of pragmatic anarchism, I am aware that most lasting societal changes have only been accomplished by creating rivers of blood--the Reign of Terror, the Soviet Revolution, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, etc. And I am also aware that the new boss is usually either the same as the old boss, or quite a lot worse. But nevertheless, after the reset, things often get better for a while--if you survived, that is--before they get worse again. So you can either screw yourself up to do some bloody murder against those whom you believe to really deserve it, and make a real change, for better or worse (usually worse), or you can parade around making some fake change that lets you feel better about yourselves, but probably won't do any real damage, such as a devastating nuclear winter, or another miserable dark age of terror, brutality, serfdom, and slavery. You can pick out your targets now, and wait for the right time to pull the trigger. Or you can make signs and sing Kum-Bai-Yah. But maybe there's another option, that has never been tried before. The usual problem is that the masters of the universe have no incentives whatsoever to change their own behavior or give up their own power. But there is a magical, mythical substance in the Illuminatus! trilogy called AUM. This was described as a drug that permanently changed someone from a neophobe into a neophile. It changed minds with one dose. So perhaps, like so many sci-fi speculations later found to have landed near the marks discovered by future science, a cocktail of known hallucinogens and entheogens might be employed to bestow an artificial chemical sense of compassion and empathy upon those who lack one of their own. In short, black-bag some elites, and shoot them up with a witches brew of MDMA, LSD, DXM, Datura, nicotine, cannabis, salvinorin-A, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, chemtrail distillate, et cetera (Poe's Law disclosure: the latter three were satire), and see if that can cure them of being selfish assholes. You flip the enemy to your side, and you gain power without killing anyone--or at least without producing dead bodies, as forcibly making permanent changes to someone's brain against their will could be construed as psychological murder. It's the same problem as eradicating any parasite. If you kill 99% of them, that just leaves the niche open for that remaining 1% to repopulate. So you capture some, sterilize them, and release them back into the wild. Those continue to compete among their own kind, and then die off without progeny, which crashes the whole population enough that it can now be controlled by other means. Just as the parasites subvert others to work for them, you subvert the self-interest of the parasites so that they destroy themselves.