Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the US, Japan, Canada, Europe and other more advance nations....yes.

You agree?

Mind explaining what you find the "Revolution" to be so I can decide if I agree or not?

No, people simply have to be united behind the idea and willing to sacrifice everything to win as in the case of the French and Russian Revolutions.

Originally posted by chithappens
Mind explaining what you find the "Revolution" to be so I can decide if I agree or not?

Wiki will help

I was uncertain because I'm trying to understanding what the revolt would be based on

I feel it would take something immensely huge (i.e. American soil under attack, Elvis' grave destroyed, etc.) for people of an advanced nation to rally with each other, mainly due to the fact that most of them are fine with their posh little lifestyle.

My point exactly. Revolution is a bold word. Certain movements, maybe

A revolution involving the overthrow of one's government would require the backing of a large majority of the population in order for it to be successful. This is shown to be true in all successful revolutions such as the French, Russian, and American Revolutions.

Machiavellian principles are in place. It will never happen

First of all, revolution is a broad term and does not neccesarily mean a government coup or overthrow. It could be as little as rallying people to fix a little thing -after all revolution doesnt have to involve violence.

Since I assume the question implies a coup though...I do think it is quite possible. In fact, under certain circumstances, very possible. It would be definately much harder in the US or somthing because we are generally fine with are lives -and too lazy to do anything- but on the other hand, mass media and telecommunications would allow a very large audience to be brought in. If there was a sufficient enough reason, revolutino could occur it would just take a lot of people and a general refusal of military to fight back. Depends really.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
First of all, revolution is a broad term and does not neccesarily mean a government coup or overthrow. It could be as little as rallying people to fix a little thing -after all revolution doesnt have to involve violence.



Which is why I asked what he meant because it was not really clear. But I don't see it happening at all. People never feel as if anything affects them anymore. Media has a big affect on this

I can only speak for where I live, England, and I believe that, as unhappy people may get and for whatever reason, I cannot see revolution happening in the near future.

No, of course it is not doomed to fail.

We have not come to, as Giddens refered to it ''end of history''. Our political and economic systems WILL change in the future.

No it is not doomed, it just happens slowly I think.

Eventually the situation will reach a point where the need of a revolution will become clearer. I mean, people have to suffer to know that a revolution is needed and perhaps someday the situation gets to a point where the suffering will cause the revolution.

For this reason I think corruption cannot go on forever. Corruption leads to suffering, and suffering leads to revolution.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
No it is not doomed, it just happens slowly I think.

Eventually the situation will reach a point where the need of a revolution will become clearer. I mean, people have to suffer to know that a revolution is needed and perhaps someday the situation gets to a point where the suffering will cause the revolution.

For this reason I think corruption cannot go on forever. Corruption leads to suffering, and suffering leads to revolution.

But it will never happen in modern times and now (talking federal change of government) on because of media. The images people believe are crazy as hell and most people only know of their own little circle in the place they grew up in. Those who can do something are easily hushed by those of power and those who have power and could do something are comfortable.

Movements, possible. Revolution, no.

Originally posted by chithappens
But it will never happen in modern times and now (talking federal change of government) on because of media. The images people believe are crazy as hell and most people only know of their own little circle in the place they grew up in. Those who can do something are easily hushed by those of power and those who have power and could do something are comfortable.

Movements, possible. Revolution, no.

Well I was not considering the media, so perhaps you are right.

It is easier to manipulate people today because of the media, but that is also because people are too comfortable in their positions too. If people start to feel the pain in their skin I think the media will start to lose its power. The Catholic church also worked in the medieval times like the media does today, but it lost its power in the end.

Anyway there is big problems I think, and now with the globalization it means a lot more people are conditioned to believe in the same images others do. Globalization creates a common way of thinking shared by many around the world, so if a revolution has to fight agaisnt this common way of thinking.... it will be a challenge.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Well I was not considering the media, so perhaps you are right.

It is easier to manipulate people today because of the media, but that is also because people are too comfortable in their positions too. If people start to feel the pain in their skin I think the media will start to lose its power. The Catholic church also worked in the medieval times like the media does today, but it lost its power in the end.

Anyway there is big problems I think, and now with the globalization it means a lot more people are conditioned to believe in the same images others do. Globalization creates a common way of thinking shared by many around the world, so if a revolution has to fight agaisnt this common way of thinking.... it will be a challenge.

I left out globalization but that could play a role in keeping the status quo.

People do not give a damn as a whole until they feel they have something to lose. With race also being a factor, so many people can not even see they have the same problems because of race. They fight amongst themselves instead of the core of the issues. Silly distractions.

I can see a Revolution in our lifetime. Thing's have to really start degrading first though. Americans may not like the government's stance on Foreign Policy, but its certainly not something millions of people are willing to risk death for.

Honestly, I see any Revolution based on immigration. Say 50 years from now, declining birthrates in the West, massive amounts of immigrants retaining their own culture, it's gonna get some people pissed eventually.

I think there might be a major "revolutionary" movement sometime in the near future, and it will be a major thing -something that will probably go much deeper than politics or government. It might not be violent, but it will be a big change somewhere, or everywhere -and its outcome is going to determine a lot more about lifestlye and who is right and wrong by the virtue of who wins...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, of course it is not doomed to fail.

We have not come to, as Giddens refered to it ''end of history''. Our political and economic systems WILL change in the future.

I always thought Fukuyama explained it better. But yes their views are incorrect and, at least Fukuyama is, sometimes plain wrong.

If people are happy with their lives they will not easily start a revolution. But how long will people in modern western countries remain happy with their lives? What if the last steps in Maslow's hierarchy of needs grow beyond the reach of our modern countries?

In those cases I see revolution as a possibility.

You mean Futurama, I am quite the fan as well.

Does anyone else feel that sociology, psychology, politics and all other commonly referred to as "unreal sciences" students don't have a thought of their own?


Just kidding, I love you Fire....not anyone else though....****ing not real sciences.

Is that what Math students tell themselves to feel better about their own? Everyone hates you, you know that, right?

Originally posted by Eis
Is that what Math students tell themselves to feel better about their own? Everyone hates you, you know that, right?

And you know we are just hated because we are superior....we wouldn't want it any other way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you know we are just hated because we are superior....we wouldn't want it any other way.
Hahaha shut up nerd. You are one too, you know that, right?

Originally posted by Eis
Hahaha shut up nerd. You are one too, you know that, right?

A nerd? Yes, I knew that.

Revolution is inevitable in any society... Sooner or later the bottom drops out.

In the USA I doubt it if that would happen.The Goverment aready has too much control over us for that to happen.And I doubt it if anyone has the guts to take over the goverment anyway.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
In the USA I doubt it if that would happen.The Goverment aready has too much control over us for that to happen.And I doubt it if anyone has the guts to take over the goverment anyway.jm

It is not the U.S. government having "too much control" and no one having the guts to do so.

Revolutions happen when people are united and have a common cause. Everyone in this country regardless of race, gender, and so on are getting ****ed over in similar fashions but they do not notice it because of the disconnection and preconceived notions that come out this era of media which makes manipulation soooooooooooo easy. People are already stupid as it is.

A common cause is the biggest obstacle but it is highly unlikely in any modern society. 9/11 happened when I was 13 and I knew something was wrong from day one when BOTH of the towers fell straight down because I was concerned that the towers would fall over on so much other stuff. Didn't happen - that was not feasible by a petroleum fire that can melt the frames of the buildings to begin with. But everything is a conspiracy until the majority thinks otherwise, or, more accurately, the media says it is true.

This is the problem and it would take a horrible mismanagement of politics for our generation or following ones to start a revolution. We sure as hell do nothing other than say how stupid everyone is. We watch them. Laugh at em. But we do nothing to enlighten them. We must help them not necessarily for a revolution but because they need to be informed. I mean look at Starhawk! Do we want a bunch of Starhawk juniors running around?

Originally posted by Eis
You mean Futurama, I am quite the fan as well.

No I meant Fukuyama. Ever heard of Francis Fukuyama? He wrote The End of History and the Last Man

Now about Futurama I always liked The Simpsons more.

Originally posted by Fire
No I meant Fukuyama. Ever heard of Francis Fukuyama? He wrote The End of History and the Last Man

Now about Futurama I always liked The Simpsons more.

HAHAHA, oh great shit.

No but I can't see it happening that is all I am saying.jm

Originally posted by Fire


If people are happy with their lives they will not easily start a revolution. But how long will people in modern western countries remain happy with their lives? What if the last steps in Maslow's hierarchy of needs grow beyond the reach of our modern countries?

In those cases I see revolution as a possibility.

I think he refer to a certain section of the class people been happy. Meaning that all revolutions usually start because of class differences. Now a classless society...would be interesting to see them revolt.

Originally posted by Fire
No I meant Fukuyama. Ever heard of Francis Fukuyama? He wrote The End of History and the Last Man

Now about Futurama I always liked The Simpsons more.

Both are good shows!jm

A revolution that will overthrow the government? Sure why not, all you would need is a government that is hated enough. Can't be that hard to reach. Besides there might actually be a revolution in Turkey soon, and they are definitely a modern nation.

Besides that, I don't know. In most modern western country's people are having immigration problems. That might be a good enough reason for people to actually start doing something, or at least for far more right winged governments to get into power. Which could in turn lead to a growing unrest among the "new" inhabitants of the country...

So yeah I do think a coup could happen.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I think he refer to a certain section of the class people been happy. Meaning that all revolutions usually start because of class differences. Now a classless society...would be interesting to see them revolt.

too bad we all know the classless society is an illusion.

Except for the Amish....

Originally posted by Fire
No I meant Fukuyama. Ever heard of Francis Fukuyama? He wrote The End of History and the Last Man

Now about Futurama I always liked The Simpsons more. No taste alert! oh

Originally posted by Fire
too bad we all know the classless society is an illusion.

What kind of classless society are you talking about?

I would imagine that, sooner or later (probably much later), as more and more wealth is accumulated by the Haves and Have-Mores (especially if it's at the expense of Those-Who-Don't-Worship-$$$), at some point Those-Who-Don't-Worship will say, Enough! and demand some kind of change.

But again, I don't see this happening in our lifetime.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would imagine that, sooner or later (probably much later), as more and more wealth is accumulated by the Haves and Have-Mores (especially if it's at the expense of Those-Who-Don't-Worship-$$$), at some point Those-Who-Don't-Worship will say, Enough! and demand some kind of change.

But again, I don't see this happening in our lifetime.

There are none that do not worship money, they are just pretending to, so they can steal the money of those that earned it.

It's not the lower classes that are used....it's quite the opposite in our societies.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would imagine that, sooner or later (probably much later), as more and more wealth is accumulated by the Haves and Have-Mores (especially if it's at the expense of Those-Who-Don't-Worship-$$$), at some point Those-Who-Don't-Worship will say, Enough! and demand some kind of change.

But again, I don't see this happening in our lifetime.

If they don't worship money they won't say it anyway...

Besides in most western society's today the rich pay a lot for the poor.

It's not the poor I'm worried about; they do get a lot of assistance. It's the middle-class that's getting squeezed.

I don't worship it. Never did, never will.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's not the poor I'm worried about; they do get a lot of assistance. It's the middle-class that's getting squeezed.

I don't worship it. Never did, never will.

How so?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How so? Take college, for example. All else being equal, the less money you make, the more likely you will qualify for financial aid. And of course, if you're quite rich, money is not a problem. But the middle class is in that gray area: not poor enough to get aid (substantial aid, anyway); not rich enough to pay for college without breaking the bank or burying oneself in loans.

Originally posted by Mindship
Take college, for example. All else being equal, the less money you make, the more likely you will qualify for financial aid. And of course, if you're quite rich, money is not a problem. But the middle class is in that gray area: not poor enough to get aid (substantial aid, anyway); not rich enough to pay for college without breaking the bank or burying oneself in loans.

Hmm, I can follow this one. Got another exampe?

whats an exampe?

Originally posted by Bardock42


It's not the lower classes that are used....it's quite the opposite in our societies.

WTF is this talking about?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I can follow this one. Got another exampe?
The other major financial expense would be housing. Here in NYC, a 2 bedrm apt can cost $200,000 - $500,000, depending on location...and I'm not talking Manhattan, either. A moderately sized house on Long Island (say, about a 1 hour commute away from Manhattan) can cost at least half a million (the market doesn't fluctuate much here in NY).

I know a young professional couple (late 20s) looking for a home. Their combined salary is maybe $120,000 tops (that is Not a lot of $$$ for living in NYC), and they can't afford a mortgage at current rates.

Maybe it's different elsewhere, but NYC (and as far as I can tell, other major cities as well) is rapidly becoming a place only the rich can afford to live comfortably in.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whats an exampe?
Right.

Originally posted by chithappens
WTF is this talking about?

You followed the Kyoto thread, didn't you?

Originally posted by Mindship
The other major financial expense would be housing. Here in NYC, a 2 bedrm apt can cost $200,000 - $500,000, depending on location...and I'm not talking Manhattan, either. A moderately sized house on Long Island (say, about a 1 hour commute away from Manhattan) can cost at least half a million (the market doesn't fluctuate much here in NY).

I know a young professional couple (late 20s) looking for a home. Their combined salary is maybe $120,000 tops (that is Not a lot of $$$ for living in NYC), and they can't afford a mortgage at current rates.

Maybe it's different elsewhere, but NYC (and as far as I can tell, other major cities as well) is rapidly becoming a place only the rich can afford to live comfortably in. How would you propose to change that though?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would you propose to change that though?
Man, if I knew that, I'd probably have a Nobel Prize for economics on my mantle...and I don't even have a mantle.

I have nothing against people loving money, per se. But all too often, it seems, the money-worshippers use their wealth to "sculpt" their environment so that only those with wealth can partake in what should be available to anyone willing to carry their own weight in a society, even if it's just making enough to pay bills, set up a retirement fund (so as not to be a burden on others later in life) and enjoy a sunset.

I worship money....I'm a Capitalist Pig.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I worship money....I'm a Capitalist Pig.
Wouldn't that be Capitalist Dwarf?

Originally posted by Mindship
It's not the poor I'm worried about; they do get a lot of assistance. It's the middle-class that's getting squeezed.


Interesting: you are the first to mention that in this thread. And it's very true of course. In a democracy the middle class is generally considered the class that supports the system. Interested and educated enough to form the rank and file of most organizations, both political and civic.
+ a large enough group to matter.

Originally posted by Mindship
Take college, for example. All else being equal, the less money you make, the more likely you will qualify for financial aid. And of course, if you're quite rich, money is not a problem. But the middle class is in that gray area: not poor enough to get aid (substantial aid, anyway); not rich enough to pay for college without breaking the bank or burying oneself in loans.

Now what you explained is true in some developed countries but not in every developed country. Seeing as there are western countries who do not have this problem with education, I think you can change your education system without having a revolution.

But in the end what is a revolution and what is just a change?

Originally posted by Fire
Now what you explained is true in some developed countries but not in every developed country. Seeing as there are western countries who do not have this problem with education. I hope that is true (for now I will take your word for it), though taking a devil's advocate stance, I could say, "But in those other countries, the quality of education may not be as good--hey, you get what you pay for." Then again, I would be the last to argue that everything America does is always the best way of doing something.

But in the end what is a revolution and what is just a change? When I think of revolution, I tend to picture gunfire, violence, looting and general mayhem. I don't think that necessarily has to be the case, especially in modern, developed countries. In the US, revolution--perhaps 'evolution' would be a better word?--might succeed only if the middle class exercised its political and economic might in a truly unified manner...though, again, I can't see anything like this happening within the next 50-100 years. I suspect Madison Avenue is far too crafty at brainwashing the masses to let that occur any sooner.