Last month, we posted, “When, the revolution?” It included these comments:
Since both parties are criminal, I’m beginning to wonder — dare I say it — whether this nation is headed for revolution. I sure hope not, but with the President and the entire Congress being owned by the .1%, for whom does one vote?
The people don’t understand what’s happening — they are brainwashed with debt-cutting lies — especially since the media and economists also are owned by the rich.
The people pinned their hopes and dreams on Obama, but the greed of the “Deporter in Chief” and “Captain Austerity” bested him. He sold his soul for a Presidential Library, lucrative speaking engagements for his wife and him, and big jobs for his daughters.
As for the people, frustrated and feeling there is nowhere to turn, the people may lash out. They lack only a charismatic leader — an empathetic, Rooseveltian figure — to give them voice and strength.
To many readers, this seemed unthinkable. Yes, the United States was formed on revolution. And yes, the civil war was a revolution. So yes, revolution is in our history. But really? Revolution in modern America?
Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary
Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.
Less educated, right-wingers are the strongest believers, “revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties.” This is the group that has been most affected by debt reduction (austerity), though I suspect (without evidence) this ironically also is the group that most favors austerity.
With this same group — the less educated, right-wingers — probably being the most ardent gun owners (again, no proof), I suspect all they lack is that charismatic leader to send them on murderous street rampages.
These are America’s angry. They are angry at foreign-born, legally here or not. They are angry at gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, people who have more money than they do, people they consider “freeloaders.”
They are angry at “people who want to take our guns away” (the guns the Tea Party calls “sacred.”) They are angry at the government and the courts, and especially are angry at the very rich.
They are angry at what they perceive to be an unfair world, in which some powerful groups wrongly receive advantages at the expense of good people.
Yes, it could happen here. WILL it happen here? We all should pray not. We don’t want an America filled with crazed nuts, exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to kill their neighbors.
The operative word is: “Unnecessary”. Affluent people don’t begin armed resurrections. America has too much unnecessary poverty; too much unnecessary hardship caused by unnecessary austerity and augmented by latent bigotry.
The .1% have bribed the politicians, the media and the mainstream schools of economics to support poverty-causing, wealth-gap widening austerity, and to these super-rich — to the Petersons, the Kochs et al — I say, “Be careful what you wish.” “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
Remember: The privileged were early to the guillotine, but ultimately, no one was safe.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
The most important problems in economics involve:
- Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
- Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
- Eliminate FICA
- Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
- Social Security for all
- Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
- Salary for attending school
- Eliminate federal taxes on business
- Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
- Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
- Federal ownership of all banks
- Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
18 thoughts on “–One poll: What America believes about the likelihood of revolution”
Well, I for one am a highly educated left leaning individual, who wholeheartedly believes the system being rigged and corrupted almost beyond repair might only be changed by revolutionary actions. When any semblance of the rule of law pertains only to the least advantaged members of society what becomes the alternative? Persons are being criminally prosecuted and incarcerated for what amounts to failure to pay very minor debts while the criminogenic FIRE sector are not and will not be prosecuted for fraudulent activities that amount to 100’s of billions of dollars stolen and which are destroying the economy of this nation; activities that can be construed as treasonous, what alternatives remain? When individuals of color are being incarcerated in numbers previously unheard of, what alternative remains? The vote! Not when it is required that you sell yourself to the highest bidder in order to procure the campaign funding necessary to finance a run for office. Not when the Supreme Court, the branch of government charged with ensuring that the rule of law will prevail is occupied by extremist lap dogs of the 0.01%. Not when our executive branch and cabinet members are nothing more than shills for the multinational corporations, the FIRE sector and the corrupt military/industrial sector. Not when the desires and wishes of the majority of the citizenry are not given even the slightest consideration during the creation of government policy both foreign and domestic. There exists few other alternatives. It is certainly time for the citizenry to wake up. Can this happen? Or will this nation’s citizens remain America the Timid? Time is certainly running out.
I wonder how much suffering it would take for a revolution to occur. Maybe the next decade will answer that question. Obama will continue to fail, and there might be even more unemployed Americans in 2016 than there were in 2008. Hillary’s a deficit hawk, so she’ll continue Obama’s policies and unemployment will stay high. At some point, the unemployed will revolt.
Of course, what keeps Americans from revolting is the election of a new president. If Hillary loses reelection, there likely will not be a revolution.
A United States citizen must have no moral conscience, no sense of justice, no compassion for the innocent and dispossessed. These are the worst kind of Americans; yet, they are the only ones who can succeed in the present environment. Yet these very type of individuals are glorified. Those who advocate globalization, so-called free trade and the free-market, small government and the like are the most hypocritical amongst us. Libertarians who argue that regulation of their insatiable greed and destructive ideologies is the cause of our economic woes, neo-liberal policy makers and others of their ilk reside in a fantasy world were disconnect between members of society will result in a more just society. They should and must be eliminated from any and all discussion directed at creating a society where justice and the rule of law take precedent over unbridled profit. Cooperating with the current system by voting for hand picked hacks will change absolutely nothing. Change will only occur in this nation from the bottom up. It is dubious to suggest that our timid citizenry, presently, has the desire or wherewithall without a charismatic leader; as you state.
no, rodger, it could NOT happen here–even with these so-called right-wing nuts, who, for the most part, are white supremacists. why not? 2 reasons. first, unlike in the french revolution, the nuts here NEVER, EVER go after the powerful–the people who cause the problems in the first place. they always go after the powerless, partially, i believe, b/c they are being subtly directed to do so by agents of the .1%.
second, though you and others in the blogosphere make sometimes vague, sometimes not so vague references to the french revolution, you all seem to forget what happened after the people stormed the Bastille and guillotined the king and queen et al.
the european elite went into a frenzy and attacked france from all sides and with their combined pressure caused the rebellion to crumble from within. out of the power vacuum, one napoleon bonaparte came to power and what did he do? he started another imperial line! so, after all that upheaval, after all that death and destruction, france ended up exactly where they started from, with yet another bloodthirsty tyrant!!
well, even in the highly unlikely scenario that a united armed rebellion, the same will happen here, b/c the US government is armed to the teeth with weapons we probably haven’t even heard of and can easily put down any revolt. what good is a pistol against an machine gun? what good is a semi-automatic against a tank? or a drone? what good is a bazooka against a SCUD missile? or all of the above vs. sarin gas? do you honestly believe the US military is not ready for this fight?
all this blather you hear about revolution is coming from people who are powerless, but are trying desperately to hold on to (and put out to the public) the illusion that they are somehow more powerful than the US government, the same government that has bombed and is bombing as we speak whole countries into the ground.
 Yuu Kim, I agree with everything you say, but I also think that change is possible. (I said possible, not probable.) Sometimes changes happen stealthily, such that lies vanish like a headache you suddenly realize is gone. Lies and delusions are fads. Different fads have different lifespans, and it’s not possible to pinpoint exactly when and where they begin and end. Currently we are being crushed by austerity mania.
You have good reason to be cynical, but I think we should avoid becoming so pessimistic that we lose our ability to dream of a better tomorrow. Such dreaming is not the same as wandering in delusion.Rodger dreams of a better tomottow, and I admire him for it.
 TO ALL READERS
I started a blog yesterday titled, “austerity-is-genocide” as an excuse to display humorous images that satirize austerity, and expose the facts. Sometimes humor can be more persuasive than facts and logic.
No one will understand the blog unless they understand Monetary Sovereignty.
I will continue to comment here on Rodger’s blog, but only in direct response to items posted here.
Generalized observations will be posted over there in my own blog .
Please drop by. The anti-austerity images might amuse you.
“…rodger dreams of a better tomorrow and i admire him for that…”
i admire him for that, too. as i’ve said on a few occasions, thanks to one of his readers, “beowulf”, this was the first site i managed to find that dealt with the truth of the monetary system. the info he presented was mindblowing to me and, though, it took a month or 2, i eventually got it. and from here, i discovered all the other MMT sites, so i’m eternally grateful to rodger for writing this blog.
nonetheless, that doesn’t mean i agree with every single thing he says (never met anyone with whom i did), though i do agree with most.
and though i might appear to be cynical or pessimistic, i consider myself a realist. i think that most people out there who are calling for change are either (dangerously) clueless (like #OCCUPY) or delusional and don’t quite appreciate whom and what they are really up against–like, for example, those out in the blogosphere talking about a possible “revolution.”
Revolutions take many forms.
An armed revolution would not be impossible, but highly unlikely, and surely a disaster.
The revolution America desperately needs is a new Supreme Court. This right-dominated court, which favors the .1% at every turn, can claim the fundamental responsibility for political domination by the rich.
If the Court voted to prohibit campaign contributions exceeding a certain minimal size (I’d go for $10), whether individually or as part of a group, the entire political world would change.
The Court could use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as justification. To quote Wikipedia, ” . . the clause has been interpreted as imposing a general restraint on the government’s power to discriminate against people based on their membership in certain classes,
America is divided into classes by wealth, and allowing the wealthy an advantage in political “speech” clearly is a violation.
A change in the Supreme Court. Now, that’s a revolution I could live with.
Never said it would be successful. Just said it could happen.
At the moment, one of the most salient points we hear from gun rights advocates is that the real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of the people to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical (I won’t discuss the fallacy of this argument here, only making an observation). However, even if one should accept the validity of this belief prima facie, then another problem emerges…
“Does it make sense to speak of an individual right to arms in the context of a right of revolution, which must be a collective act of mass resistance if it is not to devolve into an expression of anarcho-terrorism?” – Jack N. Rakove
So should there be a Revolution, the most important question to ask is will it be a “collective act of mass resistance” or will it just devolve into random acts of anarcho-terrorism?
If it were to be a collective act of mass resistance, it could succeed only provided it was non-violent in nature (e.g., civil disobedience, general strikes, etc.). Of course, the authorities would likely respond to the situation with violence (witness the Civil Rights movement) but the resistance movement would have to refrain from responding in kind.
However, given the rhetoric surrounding the 2nd amendment debate and the history of this country thus far, the chances of any Revolution remaining non-violent are not too good and, given the overwhelming military advantage of the US government, the ultimate outcome of any armed struggle is not too hard to predict (despite the wet dream fantasies of many gun fanatics).
So a likely scenario for such a revolution is a period of anarchy followed by the imposition of some sort of autocratic system as the general population tired of the situation and clamored for the restoration of order through whatever means necessary (and any semblance of democracy be damned).
Another problem is that the US is too large, geographically speaking, and the population too diverse, politically speaking, to sustain any type of coherent revolutionary movement. One likely outcome would be that country breaks up into a smaller number of politically distinct (and sovereign) regions.
All you say is correct. The notion of a revolution against the federal government is nuts, but then, isn’t that what gun nuts are?
Those creeps, organizing, marching and dressing like soldiers in the Oregon hills, get their hots from pretending to fight the U.S. Army.
The whole thing begins with the intentional misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and goes downhill from there.
The fact that the idea is stupid, will not stop stupid people from trying it. There are lots of Timothy McVeighs and Terry Nichols out there.
I suggest you re-read the bill of rights.
Right to life and right to defend it. It’s not a misinterpretation, it’s written in ink. Common sense says you can defend yourself from anyone with a gun, but you cannot without it.
The folks for gun control have been asking for more and more control and it’s never enough. Massachusetts should be proof enough, just about the only state with a spike in gun murders exactly after they instituted a gun ban.
Is that misinterpretation mr mitchell?
Does the 2nd amendment really say that (i.e., “the right to life and right to defend it”)? Wow! All this time I must have been reading the wrong copy. How did that happen?
I may just be included in the ‘less’ educated, right wing side. Although i’m neither.
But anyway, how do we know that the less educated are the most right wing? I could not tell that, not from the data presented.
I will suggest that more or less education has nothing to do with it. There are other considerations. For instance i know MMTers that also recieved graduate degrees from my alma matter, yet, i’m as libertarian as could be.
But i dont see how education has much to do with it, for a second grader can, tell you nothing in life is free.. that second grader can prove with basic math that more currency does not equal more wealth.
Let’s open our littles eyes to reality…
What you wrote is so…so…what is the word…LAME!
“…for a second grader can, tell you nothing in life is free.. that second grader can prove with basic math that more currency does not equal more wealth.”
A second grader can barely begin to think logically and would certainly equate more money with being rich.
Piaget’s Stages of Development:
2. Preoperational stage: from ages two years to seven (magical thinking predominates; motor skills are acquired). Egocentrism begins strongly and then weakens. Children cannot conserve or use logical thinking.
3. Concrete operational stage: from ages seven to eleven (children begin to think logically but are very concrete in their thinking). Children can now conserve and think logically but only with practical aids. They are no longer egocentric.
Of course education is not the only ingredient, but it certainly has a lot to do with it.
To those talking about a person versus the government as it relates to gun control, it has nothing to do with that. It’s the opposite, the government will have a harder time murdering people at will. It won’t stop them, but will slow them some. Let me also remind you that the US army is made up of americans.
Anyway, my right to defend my life is and should be my right, it’s not for any of you to make that decision. If you want to put your life at the mercy of a cop that will show up in 30 minutes, go ahead, it’s your life.
Of course, don’t forget that when that cop shows up you will have to shoot it out with him or her as well as they belong to the tyrannical government and are only there to oppress you! So your best recourse is to not call the cops at all and take care of it yourself, just like the good old days in the Wild, Wild West!
Americans are in contradictory position on gun control and right to self defense with gun.The American individualism has already took the tool to collective resistance with gun. Only collective non violent resistance is available weapon for civil right defense.