The Revolutions of Today Compared to Revolutions of the Past

I wonder what kind of reaction Americans would have had to the events of the 1770's here in what became the United States of America.
The wealthy planters of Virginia and the wealthy merchants and bankers of New England managed to put together a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution which justified and enabled the colonies of England here in America to successfully separate themselves from the motherland.  But...woman could not vote.  Blacks were still considered property in the southern half of the new nation.  The wealthy and landed elite set up an electoral system that empowered themselves.

Now, two hundred and thirty one years after our Declaration, how far have we really come down the path of democracy. The Declaration stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Power from the Consent of the Governed..."

I ask myself where is this "equality" to which the signers of the Declaration were referring.  Has their ever been economic equality in the U. S. of A.?

I think of the words of Abraham Lincoln in the immortal address given at Gettysburg...where he said, "the Government of the People, by the People and for the People shall not perish from this Earth." 

I ask myself has this nation ever, in its two hundred and thirty year history, ever truly had a government OF, BY, and FOR all the people who are citizens of the U. S. of A.?

How many Americans can deny that this nation is ruled and has always been ruled by the wealthy elite, a Plutocracy, a Corporate Oligarchy?

And finally I ask what are the objections by allegedly well-meaning Americans to nations where they really do have governments of, by and for the people.

The Revolutions in Cuba, and the Bolivarian Revolutions of Venezuela and many of the Latin American nations are based upon principles that are  antithetical to everything that the U. S. of A. represents to the world, today. 

It seems to be very difficult for Americans to recognize that, like FDR, when a great champion of the people becomes the leader of a nation,  those people want to keep that person as the leader.  It seems that Americans prefer to deify the corporate gods and their worship of the almighty dollar...as the leaders who will keep them in the luxury they believe they are immersed in..

Somehow, I think too many Americans are very deluded.   

Right now our government is a government of the people by the corporations for the corporations.  The era between the New Deal and Ronald Reagan set populist reforms in momentum.  The oligarchs pushed back and pushed back hard.  The goal of the corporate Right is to roll the country back to 1900.  They are failing.  The McKinley era robber barons would have tried this government for treason.  What would they say about the Chinese and the Arabs owning our ports and controlling our banks?  None of it would make sense to Carnegie, Vanderbilt, or Rockafeller because none of it does make sense.

The next Democratic presidential campaign must embrace class as an issue.  It's not just the laborer and the lower middle class hacks who are getting screwed, it's also your average businessman, lawyer, doctor, and upper middle class professional who is going to take it in the shorts.  It's us against them.  We are 95% of the population they are 5% tops.  You don't have a country to call your own if your country is ten trillion dollars in debt and owned by foreign investors.  People are catching on.  The more I listen, the more I hear the right-wingers (old school righties, not Newt Dealers) talk aobut Ron Paul this and Ron Paul that.  I'm not a Ron Paul fan personally, but I would rather see people supporting Paul than Romney or Giuliani.

Anyway, where to start?  We need lobbying reform and campaign finance reform before anything else.

One wa

The Declaration stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Power from the Consent of the Governed..."

I ask myself where is this "equality" to which the signers of the Declaration were referring.  Has their ever been economic equality in the U. S. of A.?


You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. 

If I continue to make that same mistake with the "Equality" part of the French Revolutionary slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" in a political philosophy, I'm forced to acknowledge that it's like asking for "Good, Fast, Cheap" in an automobile: an engineering constraint of "...choose any two".

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. 


A rallying cry of the anti-welfare state, anti-affirmative action crowd.  It sounds cogent, but it rings empty.

In America we do not have equality of opportunity.  The ruling class in this country--that handful of families trying to kill the estate tax--is more terrified of equality of opportunity than equality of outcome.  They know damn well that human attributes are inherently unequal on an individual basis, and they know damn well that they are not the fastest and the smartest just because they have giant trust funds.  If the Bush Brothers had to start on the same mark as everybody else, they'd be eating dust as right from the starting gate.

::)

A rallying cry of the anti-welfare state, anti-affirmative action crowd.  It sounds cogent, but it rings empty.

In America we do not have equality of opportunity.
::)




Ditto that, I speak from experience

I think of the words of Abraham Lincoln in the immortal address given at Gettysburg...where he said, "the Government of the People, by the People and for the People shall not perish from this Earth." 

Or, as someone not a million miles from the computer I'm sitting at now wrote:
Well, so much for democracy
Look at what it's become:
Government of the stupid
By the bozos, for the dumb

I'm not sure there is anywhere that has true equality of opportunity: powerful elites always use their power ensuring they stay the elite.  They're not always very good at it, but they do try.

Right now our government is a government of the people by the corporations for the corporations.  The era between the New Deal and Ronald Reagan set populist reforms in momentum.  The oligarchs pushed back and pushed back hard.  The goal of the corporate Right is to roll the country back to 1900.  They are failing.  The McKinley era robber barons would have tried this government for treason.  What would they say about the Chinese and the Arabs owning our ports and controlling our banks?  None of it would make sense to Carnegie, Vanderbilt, or Rockafeller because none of it does make sense.

The next Democratic presidential campaign must embrace class as an issue.  It's not just the laborer and the lower middle class hacks who are getting screwed, it's also your average businessman, lawyer, doctor, and upper middle class professional who is going to take it in the shorts.  It's us against them.  We are 95% of the population they are 5% tops.  You don't have a country to call your own if your country is ten trillion dollars in debt and owned by foreign investors.  People are catching on.  The more I listen, the more I hear the right-wingers (old school righties, not Newt Dealers) talk aobut Ron Paul this and Ron Paul that.  I'm not a Ron Paul fan personally, but I would rather see people supporting Paul than Romney or Giuliani.

Anyway, where to start?  We need lobbying reform and campaign finance reform before anything else.

One wa


Max...I have not read any other reponses...yet...but I was very interested in yours...and, as usual, you didn't fail me...you "hear me" and for that...I thank you.  Now...let's see what others have to say. ;)
peace...Lee

Or, as someone not a million miles from the computer I'm sitting at now wrote:
I'm not sure there is anywhere that has true equality of opportunity: powerful elites always use their power ensuring they stay the elite.  They're not always very good at it, but they do try.


That's why Max was right in saying that CLASS has to be an issue.  But, of course we are taught that we are a classless society.  Which is why the upper upper upper class in wining the class war.

I'll put it this way.  There is certainly more equality and opportunity here than in Cuba and Venezuela.

If you're looking for a country where equality and opportunity are optimized, then check out Norway.  As far as larger, multicultural societies go, America isn't so bad.  Granted, I do favor Canada over us.

I'll put it this way.  There is certainly more equality and opportunity here than in Cuba and Venezuela.

If you're looking for a country where equality and opportunity are optimized, then check out Norway.  As far as larger, multicultural societies go, America isn't so bad.  Granted, I do favor Canada over us.


Noam Chomsky, in a book of his that I read some years ago, said that the American society is controlled by 2% to 3% of the population, (the rich) who hold the vast percentage of the wealth of the nation.  He goes on to suggest that if the "people"...(the other 97%...the real poor) knew what power they had...the society would change drastically.

The difference between Cuba or Venezuela or Evo Morales' Bolivia or Savatore Allende's Chile or Cheddy Jagan's Guyana or Michael Manly's Jamaica AND The U S of A of GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan (and all the other presidential guardians of the "rich" who always saw to it that their are some visable crumbs for the rest of the population)...is that Castro and Chavez, et al,  are fomenting their revolutions from the bottom up...which is the only way that the vast majority of people can benefit from these economic revolutions.

peace...Lee

Noam Chomsky, in a book of his that I read some years ago, said that the American society is controlled by 2% to 3% of the population, (the rich) who hold the vast percentage of the wealth of the nation.   He goes on to suggest that if the "people"...(the other 97%...the real poor) knew what power they had...the society would change drastically.

The difference between Cuba or Venezuela or Evo Morales' Bolivia or Savatore Allende's Chile or Cheddy Jagan's Guyana or Michael Manly's Jamaica AND The U S of A of GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan (and all the other presidential guardians of the "rich" who always saw to it that their are some visable crumbs for the rest of the population)...is that Castro and Chavez, et al,  are fomenting their revolutions from the bottom up...which is the only way that the vast majority of people can benefit from these economic revolutions.

peace...Lee


I often mention that I think America puts too much trust in corporations and the rich.  Then again, I also believe that countries like Cuba and Venezuela put too much trust in the government.  No matter what intentions Chavez has, you cannot deny that his method of government involves a massive amount of powergrabbing.  He's been suspending numerous limits to his power under the guise of democracy.

Maybe it will eventually be revealed that he will follow through with his stated goals, but I'm far too cynical to believe that someone with his power will remain virtuous.  This is mostly because, if he does actually accomplish what he says he wants to, it will be one of the only times in human history where a leader with his power actually promotes equality.

In short, as much as I distrust corporations and realize that wealth disparity is bad in this country, I'd much rather trust a system with our checks and balances over a leader who is becoming more and more like a dictator.

I often mention that I think America puts too much trust in corporations and the rich.  Then again, I also believe that countries like Cuba and Venezuela put too much trust in the government.  No matter what intentions Chavez has, you cannot deny that his method of government involves a massive amount of powergrabbing.  He's been suspending numerous limits to his power under the guise of democracy.

Maybe it will eventually be revealed that he will follow through with his stated goals, but I'm far too cynical to believe that someone with his power will remain virtuous.  This is mostly because, if he does actually accomplish what he says he wants to, it will be one of the only times in human history where a leader with his power actually promotes equality.

In short, as much as I distrust corporations and realize that wealth disparity is bad in this country, I'd much rather trust a system with our checks and balances over a leader who is becoming more and more like a dictator.


Hey Mac...I'll put my money on Hugo Chavez' sincerity and his dedication to the principles he espouses.  Incidentally, most of the leaders who attempted to use their power to promote "equality" in their societies were either successful, as in the cases of Fidel Castro in Cuba, and Mao Tse Sung in China, for example.  But with the American Imperialist/Capitalist plutocratic Oligarchy constantly applying its very elaborate tools of interference...ie the CIA, military interventionism on a global scale wherever American corporate interests are concerned, massive media control which includes the entertainment media which has always served to propagandize the so-called virtues of the "American way" versus the horrors of any system which even hints of Socialism and Marxism. 

Hey Mac...I'll put my money on Hugo Chavez' sincerity and his dedication to the principles he espouses.  Incidentally, most of the leaders who attempted to use their power to promote "equality" in their societies were either successful, as in the cases of Fidel Castro in Cuba, and Mao Tse Sung in China, for example.  But with the American Imperialist/Capitalist plutocratic Oligarchy constantly applying its very elaborate tools of interference...ie the CIA, military interventionism on a global scale wherever American corporate interests are concerned, massive media control which includes the entertainment media which has always served to propagandize the so-called virtues of the "American way" versus the horrors of any system which even hints of Socialism and Marxism. 


Dude...  Did you just support Chairman Mao?  Look, you can defend Castro's intentions and even some of his methods, but you really can't defend a guy who is responsible for more deaths than Hitler.  Chairman Mao was not a man who supported equality, unless you mean that he didn't care if millions of his people were equally dead.

Again, I'm not denying that much of America's meddling in the world is evil and unnecessary, but we're still WAY better than China in both economics and human rights.

At least, Venezuela is comparable to America, but don't even start with China.

Dude...  Did you just support Chairman Mao?  Look, you can defend Castro's intentions and even some of his methods, but you really can't defend a guy who is responsible for more deaths than Hitler.  Chairman Mao was not a man who supported equality, unless you mean that he didn't care if millions of his people were equally dead.

Again, I'm not denying that much of America's meddling in the world is evil and unnecessary, but we're still WAY better than China in both economics and human rights.

At least, Venezuela is comparable to America, but don't even start with China.


China, before Mao gained power, was a huge treasure chest that was being picked apart by the Euro/American Imperialists and rewarding the rich Chinese warlords.  What Mao did was  kick these Imperialists out of China, crush the warlords,  and set up an autocratic and harsh neo-socialist dictatorship, which  treated almost all the people of China more or less as equals.  The effect of Maoist philosophy was to treat the peasants of China as full citizens of the nation...eliminating a class society in favor of a classless society where everyone was poor...equaLLY POOR!

Venezuela is not comparable to America...In Venezuela, the RICH do not run the economy and practice political imperialism in any sort of Venezuelan Empire.  The American Empire, however, has produced a massive corrupt bureaucratic mechanism for fostering American imperialism throughout the world...while the rich elites in this country scatter the crumbs of the phony prosperity that they would like the world and most important the people of America to believe exists in America. 

China, before Mao gained power, was a huge treasure chest that was being picked apart by the Euro/American Imperialists and rewarding the rich Chinese warlords.  What Mao did was  kick these Imperialists out of China, crush the warlords,  and set up an autocratic and harsh neo-socialist dictatorship, which  treated almost all the people of China more or less as equals.   The effect of Maoist philosophy was to treat the peasants of China as full citizens of the nation...eliminating a class society in favor of a classless society where everyone was poor...equaLLY POOR!
Oh...  still, that is being kind of facetious then.  I thought you were defending him.  I'm assuming we can agree that making a nation equally poor is a really bad thing.

Venezuela is not comparable to America...In Venezuela, the RICH do not run the economy and practice political imperialism in any sort of Venezuelan Empire.  The American Empire, however, has produced a massive corrupt bureaucratic mechanism for fostering American imperialism throughout the world...while the rich elites in this country scatter the crumbs of the phony prosperity that they would like the world and most important the people of America to believe exists in America.   


It's not phony prosperity, but I would agree that we have a major problem of the consolidation of wealth in this country.  The rich do wield too much power over our government.  Still, I'd much rather live in a country like this where my own standard of living is considerablly higher than it would be living in a country with more equality but an overall lower standard of living like Venezuela.

The saddest attribute of the thinking of the naive American is that everything is measured in monetary value!  We have more etc etc etc ......than all those other countries...especially those socialist/commie ones!  Right!  :\'( 

I believe that People's values that recognize the importance of social welfare programs are far more important than people who brag about the availability of all kinds of wonderful THINGS. 

The saddest attribute of the thinking of the naive American is that everything is measured in monetary value!   We have more etc etc etc ......than all those other countries...especially those socialist/commie ones!  Right!  :\'( 

I believe that People's values that recognize the importance of social welfare programs are far more important than people who brag about the availability of all kinds of wonderful THINGS.   


Why not both then?  Countries like Germany are still materialistic, but they have bigger social safety nets.  Canada is the same.  You don't have to go all the way into true socialism to have decent socialized programs.

I think consumerism is a good thing at moderate levels because of the resulting consumption that keeps the economy going.  I realize that America goes way overboard on this, but one thing we can be proud of is that we are still the world's largest First World nation.  There is no other country our size that has an economic quality of life as good as ours.

Maybe it's materialistic to see things that way, but personally, I put clean drinking water high on my list of things that I value.