[Gletkin]

YES!!
Guillotines are fun!!

[Stormsmith]

Hope I didn't lead you to think singling anyone out Lehman, but I think you know that.

Almost all of us are in the 99% club and most of us support it over the extreme right. I watched as droves of people expressed their opinion, and saw them being bullied, pepper sprayed, and arrested. Iirc, This economic melt-down and subsequent events started to unfold and unravel in Septemer, 2007. Three and half years later, no broker, banker, nor wanker has been treated so harshly.

What can be done that will have a positive effect with as little damage as possible?

[Stormsmith]

Del

[Smertios]

The monarchy still had a say...
They gave some influence to the parlament..

It was a dramatic change, yet it didn't break the monarchy. So this is rather much different than the French revolution, which rather suggests a total change.

You seem to believe that democracy and monarchy are incompatible, for some reason...

[J Oswald]

You seem to believe that democracy and monarchy are incompatible, for some reason...

And you seem to believe that the Glorious Revolution led to democracy in Great Britain.

You also seem to believe that what Donald once termed 'passive-aggressive emoticon spam' helps your arguments.

[FrenchFried]

It's "there" and not "their".

And I say no.
Society has evolved and hanging of bankers and church officials is savage and crude.
The United States need to stop being addicted to demagogy and to stop fearing socialism. The poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. Soon, there will be no more middle class and the famous "99% - 1%" will really be meaningful.

[Lexington]

It's "there" and not "their".

And I say no.
Society has evolved and hanging of bankers and church officials is savage and crude.

This.

Especially the there vs their thing, that really should be the most important issue in this thread.

[J Oswald]

Better a there/their error than a they're/their or they're/there error.

[Donna]

You also seem to believe that what Donald once termed 'passive-aggressive emoticon spam' helps your arguments.

I'm glad you found my analysis useful.

[Plaro]

Yes: But not to establish liberalism.

And socialism sucks.

[LehmanB]

What can be done that will have a positive effect with as little damage as possible?

That's a tough question..

I saw in Michael Moor's movie (not that I support him), that a black family refused to evacuate its home; for being late of paying its bills. Well, supporting such small events is a good way to start something.

Or perhaps- to do a research and publish the people who took the money Bush gave in 2008 to save the banks.. Just publish their names, demonstrate in front of their private homes.. Pull them out of the closet. Blame the thief and not only the one who let the thief to act. That’s exactly the social thinking - social responsibility by everyone- the small thieves should face public criticism as well. So far, only the government faced criticism for that- that is too big for people to capture, they need to see their neighbor who took their tax payment to himself, than they could support a bigger change.

To create organized groups, even if it will do nothing but publishing blogs, can make some change of mind to the public. Can map and revel some acute problems.
-In my country, though has many other problems- a right thing is that: there is a limit for donations to politicians. Means politicians mainly get the budget from the state, according to the votes they got the last elections, so it is limiting the influence of rich men on politicians. So they are obligated to their voters and not to the donators..

Anyway- just hunt the people… reveal minor decisions politicians made not for the public but for donators.. Show small things that were not right.. People tend to understand minor events and threw them connect to the bigger change that needed.

[Far-Right Sage]

No. The French Revolution heralded one of the opening stages of the decline of the West which began with the Enlightenment and reached its climax in 1945, everything following just festering as pure excrement.

As already stated though, such revolutionary goals would be self-defeating as these people have already ruined our nations and betrayed our original civilizational principles and values by instilling and propagating their filth within the framework of a collective societal mindset which most regrettably persists.

[Gletkin]

If I were generally "far-right" then similar to Plaro, I would still support the French Revolution.
The monarchy was decrepit and dragging the country to ruin. Plus, in their own way the monarchies were just as "cosmopolitan" as today's capitalists, seeking the world far and wide for fellow aristocrats to marry. Many a time complete foreigners ended up the ruling sovereigns.

Of course, I would support the more "conservative" factions against the more leftist factions such as the Jacobins, the "Hebertists" and the "enrages".
Napoleon I, who still called himself a "Son of the Revolution" even after coronating himself emperor, contributed more to France...to Europe even...than Louis XVI.

[The Immortal Goon]

Sure.

[Sephardi]

No. The French Revolution heralded one of the opening stages of the decline of the West which began with the Enlightenment and reached its climax in 1945, everything following just festering as pure excrement.

As already stated though, such revolutionary goals would be self-defeating as these people have already ruined our nations and betrayed our original civilizational principles and values by instilling and propagating their filth within the framework of a collective societal mindset which most regrettably persists.

Uh... what? You're saying that the Dark Ages was the height of the West then? The Enlightenment, which is the reason why you have freedom of speech, is somehow terrible? The Enlightenment took us back to the humanist principles of the Athenians. I don't know what your beef is but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in the Dark Ages.

And as for the "there" and "their" thing, it's an obvious mistake. I am a Facebook grammar nazi, but now I know how my victims feel.

[Beren]

Sure.

Have you read the OP? Do you really support the idea of the revolution of the petite bourgeoisie?

[The Immortal Goon]

Have you read the OP? Do you really support the idea of the revolution of the petite bourgeoisie?

The French Revolution started with a revolution by the haute bourgeoisie (such as they existed at the time) and the petty nobility in the form of the Feuillants. From there, the Sans Culottes pushed all the way until the Jacobins under Robespierre were the center (the petite bourgeoisie) and were closer than I think most people realized to making the Hebertists and Enreges a threat to coming into power. The latter were utopian, of course, and the possibility of them wielding power in the first place is suspect.

Nonetheless, if you're asking if we should start with a top-down revolution of the Jacobin character in the same style as revolution started in France, I see no reason to think that it couldn't be easily pushed further to the left; especially since the petite bourgeoisie have long since lost any relevancy as a revolutionary class in a post Corn-Law world.

[jihad4peace]

Should their be a "French" style revolution in the US?

Yes, and doesn't matter which particular style is used. If, all else fail, the remaining free Americans should welcome Iran and encourage it to support anti-goverment rebels and hopefully Iran can invade the US (with Russia and China) in order to bring "regime change". Is Iran allowed to look after it's interest?

[Beren]

Nonetheless, if you're asking if we should start with a top-down revolution of the Jacobin character in the same style as revolution started in France, I see no reason to think that it couldn't be easily pushed further to the left; especially since the petite bourgeoisie have long since lost any relevancy as a revolutionary class in a post Corn-Law world.

Don't you think this is somewhat like if the Communists had considered to support Hitler (mostly supported by the petite bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat (and the most reactionary elements of the haute bourgeoisie)) to overthrow the Weimar Republic (by a coup or a revolution) and push it further to the left then? Do you think it would have been a good idea?

[Smertios]

I haven't had much time lately, but I'll reply to this, anyway...

Do you actually know what the Glorious Revolution was?

I'm not sure he does. Let's give him a hint: it's about a William and a Mary, and not a university in Virginia.

Admittedly, the shift in houses marked a transition to a more Parliament-centered rule to be sure, but Great Britain in no sense became a democracy

And you seem to believe that the Glorious Revolution led to democracy in Great Britain.

The four of you ignore a very important detail there: the meaning of democracy has changed with time. Modern democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the original concept of Greek democracy, except for the basic principle. And it certainly evolved a lot since the rise of the "modern" concept of liberal democracy. Democracy, as it is understood today, involves a series of civil rights and isonomia principles that weren't there at first. Women, for example, didn't get the right to vote until up into the 20th century, in most of the world. Yet most of those countries were already considered liberal democracies. Suffrage, in early liberal days, was never understood as needing to be universal in order to configure a democracy. With that in mind, we have to consider what exactly was understood as "democracy", for early liberal thinkers. And democracy is normally understood as the power of the 'people'. The people there, taken on context, is a synonym for 'commons', 'commoners' or 'bourgeoisie', that is, people who were not royals, nobles or clergymen.

I'll even go a bit far now, because most people will probably not agree with this, but 'democratic', taken into the same context, referring to the same time period, was also synonymous with 'liberal' or 'constitutional'. When we refer to a 'constitutional monarchy', for example, we are talking about a monarchy that is democratic, unlike an ábsolute monarchy'. And yes, nowadays those three words are not synonyms, anymore. The way we understand it now, a democracy doesn't need to be liberal or constitutional. But the point remains that, when talking about the liberal revolutions, 'becoming a democracy' meant having the poer shift from the aristocratic nobility to the liberal bourgeoisie.

With that said, we need to get back into context here. The Parliament of England had been 'quasi-democratic' since the 13th century, when the House of Commons started being elected by means of popular vote. The real issue there was whether the House of Commons was powerful or simply an advisory council. And it was the latter up to the Glorious Revolution, when the power started shifting from the monarch towards the parliament. It was from that point that Britain made the transition from absolutism to liberalism. And that itself wasn't even the beginning of the entire process. Legislation was already starting in the parliament since a few centuries before that. And it certainly wasn't when the monarch's power dropped to becoming merely ceremonial. After the Revolution, legislation would always start and end in the Parliament. The last time a bill was vetoed by the Crown, for example, was in 1707.

Making this transition, the actual power started taking into consideration the opinions of elected officials, representing the common people. Starting then, it would be quite complicated for a king to defy the Commons on his own. Heck, the last monarch to enter the House of Commons was Charles I.

This argument you guys are using is the same kind of argument people use when they start claiming that the French Revolution was socialist, and that the conservatives won, because Napoleon ended in the throne. The revolution (actually, neither of them) was not about that at all. It was about the commons/commoners/people/bourgeois/third estate rebelling against the Ancient Regime and establishing a liberal democracy in its place. Certainly, it was quite chaotic up to the rise of Napoleon as Emperor. Certainly, a lot of people died unfairly. But the main purpose of the entire revolution ended up coming true. The First French Empire was a liberal, constitutional and democratic (as I said, these three are synonymous with each other) monarchy. The Parliament was elected, and the power was shared between the executive and the legislative. Case closed.

You also seem to believe that what Donald once termed 'passive-aggressive emoticon spam' helps your arguments.

Straw man and an ad-hom (kind of)... For some reason, you seem to believe that me being used to using many smileys since I was little has anything to do with my argument

Like I said the last time someone accused me of this, if you believe I'm breaking a rule (there are rules against spamming - which I'm not breaking) by using more smileys than what would make you happy, the proper way to deal with it would be to make a thread in the basement complaining. Ad-homs are not tolerable in respectable debates....