171–180 of 184 posts
To everyone saying the petition is useless: It's a good start. If enough people sign, it will force the administration to answer the petition. Even if it doesn't push the administration to give a positive answer, it can help fuel more protests and actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
European socialism owes more to the threat of Stalinism than we like to admit; western governments were forced into improving conditions for their working classes mostly by the threat of civil unrest, while leftist parties and unions benefited enormously from their soviet connections - both in motivational and economic terms. As soon as the USSR disappeared, now-unchecked European elites promptly started renegotiatin…
European socialism owes more to the threat of Stalinism than we like to admit; western governments were forced into improving conditions for their working classes mostly by the threat of civil unrest With respect I completely disagree with this - the reforms to working conditions and the state of our societies in Europe which have happened since Engels wrote 'The conditions of the working classes in England' or Marx…
The only country where you can try and talk of a continuous peaceful development is post-Cromwell Britain, which is why this country is still, in many ways, the less socialist of the lot (and getting less so by the day, I could add). Still, the influence of Soviet ideals was so strong even in this land, that there was stuff like the Cambridge Five, something that today is completely unconceivable.
Violent revolutions are not always necessary, but they can (and did) provide inspiration for wider movements.
I don't mean to be cynical, but a mere petition is just the tip of the iceberg. This is a government agency that is commiting widespread breach of privacy. A petition will not be respected. It's an OK start, but it will be essentially meaningless. If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace. The ease of an action corresponds to what…
It looks like it takes extremely high effort to achieve anything worthwhile: look at what the labor and civil rights movements had to endure, for instance.
But, there are plenty of examples of other change that was achieved at lower cost. The environmental movement, for instance, generally did not face levels of institutional rejection and physical violence that labor and civil rights did. Why? Because they had a message that a broad swath of Americans could believe in. Regardless of party, ideology, or race, no one wants their kids to get sick from pollution.
So, the first steps in activism should be the easiest steps. They might work! And if they don't, having tried them creates the moral authority for more aggressive tactics.
Movements that jump straight to civic unrest are typically rejected by the broader American culture. Most people highly value law and order, and are only willing to tolerate departures when they think it's absolutely necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest everyone get a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and read it. It's a fun read, and is a really good basic outline for how to dismantle a tyrannical regime from the ground up.
How to dismantle a tyrannical regime if you have the support of an omnipresent computer system they trust with absolutely everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all fairness, the Occupy movement didn't have direction, leaders, an agreed set of goals.. - in short any of the things needed to turn that energy into change . There were things here and there that many seemed to agree on - but it was not nearly focused enough to matter. I think if it were accompanied by any kind of violent protests, the people in general would have completely turned on it - and without legitimat…
This is not true. There were plenty of things that were university desired from the Occupy movement (e.g. bankers in jail). But since it was purely peaceful it was ignored, sniped and smeared until it finally unraveled. The same thing would have happened to Gandhi and MLK Jr. had it not been for violent groups working at the same time.
Im playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but I think followers of Civil rights movements, with relative ease, would be able to answer similar questions. I sympathize with the energy behind the Occupy movement, but like most people I'm not sure what to do about it - who or what to support, and how to act. And that, imho, is why the Occupy movement fizzled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but let us give them the chance to ignore yet another petition and truly prove to us that we as citizens have little say in the status quo in the government that is supposed to represent all its people. More fuel for the fire couldn't hurt eh? Besides it's summer time…
How many more times do they need to prove this to us? "Well, I know he punched me in the face, kicked me in the balls and raped my girlfriend in front of me but I'm still not convinced he wants trouble".
This seems like a bit much. Why not a petition not to prosecute him, or not to extradite him? A blanket free-ride for any and all crimes just won't ever happen. What if he murdered several people along the way, let's say they weren't government employees or involved in PRISM at all, does that mean he should be pardoned for that? The language on this petition needs serious work to get real support, or to have a reason…
"Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs. " If Edward Snowden murdered people that were not government employees or involved in PRISM, then that plainly would not be crimes related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance progr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many more times do they need to prove this to us? "Well, I know he punched me in the face, kicked me in the balls and raped my girlfriend in front of me but I'm still not convinced he wants trouble".
I don't know, but is it better than just getting up and leaving, since that doesn't really address the reach of the issues that confront the world today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true. There were plenty of things that were university desired from the Occupy movement (e.g. bankers in jail). But since it was purely peaceful it was ignored, sniped and smeared until it finally unraveled. The same thing would have happened to Gandhi and MLK Jr. had it not been for violent groups working at the same time.
I understand, but "bankers in jail" is hardly focused, specific, or practically implementable. Which bankers - on what charges? And under what precedent? Did they want new laws set? If so, was there an agreed upon Bill or at least a roadmap to support? I casually followed the movement, and other than 'overturn Citizens United', did not find myself able to glean from the protests such information. Likely there were ma…
Occupy needed to remain peaceful, no doubt about it. But without a large alternative group that wasn't afraid to use violence, Occupy was always going to be marginalized away. They had coherent messages. You and most people don't know them because they were bottled up, discredited and shut down. Exactly what will happen to any peaceful movement.
Personally, I think there's still time for a peaceful alternative though: we all need to start getting directly involved in politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is foolish. Non-violent protest is how the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. forced better law, Gandhi did the same and freed India from the British empire. And today we're much more networked and able to communicate directly, P2P, without the media or government as message passer. Our system works remarkably well, considering how poorly it works ;) Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- th…
I think non-violent protests only work when the state (or entity you are protesting against) is forced to negotiate. By that I mean all these non violent protests occured at a time during violent protests. Martin Luther King Jnr was given negotiating power because the State preferred a non violent entity over the black panthers and other militaristic groups. If there is no threat of repercussion, why would any entity…
In some cases, just following the rules to the letter can be annoying enough to make the powers that be change things.
But yes, having some real threat as a backup has tremendous benefits. 'Nice government you have here; it would be a pity of something happened to it' works better of you have that.