Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Thoughts on a second American Revolution

  1. Sep 30, 2005 #1
    Why i think this IS possible:

    The polarization of classes in this country has become an increasingly large issue; http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pove...04/pov04hi.html [Broken] poverty was 12.7% in 2004, i dont have 2005 figures. So it is evident that the middle class is disappearing, which will inherently leave us with the upper class and the lower class, with a dwindling bourgeoisie in the middle-i stress dwindling. So you have the rich being defended by corporate interests, who would probably have unwavering support for the government, regardless of what it did; and you have the lower classes who are aware of (or should be) their rights, and increasingly aware that they are being stripped from them. Why this is significant is that unity in this country is frail, if existant at all.

    There are the American intellectuals who understand what is happening, who tend to be more enlightened that your average non-scrutinizing fanatic. They are fully aware of rights, fully aware they are being taken for false purposes, such as "security" "to protect freedom" etc.

    "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
    benjamin franklin

    It somewhat take an intellectual to listen to an intellectual though, so dont think that noam chomsky will be leading the fight; but they may provide inspiration to middlemen in the chain of enlightenment of government wrongdoing.

    The writs of the forefathers:
    i recently printed out the constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence. To anyone who still has the ability to think for themselves, read them all but try not to think about anything when you do. Afterwords, think about the current state of the union, and make your conclusions. the forefathers knew the dangers of organized government.

    "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 powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    We are all aware of Waco, New Orleans rights encroachment, and to me it seems there is a general disproportion of power between government and people. Right now i feel things are very bad, but not enough to spark the flame of revolution.

    Why? Because even during the first revolution there were people who stood to lose a lot, perhaps everything. People who might support it would be political radicals, disenfranchised seniors who never got reitrement, intellectuals, etc.

    Lets say a government had 3 leaders and a population of 5 citizens. If the 5 citizens decide their rights are gone they might settle for revolution. Lets say 2 of the 3 leaders dont do anything to stop it, but the 5 citizens fail- it is treason. Lets say all 3 leaders are apposed-treason. But if the 3 leaders fall, it is legal, because they are now the government. Those arent the best odds, because treason is death and that isnt very appealing.

    Who i dont think will fight, are people of the youth. Proof perhaps in the responses i have yet to get from this post...i feel most people my age see the fruits of being good citizens, of enjoying the country, and they are also the most bombarded by propoganda of any age group in previous history imo.

    Other reasons for revolt would include the departure from the gold standard and collapse of the dollar (iran is pushing to use the euro in trade), more large scale government folly (whether on purpose or made to look so), excessive loss of rights, foreign encroachment and governments inability to defend domestic soil, etc.

    A potential chain of events: either way if a revolution happened i suspect it would have something to do with the next election.
    1. Terrorist attack
    2. Terrorist attack 2
    3. A finalizing event that would stipulate the issuance of marhshal law/SOE near or during 2008 election
    4. Bush voted to stay in office for sake of national stability
    5. more violations that make it blatently obvious that the usa was taken over by the bush regime

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Fix your link

    The argument is very flimsy to say the least and this has been discussed in 1 way or 200 others already.
  4. Sep 30, 2005 #3
    1. We are not on the gold standard
    2. The govt. has not reached a point where a revolution is necessary. There is still a possibility of reversing the trend through intellectual means rather than a violent revolution.
    3. The day the govt. reaches near the point of a dictatorship, revolution will be necessary.
  5. Sep 30, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah... its POSSIBLE... but it is inconceivable for anyone to think that the state of affairs in the US now even can try to compare to the years leading up to the Revolution. It's like when people compare Bush to Hitler. Sorry, I don't see Bush murdering 5 million people in concentration camps and any secret police going around jailing people by the thousands.

    Very unininformed comparisons being made.
  6. Oct 1, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't see much possibility of a revolution. In fact, I would tend to see more unity and stability in the future.

    A lot of the political turmoil in the country is because of the belief that the US can't help but be number one economically, militarily, and socially. As the gap between the US and the rest of world narrows, I would expect a little more sanity in the US. Competition tends to focus people fairly well when success or failure has a big effect on their lifestyles.
  7. Oct 1, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Are you saying that pretty soon 87% of the population will be wealthy? :confused:
  8. Oct 1, 2005 #7
    Now, I don't necessarily think Bush is THAT similar to Hitler, but this has to be said so you'll stop calling people who make such comparisons uninformed.

    When I say "Life is like a box of chocolates," I don't mean that life is made of the sweetened extract of a South American tree. I don't mean that you can go down to the local grocery store and buy "life." I mean that in both cases, you never know just what you'll get. In other words, the two aren't identical, but they are similar in some ways.

    Likewise, when someone says "Bush is like Hitler," they don't usually mean that the two are identical. They mean that Bush and Hitler share important characteristics.
  9. Oct 1, 2005 #8
    I don't see how a roughly .3% increase in the poverty rate leads you to conclude that the Middle Class is disappearing. I mean, things like this obviously fluctuate with the strength of the economy. So what makes you think that this isn't just a fluctuation, but the beginning of a long-term, significant increase in poverty rate?
  10. Oct 1, 2005 #9
    We are not on the gold standard, i think i said this quite clearly...ive heard a veteran economist say that this was the biggest mistake this country has made economically.

    I made no comparisons approaching that of a hitler/bush type, the ones i made were informed and relevant-if not state why you think so.

    I am willing to entertain the possibility that this country collapses in a sense and that the resultant, non-dominant usa, could become strengthened by a goal of having a strong economy and not always a growing one. Definately possible. However, how would a populous remain orderly when food and water become scarce, who would most likely be blaming the government?

    87% will not become wealthy, i dont know how you arrived at that conclusion. The wealthy elite may or may not grow, but the significance is that their power will grow with every single person who becomes impoverished by definition. The elite control what is on the media, they control (in general) what is available to buy, and they have strong governmental influences. The poor are merely subject to this system, the only way they can "fight back" is to join the elite somehow, or take down the system.


    Labor is being outsourced, illegal immigration is taking its tax on the american workforce, and the national debt is virtually unpayable. Already china has gotten the prognosis of being the number 1 economy by 2010.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  11. Oct 1, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That isn't a common opinion among economists. The ironic thing is that with the US dollar no longer backed by gold, other countries currencies are backed by the US dollar! The dollar is the "gold standard" (maybe we could call it the "dollar standard") for most of the rest of the countries of the world.

    The fact that other countries/organizations are considering switching to a "Euro standard" is not due to a weakening dollar, it's due to the emergence of a competitor (the Euro) that is as strong, and in some ways better suited for the task. The Euro was created to facilitate trade, but as a byproduct it is a currency that has a high total value and is diversified (since its value based on the economies of many countries). That makes it a good currency to use as a backing for other currencies.
    Possible, but not desirable. Also, self contradictory: an economy that is not always growing is not a strong economy. Growth itself is a critical component of economic strength.
    That was a joke. The conclusion you drew did not follow logically from the data you posted: With poverty at 13% and no middle class, the entire rest of the population would have to be in the upper class.

    The reality is that poverty fluctuates with the economic cycle (as someone else mentioned), but it hasn't bottomed out yet. And it certainly isn't in a measurable long-term upward trend.
    I don't consider that a source of concern. So what if they have a bigger economy?
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  12. Oct 1, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To preempt some of the responses I can expect to this....
    ...let me elaborate:

    Halfway down THIS page is a graph of poverty rates for the past 35 years or so. The fluctuations are evident, as is the fact that poverty is a lagging economic indicator. This is because gdp growth determines hiring/firing: hiring picks up after gdp growth bottoms out and starts rising again, then after unemployment drops, poverty follows. 2000 was the year the economy imploded and the recession was at the end of 2000 and into 2001. Poverty looks like it may be leveling out now, but it really is too early to tell.

    The previous recession was 1990-91, but similarly, poverty kept rising until '93.
  13. Oct 1, 2005 #12
    I didnt say it was a common opinion, i dont know what any common opinions are, the economists i know are raving idiots-but im not trying to generalize. It was said in 1975, but its pertinence shows now i think.

    The acceptance of the Euro is not a good thing for the usa though, i could see Iran being a target for future war if they do indeed adopt it.

    Given the fact that some countries are based upon a "dollar standard" its easy to deduce that this is a world economy. i think significant focus should be redirected towards infrastructure and not constant drives for super high economic growth. Indeed an economy must progress, but one that doesnt take the time to backfill its problem areas is one that slowly saws off its legs- and something like that will fall eventually.

    its like jenga, you start off with a solid figure, then you take out pieces and you grow, but eventually you realize your block is full of holes. In reality, the block should grow up, and fill in its gaps (domestic economic issues) at least in some proportion to one another. A disproportionate effort is on maximizing growth.

    I wouldnt worry about china being number one, but the government would. I think the Cold War was based on fairly similar situations.

    Looking strictly at the numbers, i agree it isnt easy to say that poverty is this or it is that- but it is real, and the numbers for the bourgeoisie are quantitative and scary.
  14. Oct 8, 2005 #13
    I don't mean to take this discussion off track, Russ, but I really want to investigate further the point you make here and wanted to ask your opinion and some references to read on this: what effects would a change to a 'Euro standard' potentially have on the US economy and/or the global economy?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook