European revolution - in our time or not?

[Schadenfroh]

The situation in the UK is not political in nature. It might have started that way, but now people just see it as a way to take what they want from "the man" by raiding stores in a collective flash mob. The looters must be stopped.

It is obvious that the EU either needs to end the Euro (or limit it to worthy countries) or increase the political strength of the union over member states. The citizens of select countries do not realize that the money is not there for the welfare state that they want. If they want it to continue in a gimped form, they must accept the catches that come with the bailouts.

For the bailouts, the EU is forcing political change, increasing its political power over members. We might finally have the rebirth of a modern day equivalent of the Roman Republic to unite most of Europe once again, with Germany emerging as the leader. But, the question is, will it be worth it for Germany to bailout all of the countries that have cannibalized themselves even if it means they will head such a strong political entity?

 

[William Gaatjes]

I think the two are inseparable. If you look at the ethnic and class composition of the people rioting, it's mostly the disenchanted and disenfranchised youth. They don't really have a long-term political agenda - it's 'stick it to the Man' and 'I want that cellphone for free'. They don't hold jobs, and are civilized enough to wear brand clothes (if they can afford them), but not enough to integrate into the European society.

Who does that leave us with? The ethnic minorities and the bottom of the ingenious population. The first one is the result of failed integration policies, while the second is deadweight formed as the result of generous social policies.

The key issues. Social policies are not bad, but they have one weakness as you clearly pointed out. Social policies reward bad behavior. And that is something a social policy should be adjusted for. And that is not easy because other views in society need to change first as well. For example in the US this would also mean that for example there should be a proper sexual education to prevent teen pregnancies and teen moms. If a young girl or woman needs to bring up a child, she cannot perform work or get an education. And usually the father is not around. Also having sex without relation should be discouraged. Is it not for diseases that will not show until decades after, it is for having the right mentality towards loved ones. A spiritual connection is the key. Only after, sex becomes important.

As a society, people need to look out for each other. And there lies the crux of the problem.

A situation should be created in such a way that a mentality arises that when you have to earn your living and that you can be proud. And not earning money is a sign of disgrace. Even social policies should only be granted when people have performed work. "Arbeit" is the key.
To do this, sometimes artificial work has to be created. This means that in the short term there is less profit because of more expenses. But in the long term the profit shows. How, that may people think of for themselves. But you can look at recent history.

Cleaning for example is an honorable profession. Why ?
No life-form on this planet can be found that does not keep it's environment clean( on it's own or in symbiosis with other life forms). Only the sick (also mentally) and unhealthy pollute their own local environment. Thus only the healthy clean. Yet most people find it a disgrace to clean up. Makes one think does it not ?

 

[Macamus Prime]

Very few will riot and revolt. Humanity is already a slave to those who have money. I call to your attention the Citigroup memo; and their notion of dangling a carrot in from of everyone's nose.

http://www.dailypaul.com/128283/citigroup-internal-memo-leaked-us-no-longer-a-democracy

When things get heated, they will dangle a few more carrots. And people will chase them.

And, there will be population control. And, you will fall in line. Very few will "rebel".

Until we figure out space travel and planet colonianization.

 

[soulcougher73]

Guillotines eh? How do those fair against the most advanced, well funded military in the world?

You do realize the military is middle/lower class right? They would not take up arms against their own to defend rich people or politicians.

 

[WelshBloke]

You do realize the military is middle/lower class right? They would not take up arms against their own to defend rich people or politicians.

I bet they would.

You deploy troops from one area of the US to one far removed, you do it in limited instances to start with and you heavily control the information that gets fed to the troops.

You deploy the troops in a defensive situation to protect property and wait for some hotheads in the public to attack them, I guarantee that troops will fire back if under attack.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a European Revolution happen soon, if it's not already happening with the British Protests. I think that after the Arab Spring, we have the European Summer/Autumn, and maybe then we'll have an American Winter/Spring.

I think that the European protests would need to be especially watched since it could very well have a genocidal component to it. Racial tensions in Europe are very high, unemployment among the youth is high, and unpopular austerity measures are being imposed onto the people. The situation is ripe for mass protests, but hopefully the governments will restrain themselves, unlike some of the Arab governments.

 

[randomrogue]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a European Revolution happen soon, if it's not already happening with the British Protests. I think that after the Arab Spring, we have the European Summer/Autumn, and maybe then we'll have an American Winter/Spring.

I think that the European protests would need to be especially watched since it could very well have a genocidal component to it. Racial tensions in Europe are very high, unemployment among the youth is high, and unpopular austerity measures are being imposed onto the people. The situation is ripe for mass protests, but hopefully the governments will restrain themselves, unlike some of the Arab governments.

Maybe I missed something but how are you getting to these conclusions? I read about the UK riots and see some hooligans causing a ruckus. I don't see anything political about it at all. They aren't even asking for something are they? This is not even remotely like the Arab Spring.

 

[MotF Bane]

Maybe I missed something but how are you getting to these conclusions? I read about the UK riots and see some hooligans causing a ruckus. I don't see anything political about it at all. They aren't even asking for something are they? This is not even remotely like the Arab Spring.

He's a known troll, it's even announced that he's a troll in the "londons burning" thread.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Maybe I missed something but how are you getting to these conclusions? I read about the UK riots and see some hooligans causing a ruckus. I don't see anything political about it at all. They aren't even asking for something are they? This is not even remotely like the Arab Spring.

In my opinion, it's very similar to the Arab Spring. Youth dissatisfaction in the current political order is the cause of the protests, not just 'hooligans causing a ruckus.' I mean, sure, maybe some are there just to cause a ruckus, but you don't get days and days of protests and civil unrest just to cause a ruckus or to have fun. It's a result of the youth expressing their unhappiness with the political system.

Even in Egypt, the high rate of youth unemployment was cited as one of the main factors for the civil unrest. This same issue is being cited by people, even the former mayor of London.

I'm not sure what the youth sentiment is like in the US, and the US is a big and spread out country with lower population density, so maybe something as widespread as what we've seen in the Arab world and in the UK will be less likely to happen, but it's still a possibility.

Honestly, to say that people are protesting for days and days just because they're a bunch of hooligans is such a simplistic and, frankly, arrogant way of putting it.

 

[randomrogue]

Pretty sure you're just making that up.

 

[CanOWorms]

Pretty sure you're just making that up.

lol

 

[RabidMongoose]

Making what up? What I think will happen is just my opinion, just like you have your opinion. However, high rates of youth unemployment is not being made up, and that being one of the main reasons being cited for the civil unrest in places like Egypt is not being made up.

 

[MotF Bane]

Pretty sure you're just making that up.

Whatever he said, the safe bet is it is made up.

 

[Nebor]

You do realize the military is middle/lower class right? They would not take up arms against their own to defend rich people or politicians.

The military realizes what side their bread is buttered on. On top of that the military tends to favor civil order as opposed to rioting chaos.

 

[PricklyPete]

Someone posted some numbers the other day, I cant find em. Sorry mate.

But it makes sense. Social mobility is much easier in Europe. Threre's a lot of support, good public schools, cheap University etc.

If you're born poor in America you're kinda fucked. Where are you gonna get 100k for collage?

UHC and things like that make a difference too. Even if you're poor, getting sick doesnt ruin you.

I find these statements funny. I work for a German company with many international employees and nearly all of them jump at the chance to work out of our US offices, get a visa, maybe a green card, and ultimately a US citizenship. They do this for the possibilities that the US affords.

When I just finished up college, there were two French foreign exchange students that lived with a family I knew. Both were very nice and one in particular I spent a lot of time talking with (I had a thing for her). She was a graduate student and mentioned over and over again how many French from our shared generation felt very stifled by the country they lived in. So many social restrictions (labor laws, etc.) that kept people from excelling. Granted that is just one person from France's opinion nearly 10 years ago...but it stuck with me.

I in no way do I dislike Europe. In fact there is a very high likelihood I will be moving there in the next 2 years (Switzerland or Austria...crossing fingers). That being said, the grass is always greener. There are a lot of great things about various European countries and the services they provide their citizens...and there is a lot to like about the US and the opportunities it provides. I would never give up my US citizenship.

 

[randomrogue]

The grass is always greener. I'm convinced of that at least. The best thing you can have is dual citizenship.

 

[Yreka]

In my opinion, it's very similar to the Arab Spring. Youth dissatisfaction in the current political order is the cause of the protests, not just 'hooligans causing a ruckus.' I mean, sure, maybe some are there just to cause a ruckus, but you don't get days and days of protests and civil unrest just to cause a ruckus or to have fun. It's a result of the youth expressing their unhappiness with the political system.

Even in Egypt, the high rate of youth unemployment was cited as one of the main factors for the civil unrest. This same issue is being cited by people, even the former mayor of London.

It's exactly hooligans causing a ruckus.. You think these shits would be out there if there were no electronics, clothes, bling shops to rob ? They aren't out there stealing bread and water to feed their families. They aren't out there because the Royal Family ordered Parliament to go around and throw all the poor people into the streets. They live in a first world country with a first world social safety net.. Completely different than the "Arab Spring protesters".

"high rate of youth unemployment" may be a cause in both cases, but its irrelevant. On one hand, no job potentially means homelesness, lack of food, basic necessities. On the other, it means you might have to settle for a government provided old school flip phone instead of a smartphone, and a 32" TV instead of the 50+. worlds smallest violin etc...

 

[PingviN]

It's a case of a twisted Robin Hood-mentality where these punks consider themselves entitled to the same level of luxury as those with a job. They don't steal food, they steal flatscreen TVs, liquor and gold. Where Robin Hood stole food and gold to give to those in real need, these kids steal and fend only for themselves.

They should be shot.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's exactly hooligans causing a ruckus.. You think these shits would be out there if there were no electronics, clothes, bling shops to rob ? They aren't out there stealing bread and water to feed their families. They aren't out there because the Royal Family ordered Parliament to go around and throw all the poor people into the streets. They live in a first world country with a first world social safety net.. Completely different than the "Arab Spring protesters".

"high rate of youth unemployment" may be a cause in both cases, but its irrelevant. On one hand, no job potentially means homelesness, lack of food, basic necessities. On the other, it means you might have to settle for a government provided old school flip phone instead of a smartphone, and a 32" TV instead of the 50+. worlds smallest violin etc...

This is just too simplistic, that people are protesting for days on end just because they're hooligans. There are real concerns, IMO. People don't protest this long and so spread out just because they're a bunch of hooligans. That might happen in response to a sports game or something frivolous. If it's so widespread, then it's in response to a more fundamental issue.

A lot of people in the US said similar things in response to the 'looting' after Hurricane Katrina. That people there were hooligans because they were 'looting' non-essential items. Their actions were just a response to their environment. Perhaps you disagree with them and think that they should be quiet and accept the current social order, but they don't necessarily have to.

 

[Yreka]

This is just too simplistic, that people are protesting for days on end just because they're hooligans. There are real concerns, IMO. People don't protest this long and so spread out just because they're a bunch of hooligans. That might happen in response to a sports game or something frivolous. If it's so widespread, then it's in response to a more fundamental issue.

There is a huge difference between protesting and stealing.

The "protest" ended Saturday night.. What has gone on since, has been stealing.

It really can be this simple.. The people have been "protesting" for days, because there is still shit to steal. The fundamental issue here seems to be they want nice shit, and cant afford it so they are using this as an excuse to pillage and generally act like an asshole.

What about me? I want nice shit too.. My family has 2 cars, am I entitled to a 3rd and a boat because that's what "rich" people have ? Would you support 3000 middle class people throwing a temper tantrum and stealing luxury cars because they were tired of driving compacts ?

The people in London live in one of the most opportune areas in the world when it comes to upward mobility. Compared to the people "protesting" in the middle east, these people are the equivalent to a child throwing a fit because their parents had to sell the XBOX to pay rent.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't deny that some people are just looting just to steal. However, I do not believe in the opinion that everyone involved in the protesting for so many days just want to loot stores. To say that is just being too simplistic and not understanding of the other side's motivations.

For this to go on for so long is more than an issue of mere looting, it's a more fundamental problem. I just don't see people looting for fun for so long. Even the former London mayor is citing to economic concerns.

Maybe they are protesting for a ridiculous cause, the wanting of luxury or what not, but relative to their own society, it seems that they are actually more at odds with current social standing or position. If their society is capable of producing luxury for the people, then they obviously feel that they should be involved in that luxury, too.

Maybe we here in the US feel that it's ridiculous to protest when you live in a first world country. But protest is just one way to bring about social change. They aren't looking at their position relative to the entire world (e.g., the middle east), but relative to their own local society.

Sure, it would be best if they protested in a more organized and peaceful manner, but that is aside from their actual motivation.

 

[Nebor]

But protest is just one way to bring about social change.

No, it's just rioting that hasn't gotten out of hand yet. Look at the Westborough Baptist Church people that "protest" military funerals. Disgusting. Protesting is nothing but trouble, and it shouldn't be allowed in our society any longer.

 

[RabidMongoose]

No, it's just rioting that hasn't gotten out of hand yet. Look at the Westborough Baptist Church people that "protest" military funerals. Disgusting. Protesting is nothing but trouble, and it shouldn't be allowed in our society any longer.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. While I do find the WBC to be disgusting, they should retain the right to protest.

 

[Nebor]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. While I do find the WBC to be disgusting, they should retain the right to protest.

There's no such thing as "the right to protest." If you're the sort (and there are far too many) that believes that "personal liberties" are paramount, I suppose you might be confusing the right to free assembly, the right to free association and the right to free speech with "the right to protest." Now you might say that if you can assemble with who you want and say what you want, then that's the right to protest, but I'd contest that since protests are just riots that haven't turned violent yet, forming a protest is no different from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. It presents a danger to society.

 

[RabidMongoose]

There's no such thing as "the right to protest." If you're the sort (and there are far too many) that believes that "personal liberties" are paramount, I suppose you might be confusing the right to free assembly, the right to free association and the right to free speech with "the right to protest." Now you might say that if you can assemble with who you want and say what you want, then that's the right to protest, but I'd contest that since protests are just riots that haven't turned violent yet, forming a protest is no different from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. It presents a danger to society.

Speech on the verge of a riot could be suppressed. There's already Supreme Court doctrine on this issue.