1. Build unity through kindness, sharing, helping, and acceptance of each other's differences. (I created a sub to begin the process /r/UnitedWeStand )

2. Now that we share the goal of what we want to accomplish, we can better devise plans of how to run the country without being selfishly driven

3. End result = A society created and run for the best interests of the people. A society that allows you to grow in ways you want to, rather than just survive by adapting to the demands of those who hold power over you.

We can all discuss what works, but without the first step, there will be no revolution. Also, once we are unified, we will have greater understanding of what works based on the needs and will of the people.

My personal opinion - Best case scenario is a result that allows us to develop ourselves and explore our creativity, than just force ourselves to the wills of others.

Well said, but unifying the people is a great undertaking. It seems like people won't unify until their backs are up against a wall with a firing squad in front of them. You're right though, it may be better to discuss how to spark change rather than the result of it.

People don't take the step toward a better humanity because it doesn't benefit the individual. Train the individual that the best interest is in humanity and we will all thrive. As a moderator of /r/UnitedWeStand, the message exists. It requires us to take the first steps.

I understand the point of discussing results because we all want to envision a better future, but however, reality is only capable of accepting a distorted version of the ideologies, i.e. things get modified along the way and no ideology manages to stay true to itself when it is finally accepted. So it is important to have some rough idea but not worth it to iron out the details usually. Especially this early.

Unifying the people will be difficult, but it is the only way. If we don't stand up for someone who is getting mistreated and bullied by the government, then no one will come for us when it our time. If we don't build a community where people trust each other, depend, and care for each other, then there will be no resistance because we won't be able to work together for the revolution. TPTB have a lot to gain from keeping us divided and selfish, because it is easier for them to prey on us without worrying about us rising against them.

Look at the OWS movement as an example. So many people came together but they had no idea what they wanted, and they were so divided that people used that platform to just advocate for their own personal beliefs, which just made the movement even weaker.

So, the more we work together, the sooner we will have a revolution. It will be much more clear about who our real enemies are, once we are less divided.

Well said and subbed...

I envision one based based on the understanding of the interconnected nature of existence and the greater good for the planet. Revolution would entail collapse of only of society but the environment. One, were going to need to deal with climate change on a very large scale. Ie. shapes of continents could change with rising sea levels. The east coast could be underwater in under 20 years. The biggest thing is sustainability of resources. The food system we have now is outdated. Monoculture drives our food supply. Collective/widespread individual farming to sustain communities will eliminate a large portion of needed moneys to sustain your life. Less money, the less you have to work to make ends meat. With the extra time on their hands, people will be able to explore their passions to a greater degree. School systems will be based on exploiting creativity rather than regurgitating facts. This could produce a more motivated and even moral society.

In terms of a government system, I would place the idea of Natural Law as central. If we teach our children with compassion and wisdom as they grow up, rather than strictly the basic writing, reading, science, math, we can foster a generation that needs less of an oversight government and more of a supportive system that fosters innovations in technology and quality of life. Here we'll find the further development of sustainability, especially the proliferation of free energy. Military/government companies apparently has developed free energy technology already so this could happen sooner than later even if we lose our infrastructure and retreat back to a farming base for little.

Either way, to get to these points, revolution and collapse are necessary. Whether we realize the inherent nature of our current global governments and world leaders before we become subject to their will during economic collapse is the real question..... Will we realize how powerful we are as a people united? I certainly hope so, the future of humanity depends on it.

humans are greedy. to unify all humans in the shortest amount of time in a way everyone could understand immediately is a situation where it is "death to everyone."

So what events need to occur to be classified as "death to everyone?" Some natural ones that could definitely occur:

-Object confirmed to hit and destroy earth.

-Outbreak of deadly virus with no known cure.

-Increase in volcanic and or tectonic activity resulting in numerous unpredictable earthquakes and or tsunamis.

Some unnatural or kinda impossible but still possible:

-Hostile Aliens whose invasion is foreseen in time to unify all world military to defend Earth.

-Peaceful aliens that expose or educate some way a new paradigm of life that eliminates something like the emotion of hate, idk whatever.

-Jesus or some religions prediction or prophet or someone like that proves somehow to everyone that they are whatever they are suppose to be and everyone somehow accepts it and unifies.

-Kaiju or some shit like that occurs within earth and forces everyone to unify. pretty much evil comes and makes us all work together.

some out there shit:

-first law of thermodynamics. energy is everything. we are energy. we are everything.

-always do things that make you happy. or, try not do unhappy things?

-money doesn't grow on trees, but mango's do.

Balkanization

The problem is, whenever the old establishment goes down, very rarely do the most well-meaning party end up taking up the mantle.

I doubt all the major corporation would go down at the same time as the state, and they would go along with a revolution and just back someone new who would still guarantee their rights/powers.

If all the major corporations were headhunted, like it was in Soviet Russia, there's a high chance the headhunters (who wield a lot of power/fear by populace) would end up filling their previous niche.

Well you will need to find a good way to keep everyone calm since everyone has their own beliefs about what should and shouldn't happen.

It's like watching an ongoing anthropology experiment.

by: /u/test_please_ignore

Upvotes: 17 | Downvotes: 7 | Timestamp of this thread.

Upvotes: 1 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.

If this was an error, send me a message

Great question. Of course, we already know that the revolution will not be televised. ;-)

In my heart I really feel that there will not be an "after the revolution" where "we" set up a new government. Governments have always been systems of domination, justified only after the fact by a myth about everyone getting together and agreeing with each other.

I think you should check your interpretation of "anarchy"!

I would say that revolution is something that is always in progress, ebbing and flowing, as we work to create spaces where people can live freely and respect each other without coercion. So in one sense the revolution is never finished, but at the same time the revolution is already here! And that's a positive thing. The revolution of Earth won't stop either.

I demand a Department of Peace. Every fucking nation needs one. If NWO occurs, we need a global DoP then.

I'm almost positive one president tried to implement this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

edit: looks like it was Rep. Kucinich

A department of peace? World peace isn't practical, or even possible. War and violence is human nature, and it's not something we can defeat. It's unfortunate but true.

If a NWO occurs, peace is the last thing on their agenda.

I disagree with your sentiment.

Also NWO doesn't necessarily mean the negative connotation everyone here takes it as.

It means a global community that makes decisions in the best interests of our race and the Earth as a living unit.

I'm a big fan of the global local theory, as well as using local currencies as a supplement.

I always hate movies showing post-revolution as an apocalyptic, dog-eat-dog survivalist world. I think it's bullshit. I think it detracts from the premise that human beings are inherently good and kind. I'd want to instill a sense that we all need to help other people when and where possible.

It's amazing how our culture implicitly follows some rules based on engrained expectations: it's expected to stop at a red light, or stop sign. We stand in lines and wait patiently. We pay at the drive-thru window instead of speeding off with the food, and at the grocery store counter. You don't appreciate these things until you visit foreign countries with no such order, despite laws mandating otherwise--in India, for example, traffic is lawless, and nobody cares about lines.

And so, it's possible to instill a sense of kindness; when we see a homeless person, we offer a meal or a place to get a quick shower. That when bad things happen, we come together instead of hiding from the masses of people allegedly out to get them.

Historically, people illustrate exemplary kindness in the face of emergency: Hurricane Sandy, 9/11, the Joplin tornado... and yet, it's not what we see in the movies and news. All we see are clips of looting, hiding in a cellar with a rifle, and other isolationist nonsense.

If we do have a revolution--and I hope we do--I want it to be a kind one where the best of humanity is brought forth. I don't even care how trite all of this sounds. I'm sick of our movies, shows, and media ramming down a zombie stupefied post-apocalypse world. It's just not who we are.

Digital direct democracy

No donations for politics, no superpacs

of the people, by the people, for the people

instead of

of the bankers, by the bankers, for the bankers

?

This is such a general and naive post that it is actually pretty humorous. Let's go through it point by point.

"Afterwards, create new electoral system that's logical and fair so we can vote in better and more qualified people."

The United States has one of the most transparent and objectively fair electoral systems in the world. Just because you don't like the candidates that are ran does not mean the entire electoral system is inherently flawed.

"Get rid of lobbyists and limit the amount of money individuals can donate to campaigns."

Whether you like it or not, lobbyists play an important role in a democracy. Lobbyists really just are representatives of people who intend to further their parties interests; just because the only lobbyists you ever hear about are those belonging to wealthy corporations/individuals doesn't mean those are the only ones that exist. Plenty of lobbyists exist who lobby for entirely noble causes, in fact I would consider that the vast majority of lobbying is pretty ethical, it just doesn't seem that way because the only time you generally hear about lobbyists is in a negative light in the media.

Limiting the amount of money that can be donated to campaigns would do more harm than good. If a political party is getting less funding, then that means they have to be more general with what they are advocating as they need to make their individual messages appeal to a larger target base as suddenly they will be starved for finances. Considering just how large some of the electorates of the United States are (and how large the US is as a whole), a lot of money is needed for a successful campaign in order to maintain logistics, staff, etc.

Better yet, get rid of campaigning and have mandatory debates every week until election

Yeah, sorry but this makes no sense. Campaigning has been a necessary part of elections since democracy existed. Having just "mandatory debates" would be foolish and unproductive.

Most importantly, hold candidates responsible for their promises and actions.

They already are held accountable. It is a democracy. They are accountable to the people that vote for them. This is what the entire system is based on.

"Create a new constitution, based on the old, allowing us to regulate corporations and banks in favor of the people"

Why would this require a completely new constitution....? That is like destroying an entire city because you want to remake a building.

Will skip to the the next paragraph as the rest of this one is highly opionated and not factual.

"Make it so that cops are forced to serve the public"

What exactly are they serving now?

Make them wear cameras and mics, get rid of petty laws and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

Which would cost billions of dollars to outfit every single police officer with a constantly running camera and microphone of sufficient quality to comfortably review footage. Anyway, cameras are already pretty common in police cars (and also record audio).

"get rid of petty laws" is a nothing statement. If you aren't going to be specific then you may as well not say anything at all.

Healthcare should be available to all that need it, like Canada

If that occurred in the current landscape of taxes, then your taxes will skyrocket. This is not the kind of change that can happen in the flick of a switch.

Taxes need to work properly.

wow such cutting-edge thought wow

I didn't take much time thinking about it. I wanted your opinion, not mine. I appreciate the criticism though, as that's what I wanted so thank you. I'll go through your points.

1. No it doesn't, it's incredibly flawed and currently no matter who we vote for they're puppets. Not only that, but the electoral college sucks. Voter fraud may be a serious problem too now that a lot of votes are not written down but rather done with a computer. It's been debated that the computers could easily be hacked and that vote results can be skewed.

2. Yeah, I think getting rid of lobbyists is a pretty bad idea. I agree with you there, however I think politicians should wear patches with their supporters like Nascar or something. As it is now, we don't really know who is essentially bribing a candidate; a serious problem in our system.

3. I don't agree. Too much money in politics, and races ran on how likable an individual is, spreads corruption. I'd like to see way more debates as they are much more important than campaigning.

4. They are not held accountable. Obama lied so god damn much it's ridiculous.

5. We're losing our rights because politicians are exploiting it. I'm not saying get rid of the old constitution; I love it. However, it's a brave new world and because of that I think we do need to represent that in our constitution. We need more protection from corruption now.

6. They don't really serve the public, they serve their masters. If they did serve us they wouldn't break up legal protests, shoot unarmed individuals or treat us like absolute shit all the god damn time.

7. They already outfit most police cars with cameras, so surely we could do it. Drug laws and most tickets are unnecessary; created mostly to throw people in prison and generate revenue.

8. I understand that but if our government cut their insane spending, taxed the rich more, and handled our taxes responsibly surely it could work.

9. Heh.

1. The electoral college makes up a small chunk of the entire electoral system. It is not 'the' electoral system. I do agree the electoral college system could be reformed, but this does not diminish the sense of democracy in the United States.

   If you want to discuss voter fraud, provide examples of it occurring.

2. Well, it kind of is important that a politician indicates who their supporters are because then you can get an idea of who they are partial to.

3. More debates, yes. All debates, no campaigning? No. It just wouldn't work. If you actually look at the debates, most of it is just fluff with the use of pre-prepared remarks. They really are not all that productive.

4. Didn't seem to stop millions from voting for him? The people held him accountable and they deemed him worthy of reelection. That is all there is to it.

1. It should be reformed, and it is a small blow to Democracy.

2. Agreed; otherwise corruption is legal.

3. I suppose you're right, but campaigning in my eyes have just been publicity races. They don't really do anything other than get a candidate known. I'd rather have people decide who to vote for through a long intense debate amongst them.

4. He promised way more than he ever intended to keep. He only said what people wanted to hear and then after he got voted in he gave us the finger. I don't think politicians should be allowed to exploit the masses ignorance, as that's practically voter fraud. They must be held accountable because if they aren't, they get away with the lies.

The United States has one of the most transparent and objectively fair electoral systems in the world. Just because you don't like the candidates that are ran does not mean the entire electoral system is inherently flawed.

I am not sure about the electoral system, but if the general voting system is any reflection of it, then it is not transparent or good. Source - 1, 2, 3

Whether you like it or not, lobbyists play an important role in a democracy. Lobbyists really just are representatives of people who intend to further their parties interests; just because the only lobbyists you ever hear about are those belonging to wealthy corporations/individuals doesn't mean those are the only ones that exist. Plenty of lobbyists exist who lobby for entirely noble causes, in fact I would consider that the vast majority of lobbying is pretty ethical, it just doesn't seem that way because the only time you generally hear about lobbyists is in a negative light in the media.

This matters very little, especially when people don't hear about all the good work that lobbyists do. We have gone to wars because of lobbyists, and I think that is enough bad to overcome any unknown good that lobbyists do. Just because there is some good being done by lobbyists, doesn't at all mean we should allow for all the tons of bad that they do. They do such good things that you can't even mention any of them. Seems more like you are supportive of the system, than factual because all you are offering are your opinions.

Limiting the amount of money that can be donated to campaigns would do more harm than good. If a political party is getting less funding, then that means they have to be more general with what they are advocating as they need to make their individual messages appeal to a larger target base as suddenly they will be starved for finances. Considering just how large some of the electorates of the United States are (and how large the US is as a whole), a lot of money is needed for a successful campaign in order to maintain logistics, staff, etc.

O, wow. So they would have to deal with the same issues that third parties would have to deal with now. That must be tough. /s

Yeah, sorry but this makes no sense. Campaigning has been a necessary part of elections since democracy existed. Having just "mandatory debates" would be foolish and unproductive.

Ads that say nothing = good, but meaningful discussion about plans = bad? Sure...

They already are held accountable. It is a democracy. They are accountable to the people that vote for them. This is what the entire system is based on.

Except they are not. They lie constantly, and they get away with it. We don't have a democracy in this country.

Why would this require a completely new constitution....? That is like destroying an entire city because you want to remake a building.

Some people think it is old. So if you rebuild based on the old, it will be much more relevant.

Will skip to the the next paragraph as the rest of this one is highly opionated and not factual.

Hypocrisy?

What exactly are they serving now?

Themselves and those in power.

Which would cost billions of dollars to outfit every single police officer with a constantly running camera and microphone of sufficient quality to comfortably review footage. Anyway, cameras are already pretty common in police cars (and also record audio)

The benefits outweigh the cost, and all our cellphones have multiple cameras but having one on a cop is obviously "too costly" even though it will stop cop brutality and potentially save many lives.

"get rid of petty laws" is a nothing statement. If you aren't going to be specific then you may as well not say anything at all.

I am guessing he means victim-less crimes.

Your post lacks any constructive criticism but seems to just support the current system in its entirety.

Yep there is no evidence whatsoever that vote machines get tanpered with.