The interesting thing about "Revolutions"

Why is it that people like Che and Fidel Castro are still glorified as hero revolutionaries all these decades later, when in fact all Castro did was violently take over a country, turn it into an unsustainable communist prison camp, and create his own monarchy?

Once HE was in power, suddenly all talk of revolution were quelled with torture, prison, and murder. Revolution was suddenly a bad thing.

That selfish cocksucker is 88 fucking years old and still has a stranglehold on the country and everyone in it.

A communist monarchy prison camp no different than North Korea that can't even sustain itself without Russia and China.

Who speaks of Fidel Castro and Che as hero revolutionaries? I mean other than liberal arts college students and retarded hipsters

Revolution: meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

"Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution."
- Strannix

It's not as if people are running around with "Che For President" t-shirts. I haven't heard of anyone promoting these dudes as good leaders. I more see people cite them as examples of men who successfully fought off authority.

But in any case, Revolutionaries almost always make terrible leaders. The Founding Fathers were rare exceptions. Ideally the Revolutionaries do what they do best by kicking out some tyrant, then somebody more fit to lead steps up.

Tiresias - 


Revolution (in the "overthrow the gubment" sense) is the "solution to the world's problems" for the myopic and residually adolescent. The fallacy is that the problem is some THEM, and is not, rather, endemic to humanity as a whole; the result, when it happens, is as you suggest, a new wave of even worse tyranny in place of the old tyranny. Grow up revolutionists. Your orangeade has grown rancid.


So it's better to be obedient at any cost? Of course not.

Revolutions are not inherently bad. Usually when people feel violated to the point that they will risk their lives to break free, it's for a good reason.

Zanzoken - 
Tiresias - 


Revolution (in the "overthrow the gubment" sense) is the "solution to the world's problems" for the myopic and residually adolescent. The fallacy is that the problem is some THEM, and is not, rather, endemic to humanity as a whole; the result, when it happens, is as you suggest, a new wave of even worse tyranny in place of the old tyranny. Grow up revolutionists. Your orangeade has grown rancid.


So it's better to be obedient at any cost? Of course not.

Revolutions are not inherently bad. Usually when people feel violated to the point that they will risk their lives to break free, it's for a good reason.

I'm certainly not saying revolutions are all bad, but it depends what you're trying to install with the successful overthrow that makes it a worthy effort or just pure evil. And in the case of people like Che and Castro, all they did was create a communist dictatorship monarchy...the WORST of everything possible. Yet I still see Che t-shirts on a daily basis and see his face stenciled painted on the sides of buildings, and even airbrushed on cars.

When I see this, I see someone who supports the likes of Kim Jong Un. And if I saw Kim Jong Un in person I would put my fist through his face. And since someone who wears these shirts obviously supports someone like that, I'm thinking I should put my fist through their faces too.

I thought it was ok until the plot-arc with the nanobots.

Moke - 
Zanzoken - 
Tiresias - 


Revolution (in the "overthrow the gubment" sense) is the "solution to the world's problems" for the myopic and residually adolescent. The fallacy is that the problem is some THEM, and is not, rather, endemic to humanity as a whole; the result, when it happens, is as you suggest, a new wave of even worse tyranny in place of the old tyranny. Grow up revolutionists. Your orangeade has grown rancid.


So it's better to be obedient at any cost? Of course not.

Revolutions are not inherently bad. Usually when people feel violated to the point that they will risk their lives to break free, it's for a good reason.

I'm certainly not saying revolutions are all bad, but it depends what you're trying to install with the successful overthrow that makes it a worthy effort or just pure evil. And in the case of people like Che and Castro, all they did was create a communist dictatorship monarchy...the WORST of everything possible. Yet I still see Che t-shirts on a daily basis and see his face stenciled painted on the sides of buildings, and even airbrushed on cars.

When I see this, I see someone who supports the likes of Kim Jong Un. And if I saw Kim Jong Un in person I would put my fist through his face. And since someone who wears these shirts obviously supports someone like that, I'm thinking I should put my fist through their faces too.

I think that's reasonable Moke.

Firstly success is certainly not guaranteed. But it totally depends on the leader of the revolution as to what will happen if successful. George Washington was offered the position of President for Life. He declined.

Castro on the other hand? It's quite clear what he wanted.

If people are risking their lives and taking other peoples' lives following someone into revolution, it's highly likely that leader will still be leader when it's all over. And regardless of WHAT they were overthrowing, at least the people weren't prisoners. He turned a whole country into a generational prison with no parole for anyone. He basically kidnapped 7 million people and now continues to hold 11 million people hostage to this day and no one ever came to their rescue.

If you want to have a communist country (or any other type of country), FINE. But to me, the moment you restrict anyone from leaving, you're a kidnapper. A Goddamned wholesale kidnapper and there's no way around it. The international community should come down on you like a ton of bricks instantly and those people freed. It's surreal to me that this has never happened and continues on.

Moke - Why is it that people like Che and Fidel Castro are still glorified as hero revolutionaries all these decades later, when in fact all Castro did was violently take over a country, turn it into an unsustainable communist prison camp, and create his own monarchy?

Once HE was in power, suddenly all talk of revolution were quelled with torture, prison, and murder. Revolution was suddenly a bad thing.

That selfish cocksucker is 88 fucking years old and still has a stranglehold on the country and everyone in it.

A communist monarchy prison camp no different than North Korea that can't even sustain itself without Russia and China.

One of the reasons George Washington was such a great President. Historically, VERY few people are both capable of seizing power AND setting it aside.

GladiatorGannon - 
Moke - Why is it that people like Che and Fidel Castro are still glorified as hero revolutionaries all these decades later, when in fact all Castro did was violently take over a country, turn it into an unsustainable communist prison camp, and create his own monarchy?

Once HE was in power, suddenly all talk of revolution were quelled with torture, prison, and murder. Revolution was suddenly a bad thing.

That selfish cocksucker is 88 fucking years old and still has a stranglehold on the country and everyone in it.

A communist monarchy prison camp no different than North Korea that can't even sustain itself without Russia and China.

One of the reasons George Washington was such a great President. Historically, VERY few people are both capable of seizing power AND setting it aside.

Very well put.

Moke - 
Zanzoken - 
Tiresias - 


Revolution (in the "overthrow the gubment" sense) is the "solution to the world's problems" for the myopic and residually adolescent. The fallacy is that the problem is some THEM, and is not, rather, endemic to humanity as a whole; the result, when it happens, is as you suggest, a new wave of even worse tyranny in place of the old tyranny. Grow up revolutionists. Your orangeade has grown rancid.


So it's better to be obedient at any cost? Of course not.

Revolutions are not inherently bad. Usually when people feel violated to the point that they will risk their lives to break free, it's for a good reason.

I'm certainly not saying revolutions are all bad, but it depends what you're trying to install with the successful overthrow that makes it a worthy effort or just pure evil. And in the case of people like Che and Castro, all they did was create a communist dictatorship monarchy...the WORST of everything possible. Yet I still see Che t-shirts on a daily basis and see his face stenciled painted on the sides of buildings, and even airbrushed on cars.

When I see this, I see someone who supports the likes of Kim Jong Un. And if I saw Kim Jong Un in person I would put my fist through his face. And since someone who wears these shirts obviously supports someone like that, I'm thinking I should put my fist through their faces too.

I agree completely.

GenErick - 
GladiatorGannon - 
Moke - Why is it that people like Che and Fidel Castro are still glorified as hero revolutionaries all these decades later, when in fact all Castro did was violently take over a country, turn it into an unsustainable communist prison camp, and create his own monarchy?

Once HE was in power, suddenly all talk of revolution were quelled with torture, prison, and murder. Revolution was suddenly a bad thing.

That selfish cocksucker is 88 fucking years old and still has a stranglehold on the country and everyone in it.

A communist monarchy prison camp no different than North Korea that can't even sustain itself without Russia and China.

One of the reasons George Washington was such a great President. Historically, VERY few people are both capable of seizing power AND setting it aside.

Very well put.

Said King George III about George Washington:

The actual resignation of his command, having made peace between the civil and military powers of the new country -- and, in an emotional ceremony, bidden farewell to his officers on December 4, 1783 -- took place in Annapolis, Maryland, on December 23, when he formally handed back to Congress his commission as commander in chief, which they had given him in June 1775. He said he would never again hold public office. He had his horse waiting at the door, and he took the road to Mount Vernon the next day.

No one who knew Washington was surprised. Everyone else, in varying degrees, was astonished at this singular failure of the corruption of power to work. And, indeed, it was a rare moment in history. In London, George III qustioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. "Oh," said West, "they say he will return to his farm." "If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

Tiresias - 
Zanzoken - 
Tiresias - 


Revolution (in the "overthrow the gubment" sense) is the "solution to the world's problems" for the myopic and residually adolescent. The fallacy is that the problem is some THEM, and is not, rather, endemic to humanity as a whole; the result, when it happens, is as you suggest, a new wave of even worse tyranny in place of the old tyranny. Grow up revolutionists. Your orangeade has grown rancid.


So it's better to be obedient at any cost? Of course not.

Revolutions are not inherently bad. Usually when people feel violated to the point that they will risk their lives to break free, it's for a good reason.


Where did I say about "obedient at any cost"? I missed that part of my post..?



Whence the assumption, seemingly always, that if we reject one extreme, then we must be affirming the other? Like, fer real, are you actually thinking when you have that reaction, or are you executing a "cliched response" computer program of some kind? I really want to know, because it baffles me, again and again.



And while revolutions aren't inherently bad, the track record for them is absolutely dogshit. As a rule, it is 500,000 times easier to destroy a government than it is to create a good one; the delusion is that the problem is that there are some bad guys running things, and when you get rid of them, good governance will magically pop up on its own, naturally. It is particularly absurd when people such as pretty much everyone here talk glowingly of the prospects of revolution, having grown up in comfort and security completely unprecedented in the history of the world, moaning about oppression, and not having the faintest grasp of how unpleasant the violent ass-raping of actual anarchy would be in comparison.


You made a blanket statement against revolution as a whole. From what you wrote, it doesn't sound like you would ever consider it to be a viable option, because of your fear that it would make things worse.

But, if revolution is completely off the table, then that means the only other option is obedience. Obedience comes in two flavors -- you can either follow the law, or break the law and accept your punishment -- but both entail a willing surrender to authority.

Maybe you didn't realize you were making an extreme statement, but I think logic dictates that you did. And that is why I responded the way I did.

btw, in this Country, the ensuing result of a revolution would have a fairly high chance of positive outcome, so long as we saw that the country had completely deviated from its original founding's intent, and the revolution was to merely re-establish a government of that original intent.

Revolutions are given to us from the top down, they are never a grass roots thing. They are intitiated by design when a change is deemed necessary.

Moke - btw, in this Country, the ensuing result of a revolution would have a fairly high chance of positive outcome, so long as we saw that the country had completely deviated from its original founding's intent, and the revolution was to merely re-establish a government of that original intent.

What do you mean, some kind of revolution to restore slavery and take the vote away from women and the poor?

I can't see that going down well at all, to be honest.

Castro is an asshole, but Cuba is not the same as North Korea.

In the US isn't General Custer a celebrated figure?
Not really. I think his image is more of an arrogant moron.