From: ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (James Ingraham)
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: Re: Revolution
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:25:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec11.223045.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.160556.2287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>> 
>> how about killing everyone with an email acct--after all, all of these
>> high-tech communications systems are just tools of the rich, right?
>
>I don't see where either of us are paying for this tools of the rich in
>any meaningful way.  Consider, if this were "merely" a tool for the rich
>why on earth would the rich allow many of the news groups that spawn up as 
>it is obviously the case that the "rich" do not approve?

Actually, you should read Herbert Marcuse's _One-Dimensional Man_ for an 
answer to this question.  I just finished a 66 page long research project
on subversive ideologies in heavy metal music, both violent and otherwise.
How come Ministry-- who conitunally complain about large corporations-- are
on Time-Warner, "one of the main purveyors of evil in the universe."  The
quotes are because Al Jourgensen (Ministry's lead singer) said, and he 
explains that they are because he feels, "Sometimes, you have to rot the
infrastructure from within."  But Ministry's not fighting in the streets.
Neither is Unleashed, who wants to go "Onward itno countless battles." 
The reason the "system" spawns us is because there are a lot of problems.
The reason there are no revolutions is that the system sells the revolution
to the mainstream, where it is bought.  But don't take my word for it.  Read
Marcuse.

>Justice has had a much longer and broader meaning than 
>just the protection of property which has been created through social 
>production and gives benefit to individuals.
>

Certainly.  And it has a HELL of a lot more meaning than shooting people 
because of their income brackets, too.

 
>If nothing I'm saying means anything more, I still have
>the right to say it.  It's free speech and it's the only tool which the
>bourgeois cannot refuse to those who would remove its existence.
>

No one questioned that.  You're free to say any stupid thing you want. 
Doesn't bother me if you cost the 'Net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars
to make a bloody fool out of yourself.

>> rob
>> 
>Later
>Hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu
> 

I'll tell you why not kill all the rich; you'll kill everyone.  The first thing
that's going to happen when you start killing rich people is that trains are
going to stop moving, planes won't go off the ground, trucks won't get gas,
cities won't get fed, the telecommunications net will fail, and everyone
in a moderately large city will starve to death within two weeks.  The only 
people to survive will be the idiots who thought this whole damn thing up in 
the first place, because THEY'LL figure out that they can base a society on
death.  And when everyone is dead but them, they'll rewrite history and say
it was all in the name of justice.  Yeah, right, that's real just; kill all
the rich, starve all the poor, and get your friends to have a Third World
level of standard of living, working their asses off just to get fed.
I don't know about you, but I'm hardly rich.  Then again, I'm hardly poor.
I've got friends in both worlds.  (I don't know any of Sam Walton's grand-
children or anything, but I've got some friends whose parents are MD's pulling
close to half-a-mil a year.  WAY over what my parents make.)  Sometimes 
they're nice people, sometimes they're not.  But let me tell you what woul
REALLY solve this country's problems; kill everyone below the poverty line.
You eliminate poverty, most crime, most drug abuse, prison overcrowding,
most discontent with the system, and a lot of other problems.  THAT would make
sense.  Of course, I would like to personally kill the assholes responsible
for the S&L scandal, and the BCCI scandal, as well as quite a few other 
scandals (Rhode Island credit union freeze because some asshole walked off
with all the money.)  Hmmm... Does it seem to anyone else here that maybe, just
maybe, the problems aren't isolated to one group?  I mean, maybe there's not
one person or group to blame?  Is it possible that we're all in this mess
together, and have all done our fair share to contribute to it?  <This message
is so ironic refrigerator magnets are flying across the room>  GET A LIFE!
You can't just kill the rich.  Or the poor.  Or the black, or the white,
or the red or blue or green-eyed or left-handed or epilectic or cocaine addicts
or NRA members or neo-Nazi's or femi-Nazi's or EE majors or English majors or
ANYONE!!!  You are stupid to assume that killing a group will solve problems.
Look at history; the Russian revolution, centered on overthrowing the rich
ruling class, led to Lenin (tolerable but hardly a saint) and Stalin (the devil
incarnate).  In France, the revolution led to a lot of needless death.  In
America, the rich LED the revolution.  This country was founded by white,
upper-class males.  With strong ideals, great ideas, and a HUGE amount of
intelligence and knowledge.  Killing the only people who know how this world
works isn't going to help right the wrongs in the world.  Killing won't
solve anything.  My favorite criticism of the Soviet Union is that they had
to lobotimize revolutionaries.  We're much more efficient here; we just let
them watch television, and if they become a problem after that, make a profit
off of them.  (Playboy did it with the Black Panthers.  Time-Warner did it
with Ministry.  Every time you buy a revolutionary magazine or CD, you pay
into the system and help it out.)

Basic summary: you're stupid and short-sighted.
Disclaimer: I meant every fucking word.

-James
University of Pennsylvania (That's right, I pay $25000 a year)
ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal..."

[Hmm.  That doesn't say, "All except the rich" or "All except the idiots."]

Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution