Apologies in advance for the wall of text. I would put this behind a hide/expand tag if I could.
@Latecomer
Does violent revolt seem to be working?
Chances are low, but all the evidence says that chances that working within the system will pan out is absolute zero. Basic logic dictates revolt is the only choice. Like I said, lack of options.
@doloresbridge
I disagree with this extremely, though rather than offering a rebuttal I want to understand you as I feel talking past each other is unproductive.
What is the end goal of the revolt?
It’s only coalescing and making demands now, but that’s kind of beside the point. It’s a spontaneous eruption of popular indignation. It happened for a cause, and even if it lacks the focus to make it clear, the cause has hardly even been acknowledged by the government and media because, as I mentioned, they prefer to deal with the occasional eruption than address the cause.
@doloresbridge
What do you envision society afterwards?
If you mean me personally, well, to be honest, I fear America has reached a turning point. I mean this in the same sense that any government, or nation, or era, or dynasty and so on tends to have a rise and fall, it’s just that, in America’s case, the fall is bound to be hard. As it usually goes, it’s not just one factor but a convergence of many. Economic (the middle class has been squeezed since the late 70s, and the March job market implosion etc), international (alienating allies etc), military (the peace dividend has been haunting Washington for 30 years now, and besides lacking the need for such a bloated military, now it lacks justification etc), cultural (it’s a subjective topic, but I don’t think it’s polemic to say it seems that cultural production has been stagnating for a while etc) and others which I can’t quite classify (lack of urbanistic models, lack of any rivals driving social changes, exaustion of representative democracy etc) and some which emanate from capitalism itself. This is the kind of scenario which requires very deep reform or risk disaster, and, historically, the latter is more likely.
And where would you draw the line at ethical vs unethical actions?
Sorry if this seems to evade the question, but I think you asked it on an assumption that I approve (so to speak) of the riots. The act itself, obviously, is unethical in the vast majority of times. Whether it’s justified is another matter. Lacking other options to address a serious problem, I can’t really fault anyone for this, especially when the problem in question exists by design. This is an instance where rebellion is ethically justified, even if the means available aren’t, and given the specifics, the former wins out. And frankly, I’m surprised at the relative lack of violence here, it’s far less bloody than previous riots. It’s quite telling that the media is using small businesses as propaganda fodder as if they have ever cared about them.
When did I ever say that?
“The looters are the aggressors here and have to be gone before any changes can be made.”
The development of a substantial welfare state ensured a permanent underbelly of dependents in society. […]
I think that the most common flaw in rightwing arguments, by far, is mistaking co-relation with causation. I mean, maybe you’re right and welfare did cause this, but I have never seen actual, methodically compiled data showing this. For example, how do the statistics post-Great Society compare with those before it? Or with stats from other countries? Are other factors considered and controlled for? Pointing out that welfare increased at the same time that the nuclear family decreased is not in itself an argument, because there’s no established causal link. Under that same logic, I could attribute the superiority of living standards of those European welfare States when compared to African ones to race, which is exactly what certain people do.
The fact of the matter is, many Americans go to public schools where they are told that racism is the “original sin” of America and that it still plagues society. […]
It is, man. Sorry, but it is. The Founding Fathers’ contemporary society was rather pragmatic about it rather than propaganda-spewing ideologues, but they made no bones about it. The gist of it usually is, “Although there is no issue in them having settled this land until this point, these tribal societies must now give way to civilized peoples whom Providence saw fit to guide here”. In order for liberty to be enjoyed to the biggest possible extent, it had to be limited to as few people as possible. This was a fundamental part of the Ancient Greek democracy which they emulated, and they never hid it. ‘‘Liberalism: A Counter-History’’ exposes this beyond refutation, among many other sins of the early times of the system that now covers the world.
To believe that people of European descent may have a common policy interest just as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Asian Americans do is utter heresy and must be expunged from polite society.
But this common interest is exactly what black people, among other minorities, want. The whole problem is that the system isn’t just indifferent to such a concept of common interest, but actually opposes it. The claim of equality of fairness of liberal republics is a hollow one. And the actual irony is that pointing this out is deliberately labeled as “heightening racial tensions”. Americans aren’t being treated equally by the State, plain and simple, and to say that demanding this be redressed is the source of problem is a subversion of logic.