Is Ireland ripe for revolution?

ScissorPaperRock

With discontentment with the government and church and other institutions widespread and growing every day, could we ever see some sort of movement to bring about true reform?

Or are we too apathetic/not bothered? Or maybe the people feel powerless in the face of it all?

Or do we trust our government to lead us forward and out of the paralysing grips of these institutions?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people feel there's a greater positive outcome than a negative one from these institutions.

I'd be very interested to hear some opinions on this. Personally I'd like to see some real change happen, but can't see people coming together to make it happen.

brummytom

I'm on my way over now.


Let's make it 1600 years

TheZohanS

tl;dr

partyatmygaff

brummytom wrote: »

I'm on my way over now.


Let's make it 1600 years

Assume your new title

Lord Tom of all Ireland

TanG411

We're too laid back as a country.

And the older generations who were brought up with religion just won't agree. They have a ''Sure it'll be grand'' attitude.

We're not ready.

digme

Larkin91 wrote: »

We're too laid back as a country.

And the older generations who were brought up with religion just won't agree. They have a ''Sure it'll be grand'' attitude.

We're not ready.

BS the older crowd think the younger crowd are a bunch of pussies.Go show them your not.

phasers

I like being laid back.

Also the longer Fianna Fail are in power during this whole mess the longer it'll take them to get re elected further down the line. Let them lie in their shitty beds til the next election.

RE the Church, old people are still pretty religious so it'll be a few years before Ireland can get away from that Catholic image

Biggins

Its ripe - but it (the idea and action) will go off before we would see it happen sadly.

Tyler MacDurden

brummytom wrote: »

I'm on my way over now.


Let's make it 1600 years

Not you lot again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3L0B2At_W4

(NSFW use of the Queen's English.)

Slugs

Lol, Doubt it, the IMF'll be in and you'll be taking it up the ass before anyone even contemplates revolution.

jumpguy

brummytom wrote: »

I'm on my way over now.


Let's make it 1600 years

Another Strongbow, eh? (History joke lads...)


Anyway, Ireland is not ripe for revolution. There's unrest, not an atmosphere of revolution.

partyatmygaff

Larkin91 wrote: »

And the older generations who were brought up with religion just won't agree. They have a ''Sure it'll be grand'' attitude.

Eh, I think it would be the opposite. Those "older generations" had a LOT more rebellions and revolutions (Attempts anyway) than today.

The 1916 rising and the many other risings in the 19th century were by the "older generation".

If anything its the new generations that are too laid back. People back then didn't have the internet to complain on.

imme

@OP, what do you mean by "true reform".

Anyway, we don't do revolution in Ireland, unless someone else is in charge.
We are the people.

ScissorPaperRock

jumpguy wrote: »

Another Strongbow, eh? (History joke lads...)


Anyway, Ireland is not ripe for revolution. There's unrest, not an atmosphere of revolution.

And is unrest enough to bring about change? (genuine question)

I mean, I personally think that something big needs to happen move away from the incompetency and short-sightedness that characterises our current government. I mean there are other parties, but they seem bent on criticising every move the current government makes and don't seem to offer much in the way of alternatives.

Alessandra

Careful now.

mink_man

no!

rossie1977

revolution..................ha

bet fianna fail get voted back in by a big margin next election

karlog

Should we blow up the Oireachtas to the sound of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture?

ScissorPaperRock

imme wrote: »

@OP, what do you mean by "true reform".

Anyway, we don't do revolution in Ireland, unless someone else is in charge.
We are the people.

A competent government would the most basic kind of reform, where our elected representatives actually have to live up to, and are held accountable for, promises/commitments they make.

Personally I'd also like to see a complete roll-back of the church's grip and influence. I think it's influence is blinding, but that may be a debate for another thread. And I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just one guy's opinion.

Edit: I mean we have a law against blasphemy. It's a bloody joke!

imme

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

A competent government would the most basic kind of reform, where our elected representatives actually have to live up to, and are held accountable for, promises/commitments they make. Also complete decentralisation of the alot of the decision making to the regional level would position us a lot better to achieve economic growth.

Personally I'd also like to see a complete roll-back of the church's grip and influence. I think it's influence is blinding, but that may be a debate for another thread. And I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just one guy's opinion.

Edit: I mean we have a law against blasphemy. It's a bloody joke!

Is this 1989 or 2009, the "Church's blinding influence"??????? Have myriad scandals not put paid to that.
If one wants a revolution one needs BIG things to come from it, not decentralisation and the like.
Revolutions that I've read about generally don't lead to competent government.

Sorry if it feels I'm attacking you SPR.:o

ScissorPaperRock

imme wrote: »

Is this 1989 or 2009, the "Church's blinding influence"??????? Have myriad scandals not put paid to that.
If one wants a revolution one needs BIG things to come from it, not decentralisation and the like.
Revolutions that I've read about generally don't lead to competent government.

Sorry if it feels I'm attacking you SPR.:o

Well if I had to be honest about the kind of revolution I'd like, I'd see the abolishment of the church, and of the entire monetary system (but would require a global revolution, and is for another thread), and I'm sure there's more that I can't think of right now.

Sorry I edited decentralisation out just before you posted that, because it's a **** reason for a revolution.

I just think things need to shake up a bit, and feel that everyone (myself included) is too complacent and will just continue to accept things the way they are.

And fair enough, revolutions have not always led to better replacements, but something needs to happen.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Problem with Ireland is taht we treat politics like Pop Idol. Thats why Bertie used to be so popular, sure didn't he wear an anorak, surely a man of the people!

The likes of Kenny (which whether you like it or nor is the only viable oppositon at the moment) might bore you to tears, but I'd rather have a boring accountant type run the country now than some backslapper.

But revolution, not a hope, apathy is huge! It takes a hell of a lot of oppresion to bring out large scale political expression.

Unless you're french of course...

ScumLord

No European country is close to revolution, especially Ireland. For all our complaining we have it pretty good. The biggest problem is we can see a better way, we're just not willing to sacrifice what we have to get to that stage. It will take real catastrophe to make us change and that will happen, it's inevitable.

imme

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

entire monetary system (but would require a global revolution, and is for another thread),

sorry but that sounds like communism, I've just called the Gardai, and they're on their way over to you right NOW.



(Imme gotta go to bed)

Mr Benevolent

Look how badly the last revolution went. Besides, financial mismanagement isn't a good reason for a revolution. Hell it was the voter's fault in the first place for believing the hype. Now they cry because it didn't last forever. Boo fuckin' hoo, shouldn't have bought a house/apartment at massively inflated prices.

Oh yeah, and what would happen after the revolution? That's right, we'd be kicked out of Europe because we didn't have a democracy. We'd lose the Euro and inflation would rocket. The 'government' would then try the ol' 'quantative easing' approach and soon it'd be 3000 punts for a loaf of bread. After a few years there'd be another revolution, Brian Cowen would be back in power and we'd have an economy 20 years behind the rest of Europe with no realistic chance of getting back into the EU.

Revolution me hole. The only people to advocate revolution are the same ones who haven't a clue how governing a country works in the first place. It'd be a thousand times worse.

partyatmygaff

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Well if I had to be honest about the kind of revolution I'd like, I'd see the abolishment of the church, and of the entire monetary system (but would require a global revolution, and is for another thread), and I'm sure there's more that I can't think of right now.

Sorry I edited decentralisation out just before you posted that, because it's a **** reason for a revolution.

I just think things need to shake up a bit, and feel that everyone (myself included) is too complacent and will just continue to accept things the way they are.

And fair enough, revolutions have not always led to better replacements, but something needs to happen.

The church can't be abolished, its not part of the state. You can't change the entire monetary system or we will get kicked out of the EU. Basically any type of revolution will only destroy what hope remains for the country (Especially its economy)

ScumLord

Confab wrote: »

Oh yeah, and what would happen after the revolution? That's right, we'd be kicked out of Europe because we didn't have a democracy. We'd lose the Euro and inflation would rocket. The 'government' would then try the ol' 'quantative easing' approach and soon it'd be 3000 punts for a loaf of bread. After a few years there'd be another revolution, Brian Cowen would be back in power and we'd have an economy 20 years behind the rest of Europe with no realistic chance of getting back into the EU.

To be honest that kind of talk is just scaremongering. £we can't possibly change because we could change into something horrible" I know you're using it as an argument against anarchy but still it's a tool in the defence of the current flawed system.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

To be honest that kind of talk is just scaremongering. £we can't possibly change because we could change into something horrible" I know you're using it as an argument against anarchy but still it's a tool in the defence of the current flawed system.

The current system isn't flawed. The current government is. There's a huge difference. We have a capitalist democracy, a system that's been shown to work well in many countries.

We have a corrupt, useless government, but they'll be gone come the next general election.

Jesus christ talk of revolution because of an economic downturn is lunacy. Do people even realise what a revolution entails? Bloodshed, lots of.

ScissorPaperRock

Ok, I'd like to add that I'm not necessarily talking about an overthrowing of the government and rioting in the streets and that sort of chaos. But maybe the transferring of power, or a time where voices will be made heard, or even a time where those with voices of power to be held accountable.

ScissorPaperRoc

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

But maybe the transferring of power

As in the next general election?

ScissorPaperRock

Deleted User wrote: »

We have a capitalist democracy, a system that's been shown to work well in many countries.

I wouldn't agree with this point. The capitalist system is inherently flawed, and in it's current form is designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poor - and this is what keeps the system of production going.

ScissorPaperRock

Deleted User wrote: »

As in the next general election?

I mean to the people - as cliched as that sounds.

ScissorPaperRoc

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this point. The capitalist system is inherently flawed, and in it's current form is designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poor - and this is what keeps the system of production going.

It has its flaws for sure, but historically speaking, what system has ever worked better?

ScissorPaperRock

Deleted User wrote: »

It has its flaws for sure, but historically speaking, what system has ever worked better?

Okay, but maybe we need to start looking towards the future, where what we know today, and the technological advances we have (and could have) could allow us to have a different form of political and economic system.

Maybe we put things in terms of the past too much. Or maybe, we need to take the best from systems used in the past, and cut out their flaws, and move forward from there.

ScissorPaperRoc

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Okay, but maybe we need to start looking towards the future, where what we know today, and the technological advances we have (and could have) could allow us to have a different form of political and economic system.

Maybe we put things in terms of the past too much. Or maybe, we need to take the best from systems used in the past, and cut out their flaws, and move forward from there.

Yes indeed, valid points, but we ignore history at our peril. Anyhoo, we already had a fairly bloody revolution to get the Brits out, then another even bloodier one to decide it was ok to let them stay in the north, I don't think things have gotten so bad we need a third.

ScumLord

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Ok, I'd like to add that I'm not necessarily talking about an overthrowing of the government and rioting in the streets and that sort of chaos. But maybe the transferring of power, or a time where voices will be made heard, or even a time where those with voices of power to be held accountable.

The current system is flawed, extremely flawed. It requires infinite growth. Explain to me how infinite growth can be sustained?

Whenever our economy isn't growing it's failing. That is doomed to failure we cannot under any circumstances sustain infinite growth.

I'm surprised you can't see this basic and fundamental flaw in our current monetary system.

Sierra Oscar

I think people are becoming less militant now. The Budget just gone seems to have gone down through pretty quietly. Compare that to the last two budgets.

KerranJast

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Maybe we put things in terms of the past too much. Or maybe, we need to take the best from systems used in the past, and cut out their flaws, and move forward from there.

Socialistic Capitalism as practised by Scandinavian countries is pretty much the best you're going to get without either a fundemental change in human behaviours worldwide or a substantial cut in the World's population.

Mr Benevolent

ScumLord wrote: »

To be honest that kind of talk is just scaremongering. £we can't possibly change because we could change into something horrible" I know you're using it as an argument against anarchy but still it's a tool in the defence of the current flawed system.

I agree that the system is flawed, but changing to a new one is frankly impossible as a deliberate act. Governments changed over to democracy 100 years ago to quell unrest among the people and give a sense of fairness. 100 years later and democracy is proven to work but is showing a lot of strain.

When looked at logically, democracy is utterly insane. The population elects a bunch of wealthy people based on popularity. These people go into government with no idea on how the system works and proceed to vote on things as indicated by the Chief Whip. Meanwhile the unelected civil service does the actual work based on their experience. The departments are headed by elected ministers who have no idea what they're doing and rely again on the civil service.

So essentially the country is run by an unelected group of government employees whose final decisions are either approved or vetoed by a bunch of people elected by popularity, not ability. Scary eh? I really should be a journalist.

Same in every other country btw.

ScissorPaperRock

ScumLord wrote: »

The current system is flawed, extremely flawed. It requires infinite growth. Explain to me how infinite growth can be sustained?

Whenever our economy isn't growing it's failing. That is doomed to failure we cannot under any circumstances sustain infinite growth.

I'm surprised you can't see this basic and fundamental flaw in our current monetary system.

I agree with that. Did you accidentally quote me, or did I give a different impression?

laugh

I'd love the entire Ryanair fleet to transport all the bishops and priests off to Rome.

ScumLord

Confab wrote: »

I agree that the system is flawed, but changing to a new one is frankly impossible as a deliberate act.

You can't be so defeatist. To say to change from one completely imaginary system to another imaginary system that only exists in our own heads is impossible is quiet frankly narrow-minded, short-sighted and simply wrong. It would be uncomfortable, difficult and would possibly mean that allot of people end up with less power than before the change would be true. But **** those people!

When looked at logically, democracy is utterly insane. The population elects a bunch of wealthy people based on popularity. These people go into government with no idea on how the system works and proceed to vote on things as indicated by the Chief Whip. Meanwhile the unelected civil service does the actual work based on their experience. The departments are headed by elected ministers who have no idea what they're doing and rely again on the civil service.

Remember the French revolution, it didn't take 100s of years, it was swift and complete, the old ruling party where taken out and beheaded and replaced with the new government.

All you've really done is highlight the inadequacy of modern government and why it should be changed.

Life has changed we have the opportunity to have local government with internationally educated people. The internet gives people the opportunity to be part of a group of peers and a local community.

The only limiting factor in modern human endeavours is money.

ScumLord

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

I agree with that. Did you accidentally quote me, or did I give a different impression?

Sorry dude I quoted the wrong person.


JamesL85 Nemesis!

entropi

Revolution starts tonight! 3pm at the Government Buildings :pac:

Bring a hammer and some sandwiches:p

ScissorPaperRock

The whole monetary system is just a convenience, but comes with a great cost.

It puts the availability of a decent standard of living on a competitive basis for one. It creates a need to be ahead of others, which of course means that others have to be behind, and therefore on a lower standard of living.

Secondly, it hinders progress. Instead of advances in technology and science being geared towards creating a greater standard of living for all, its geared towards filling somebody's pockets.

It cheapens human life, and values and individualism. Everyone has to play this game, or they lose out. And unfortunately, some people are always stuck in the first level, with no way to progress. Social ideals and values are engineered by those with money to create more money, for themselves. The media, and advertising institutions, telling us from day one that we need all this material crap, which we simply don't, but feel inadequate without.

It corrupts systems of power. Those in power simply aren't there for the greater good, and even if they were initially, decisions today are based on the quick buck for a select few rather than equity.

Money is what paralyses the world today.

amacachi

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Secondly, it hinders progress. Instead of advances in technology and science being geared towards creating a greater standard of living for all, its geared towards filling somebody's pockets.

Well you're kinda getting at human nature there. Whether as many people would be bothered to advance things for everyone with less benefits for themselves compared to now is pretty doubtful in my mind.

ScissorPaperRock

amacachi wrote: »

Well you're kinda getting at human nature there. Whether as many people would be bothered to advance things for everyone with less benefits for themselves compared to now is pretty doubtful in my mind.

Ah but you have to ask, is it human nature, or are we indoctrinated into a system that tells us everything has to benefit the individual. What if societies values changed, to one that considers the greater good paramount to that of the individual?

aDeener

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Well if I had to be honest about the kind of revolution I'd like, I'd see the abolishment of the church, and of the entire monetary system (but would require a global revolution, and is for another thread), and I'm sure there's more that I can't think of right now.

Sorry I edited decentralisation out just before you posted that, because it's a **** reason for a revolution.

I just think things need to shake up a bit, and feel that everyone (myself included) is too complacent and will just continue to accept things the way they are.

And fair enough, revolutions have not always led to better replacements, but something needs to happen.

ffs :rolleyes: wait no that is actually hilarious

aDeener

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this point. The capitalist system is inherently flawed, and in it's current form is designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poor - and this is what keeps the system of production going.

as opposed to the communist system which is great in theory and practice. lord bless us it truly does take all sorts :rolleyes:

amacachi

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Ah but you have to ask, is it human nature, or are we indoctrinated into a system that tells us everything has to benefit the individual. What if societies values changed, to one that considers the greater good paramount to that of the individual?

I consider human nature to basically be that of most animals that I'm familiar with and that would be self-interest or at best small-scale group-interest. But hey, that's just me.

ScumLord

amacachi wrote: »

Well you're kinda getting at human nature there. Whether as many people would be bothered to advance things for everyone with less benefits for themselves compared to now is pretty doubtful in my mind.

This is another huge misconception, there's even a saying that proves it wrong "necessity is the mother of all invention".

The capitalist/monetary system does encourage constant innovation (in a way) you need a new product to replace the old product. It's not that innovation is a by product of the monetary system it's simply that the monetary system demands new products. 99% of those products are rubbish.

I work in a company where we make a product that is made to last a lifetime, we manufacture our product to be the best product available that's our goal and always has been. This is bad practice if you want to make money because we are in the position now where we've sold our product to nearly everybody in the country that we could sell it to and can't sell any more because our product doesn't break down.

This is another fundamental flaw with the monetary system, we're not making the best products we're making products that will guarantee the most money to investors.