Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If there WAS a broad mass-based left-wing revolution during a Democratic presidency... [View all]MineralMan
(146,409 posts)34. Not a realistic proposition, so I can't vote.
How would such a "broad mass-based left-wing revolution" actually happen in those circumstances? I've seen no sign of any mass-based anything so far. I doubt that the sentiment for any sort of revolution appeals to even 1% of the population. That's not enough to even get 100,000 people to DC to protest something. On the other hand, look at the turnout for Obama's first inauguration.
Where is this revolutionary "mass" to come from? I see no organizational efforts to that end anywhere. When someone or some groups have tried to organize, nothing much comes of it. The 99% isn't interested in revolution, apparently.
I don't think your poll question actually makes much sense in the real world. I'm not able to vote in your poll.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
If there WAS a broad mass-based left-wing revolution during a Democratic presidency... [View all]
Ken Burch
Sep 2014
OP
the broad mass-based race would then have a leader. Haven't we been there done that already?
lonestarnot
Sep 2014
#1
A natural leader will have the tendency to lead. Anarchy doesn't work well. It can be a pain in
lonestarnot
Sep 2014
#3
The current President would view any left-leaning popular movement as hostile. [n/t]
Maedhros
Sep 2014
#32
That's sort of how he viewed OWS, judging from the Federal coordination of the crackdown. [n/t]
Maedhros
Sep 2014
#42
That's surprising; I suggest you add that to the OP to make it clear
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2014
#45
Your first paragraph was fine. If all your posts in this thread had been like that,
Ken Burch
Sep 2014
#63
Revolutions make their own logic; Germany was the most liberal European country for a while
Recursion
Sep 2014
#19
I didn't read the Genovese quote as an accusation of cowardice against slaves.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2014
#23
The thing is, as far as I know, nobody actually WAS asking why Nat Turner was the only revolt leader
Ken Burch
Sep 2014
#62
If we had a real progressive Democratic president, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House
Louisiana1976
Sep 2014
#28
that. is not how the major political parties run. if they are able to get a consensus that is what
still_one
Sep 2014
#30
Since this such an unlikely hypothetical situation, I'll assume the good faith is obvious
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2014
#51
There will always be people who would rather burn the village down in the name of "saving" it.
baldguy
Sep 2014
#58
If individuals can't gain power through elections they shouldn't take it by force. N/T
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#53
when the left primaries Tom Carper I'll start considering their potential to lead a revolution nt
geek tragedy
Sep 2014
#61