Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why do liberals equate "revolution" with civil war?

Do they not know the definition of "revolution?"

Like they don't know the definition of "economics," or "socialism?"

18 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am not aware of Liberals knowing much about anything, actually. They know what they want, and how things should be, in their minds, but not usually any factual data.

    They are actually taking words and changing the meaning of them, if you can believe that.

  • 1 decade ago

    I noticed you didn't define anything here, either, except your own lack of understanding of the current world order. Liberal or conservative, ignorance is always the source of arrogance.

    Unless you have a miracle fantasyland in your pocket you're going to hold this revolution in, on THIS planet, any revolution will be challenging an established government, which will fight to retain its power (since that's what governments do, see: all of recorded history.) That would result in a civil war, by definition.

  • bwlobo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I like this engineering term for "revolution"... it describes what Conservatives are actually doing:

    (n.) Return to a point before occupied, or to a point relatively the same; a rolling back; return; as, revolution in an ellipse or spiral.

    Overturn liberalism with common sense... this is the revolution we are now experiencing! Truth will triumph! We will get to the point before occupied, where our Constitution meant us to be!

    Source(s): bwlobo
  • 1 decade ago

    I have noticed that ANYTHING that questions or casts aspersions on ANY Liberal agenda or 'sacred cow' is attacked with a ferocity not seen since the 'Spanish Inquisition'!

    The "Revolution" of the 'Tea Party' Movement is particularly 'maddening' to the Liberal sensibility's!

    Like-wise the term 'Socialism', not because of what it defines, but because of the negative connotations!

    That is why 'political correctness' is so appealing to Liberals!

    It isn't the actual meaning of a word or phrase, but the way it sounds or the implied social implications!

    That's why 'Global Warming' is now 'Climate Change'.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Revolution,Socialism, in my view, does not mean simply a new economic structure, and it does not mean control by a new elite. It means transforming all the relationships in society to accord with the values, goals and idea of human life of ordinary working people.

    Deep down inside, the wealthy know it is they who are the aliens, foreigners, cocooned in spaceship estates and private clubs. These entrenched fortresses are homes and breeding grounds for the predatory class. The power of wealth, however, does not come from within. Nor does it come from their mythological creator that they would have us fear. Deep down the wealthy know that their lives are no more significant than the lives that grant them their power. Their power comes from the willing multimillions who sustain them and their corrupt system.

    The working class at the bottom of the capitalist pyramid holds up the wealthy class through willing obedience. The working class prop up the wealthy as long as workers continue adopting the cause of the wealthy as their own. The willing enablers are in essence hoodwinked into toeing the line presumably out of free will and in their own interest. This worker devotion to the cause of the wealthy is a consequence of blaming the victim for their own trials and tribulations. If the working class blames itself then it preoccupies itself with guilt. Why blame the rich when everything in our culture tells us that the culprit is always someone else? There is the flavor-villain of the week, villains chosen by psyops specialists of the ruling elite.

    The enemy thus constantly changes. Reds. Commies, socialists, hippies, welfare moms, the homeless, liberals, gays, atheists, people with disabilities, etc. Take your pick. There is always someone to hate and someone to tell to hate. The enemy is always other than the ruling elite. So, the ruling class supports dictators worldwide (including Saddam), makes foreign policy, creates war and institutes police states, passes laws that serve the ulterior motives of the few. The few demand from the many. The significant minority steal the assets, life and well-being from the majority. The majority are, after all, slugs, in the grandiose scheme of things in the world of the rich and powerful.

  • 1 decade ago

    Liberals do not equate revolution with civil war, and it is impossible to answer further, without a clearer definition of what you believe economics and socialism to be. It seems to me that the right is hurling these words about a bit too loosely these days.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not all of them but some do because they think conservatives will do a civil war

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Any nation that has an existing government, with entrenched interest groups benefiting from that government, wil be likely to oppose a revolution, leading to civil war.

  • its a revolution if the descending party wins and a civil war if they loose, like in the us civil war if the south had one it would of been their revolutionary war, and if america had lost the revolutionary war it would of been a british empire civil war

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Perhaps it stems from the near-constant statements from the Right advocating buying ammunition, stocking up on provisions, etc. as part of this "revolution".

    To put it more bluntly: Stop wearing the red rubber noses while insisting you're not clowns.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, its misguided idiots who believe social programs = socialism. Not only liberals, but all

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.