Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
Beren wrote:You've changed the original article, you just didn't cut out the unbolded sections, then you put it in the wrong subforum to generate the impression that it's not really an exclusively American article, so now we have discussions unrelated to the original article all around here. I wonder whether you consider that a success.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:This is not a debate. You are accusing me of having some nonsensical and illogical ulterior motive and have made several posts that suggest that I have changed the content of the article. I'm telling you to back off and go do something more productive.
Rapperson wrote:Give us an example.
JohnRawls wrote:Unification of Germany.
Unification of Italy.
US independence movement.
Most if imperalism related wars.
Anglo-Dutch war.
Glorious revolution.
First world war.
Many Russian Serf rebellions including Yemelyan Pugachevs rebellion.
French revolutions to a degree.
To name a few.
Beren wrote:Who cares what you're telling me to do? Who do you think you are? You're not even a decent poster posting things where they should be posted.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Sorry to say, but you do need a good telling off. Again, if you have any grievances about this thread, go to the basement. You might also want to ask yourself why this bothers you so much. It's quite odd frankly.
Rapperson wrote:
With violence, all except 4).
JohnRawls wrote:
Why do you think capitalism was not achieved by violence? Did the aristocracy simply give away their rights and priviligies or perhaps they fought for them to the bitter end and lost? (In some cases after several tries)
It is a bit hard to fully explain the transition because it did not happen at the same time but in a span of several centuries from different kinds of economic models to capitalism.
My point is that violence simply does not work in this day and age. Gandhi, knew that he could not directly fight the British to liberate India. Mandela learned that violent terrorist attacks would not give his movement any traction. Palestine has only seen success via diplomatic means. Nations like Canada, Australia, and others broke away diplomatically and still have strong ties to Britain (Correct me if I am wrong, but Canada recognizes the Queen of England).
Meanwhile, an example of violent revolution may be ISIS. They are quickly loosing due to their use of violence and atrocities, and they have little favor, even amongst the people whom they claim to represent. Maybe in 1776, when all nations had a more equal degree of military power, but not now, when the west easily crushes any rebellion it sees as unworthy.
Now lets take your examples one by one.
1) How did Napoleon managed to create the French Republic?
Napoleon did not create the first republic. He created the first empire. The first republic was created via a mixture of violent, but not militaristic, and diplomatic means, and defended by radical left forces. It was only after the right got into power that the republic significantly weakened. Reactionaries repealed many reforms of the previous stages of the French Revolution, stirring discontent with the government and allowing for Napoleon's take-over.
2) How did the Bolsheviks managed to create the RSFSR and later the Soviet Union?
The initial revolution was a completely bloodless coup, well planed by Lenin. The violence only started when western-supplied white forces retaliated.
3) How did the Church managed to Christianise most of Europe?
It was not the church that cristianised Europe, it was Ancient Rome, who forced the religion on everyone in the empire.
4) How did capitalism came to being in the UK and the rest of Europe?
Through violence against workers. The free market embodies violence by allowing workers to be fired, arrested, or worse when they strike, unionize, and conduct other "anti-capitalist actions." That is why is advocate for a global revolution towards communism @JohnRawls. In this way, a mass strike could be organized, bringing the global economy to a screeching halt, and tactics such as arrest cannot be used.
5) How do most countries achieve their independence?
Pre World Wars, through violence; Post world wars, through peaceful protest.
Hope I answered all of your questions
fuser wrote:Sorry for being pedantic but I have to say something on political terminology i.E. how everything that is not this current alt right, right wing populist is suddenly left. The space for right it seems has shrunk dramatically or else how the hell Marcon is representative of left as this article suggests?
According to now available official sources, 26 protesters were killed by the machine-gun-equipped[5][6] Soviet Army troops, and 87 were wounded with 3 of those dying later of their wounds. After the initial demonstrations, a curfew was implemented in the town. The dead bodies were secretly buried in the cemeteries of other towns of the Rostov Oblast. However, the following morning, a large group of several hundred demonstrators again gathered in the square. One hundred and sixteen were arrested, of which fourteen were convicted by show trials, seven of those receiving a death sentence and were executed. The others were sentenced to prison terms of ten to fifteen years.[7]
During the Great Terror, the distortion of interests, whereby unions fought for state production interests rather than workers' direct interests of compensation and safety, reached the point of absurdity, as no degree of unsafe working conditions or low pay could be countered by the unions if the party and state decided that the sacrifices must be made. The head of the trade union council during the 1920s, Mikhail Tomsky, first was deposed and some years later committed suicide to avoid the false persecution of the purges.
@Rapperson
You wanted examples of wars that are fought to establish capitalism.
Rapperson wrote:...
JohnRawls wrote:Okay, to answer your question then I need to know what do you exactly view/consider establishment of capitalism? Do you view it as 1 event? ( It was feudalism and then poof its capitalism?) Do you consider capitalism to be unchanging? If it does change then how does this change happen?
JohnRawls wrote:
Not really. You seem to divide the history between and after world wars. You think that our politically processes have changed and they have but not to the same degree that you think.
Post world-war 2 successes were possible because the colonial powers were significantly weakened by the world war. That is why Britain technically had no other choice but to let go India,Canada etc or face a fight on several fronts that it could not possible win. French were much more stupider in this regard and tried to maintain their control over Far Asia and Northern Africa but lost militarily and had to retreat.
You on the other hand, advocate a massive change that is akin to the rise of Communism in Tsarist Russia. There is no doubt that foreign powers will simply not accept this kind of change the same way that they did not accept the change in the Tsarist Russia. Most of your explanations were something along the lines "It started peacefully but then x evil power intervened and made it a bloody mess". But this is what happens when even moderate amount of change happens, you are bound to step on somebodies interest/toes. Be it somebody within your country or outside.
This is especially important when massive change happens. (Emancipation of serfs, emancipation of slaves, change in world super powers etc)
As much as you like it or not, your ideology is a very massive change to what is currently considered the norm.
First of all you want to relinquish most of govermental authority as i understand. (Do you think simply think that goverment will not fight back against this?)
Second of all, you wish the owners to give away their rights to the profits and let the people/communes be in charge of production(Again, do you think they will not push back against this?)
Third of all, even if for some miracle this succeeds in your country, do you really think you will have the power to fight back against other countries with no authoritative structure? (Obviously you represent a threat to other countries because you just managed to "topple" the government and basically rob the rich)
I am not claiming that there are zero genetic dif[…]
Customs is rarely nice. It's always best to pack l[…]
The more time passes, the more instances of harass[…]
And I don't blame Noam Chomsky for being a falli[…]