Why Was There No Communist Revolution In Britain? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14086725
"Welfare States" killed socialist movements in Britain and Western Europe in general imo, but I don't think there was any real grassroot socialist movement in Britain at any time, she just produced a good number of bouergiouse marxist intellectuals (disconnected from masses) and that's about it resulting in perversion of marxist ideas in form of "eurocommuism" and "new left"
#14649481
Because the British Royal family knew when it was the right time to step down, they didn't try to desperatly hold on to total power like the Tsar, what an arrogant idiot he was, or the French aristocracy. They got a good deal out of it too by still being alive and relevant despite not having the absolute power the monarch had in the past.

Britian handeled the switchover from absolute monarchy to democracy better than most countries with no despoted dictators or a extreme party like Nazi's or Communists monopolising power.
#14649511
SD92 wrote:Because the British Royal family knew when it was the right time to step down,
Hardly. We publicly beheaded one of our monarchs, and when his son failed to get the message, we rallied to the liberator, William of Orange and the Papist had to run for his life. We made quite clear to William that his power would be limited. When he died we were ruled by two women and then two men who couldn't speak English. They were followed by George III who lost the thirteen colonies, through his high handedness, and then went mad, necessitating Parliament to rule on the Regancy. By the time George iV came to the throne the Monarch didn't have a lot of power. I wouldn't ascribe that power loss to any great wisdom amongst the Kings themselves, quite the reverse in fact.

We tried revolution early, and found out it wasn't all its cracked up to be. Democratic pluralism is far better than the reality of revolutionary utopias.
Last edited by Rich on 05 Feb 2016 09:27, edited 1 time in total.
#14649537
I would like to add I'm not a natural monarchist, I detest the subservience, the bull shit and the intellectual mediocrity of our own royal family. But in pre modern societies hereditary monarchy does have its advantages. If democracy is out, which was effectively the case during the middle Ages and in the large empires of the ancient world then the only alternative to monarchy is the biggest psychopath wins. At least there's a random chance of getting someone not not too awful as opposed to no chance. This is what we see with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, Kim il Sung and Saddam Hussein.

The countervailing factor in a dictatorship is that when the psycho dies he's normally eliminated all the other potential psychos to replace him. So Communism started winding down after Stalin and Mao, because the elite realised it wasn't much fun being in fear of their lives all the time. They didn't want to be led by any more fanatics. Reducing the inequlites of power, prestige, prosperity and opportunity is a noble end. Trying to abolish them is delusional and will inevitably end badly.

When people say democracy is a fiction or its not working, they generally seem to mean, the country's not being run the way I think it should be run. people complain that the majority's wants are bing ignored by the political elite, but the majorty's wants are often contradictory and incoherent at an individual level. they're always contradictory and incoherent at a collective level.
#14649539
Rich wrote:If democracy is out, which was effectively the case during the middle Ages and in the large empires of the ancient world then the only alternative to monarchy is the biggest psychopath wins. At least there's a random chance of getting someone not not too awful as opposed to no chance.

The countervailing factor in a dictatorship is that when the psycho dies he's normally eliminated all the other potential psychos to replace him.
Of course you can have the best of both worlds - a hereditary dictatorship where the ruling psycho makes sure that he is succeeded by another psycho. North Korea, anyone?
#14649949
Rich wrote:Hardly. We publicly beheaded one of our monarchs, and when his son failed to get the message, we rallied to the liberator, William of Orange and the Papist had to run for his life. We made quite clear to William that his power would be limited. When he died we were ruled by two women and then two men who couldn't speak English. They were followed by George III who lost the thirteen colonies, through his high handedness, and then went mad, necessitating Parliament to rule on the Regancy. By the time George iV came to the throne the Monarch didn't have a lot of power. I wouldn't ascribe that power loss to any great wisdom amongst the Kings themselves, quite the reverse in fact.

We tried revolution early, and found out it wasn't all its cracked up to be. Democratic pluralism is far better than the reality of revolutionary utopias.



Charles I lost his head in the 17th century, this was long before the revolutions in the rest of Europe such as the Febuary reveltuion in Russia. Completely different time period and can't be compared to something that happened 300 years later. Charles I genuinly believed in divine right of kings because most people believed it at the time. He wasn't a despot using this to gain power over the populace, he was a good guy.

And William of Orange took the message and accepted his limited powers. He didn't try to fight against it to establish a monarchy and run as a dictator. That's my point. He knew that it was better for him to take a back seat and not start bossing parliment about or there might have been revolution against the monarchy, or worse he could have had his chopped off.
#14649958
And William of Orange took the message and accepted his limited powers. He didn't try to fight against it to establish a monarchy and run as a dictator. That's my point. He knew that it was better for him to take a back seat and not start bossing parliment about or there might have been revolution against the monarchy, or worse he could have had his chopped off.

Actually, William and Parliament had most cordial relations. It was Parliament, after all, which had invited him to become king; without that invitation, he would have still have been in Holland. The clique which overthrew James II and invited William to invade-, er, I mean migrate to England to become the new King set out the terms and conditions of the invitation in a long letter they had sent to him, and he had agreed to abide by these terms and conditions. Parliament therefore had no problem with him, and he had no problem with Parliament.
#14650153
Potemkin wrote:Actually, William and Parliament had most cordial relations. It was Parliament, after all, which had invited him to become king; without that invitation, he would have still have been in Holland. The clique which overthrew James II and invited William to invade-, er, I mean migrate to England to become the new King set out the terms and conditions of the invitation in a long letter they had sent to him, and he had agreed to abide by these terms and conditions. Parliament therefore had no problem with him, and he had no problem with Parliament.


Exactly. That's basically what I said. William of Orange was a nice guy who didn't want any trouble. He could have gone against the terms and conditions but he knew it was in the best interests of himself and the country to let parliment rule.
#14650166
PI wrote:I have heard that from the 1920s to the 1960s the British communist movement was relatively strong.
Ombrageux wrote: I don't think this is true. British Communist movements were always politically marginal.

From a distant and outside perspective, that's what it looks like to me. The British historical environment I think led to basic insecurities. It's just a laundry list of one threat after another. Having the French as next door neighbors probably didn't help either. All of that has led to a unique national personality that favors domestic ideas ... Now if Marx had been an Englishman ? Things might be quite different !

Zam
#14765987
There are two ways how you can get a communist government:
1.) Revolution - requires major social problems, a major lost war. European countries turned communist via revolution after devastating wars. Countries that were more organized (Germany, Hungary) these revolutions (after WW1) were defeated.
2.) Election - very unlikely to happen as although a communist party can gain significant popularity, it can be very hard to form any government as others will ally against it and implement its social programs to marginalize it.

Britain's political system is designed for stability - it's very difficult for a new party to gain sufficient support to hold significant influence in parliament. It usually allows only 2 strong party + 1 insignificant party. Britain didn't lose a war, wasn't so devastated like other European countries, was well "organized" and developed.

Capitalism + democracy is a quite stable system as you can have very unhappy people, but as long as majority doesn't find a better alternative no changes will occur.

I think it was a miscalculation of the communist movement to expect communism could win in any developed country. Communism needs a devastating war to gain power or a very disorganized country. This is what happened historically - communists took over the poorest and most devastated countries which already gave them very poor starting point against capitalism. They never managed to get it working in any country after many failed attempts so it's very unlikely anybody will try to repeat it in near future.
#14765996
They never managed to get it working in any country after many failed attempts so it's very unlikely anybody will try to repeat it in near future.


Communism is not done. It is debatable whether it is workable with tens of millions, but it is still a desirable alternative for smaller groups. The amount of control necessary to make it work initially tends to destroy itself on a large level.
Anyway, felt like throwing in my worthless opinion. :D
#14765999
Political Interest wrote:Why did communism never come to the UK? I have heard that from the 1920s to the 1960s the British communist movement was relatively strong. A series of events such as the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956 and again in Czechoslovakia in 1968 caused people to lose confidence in this ideology. It is also possible that many simply lost interest and the excitement for communism went away with time. The UK had a strong working class like Germany and the Russian Empire. Was it due to social democratic concessions like those granted by Clement Attlee?


Because only under serf conditions does Communism sound like a good idea to the majority of people.

No, it's not that he "may" have partici[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]