[Atlantis]

@Potemkin, British democracy is not substantially worse than French democracy even though Britain never had a revolution. That effectively proves you wrong. What's wrong with British politics today is the ghost of the empire and not the lack of revolution.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin, British democracy is not substantially worse than French democracy even though Britain never had a revolution. That effectively proves you wrong. What's wrong with British politics today is the ghost of the empire and not the lack of revolution.

Britain did have a revolution, Atlantis. That was my fucking point. In fact, we had at least two revolutions and two civil wars in the course of the 17th century. More than a fifth of the population died, a larger proportion of the population than died in the First and Second World Wars combined. Without shedding that ocean of blood, Britain would not be a democracy today.

[late]

You can have a peaceful transition to representative government. It's unusual, but it happens.

What might be happening here is the blind men and the elephant syndrome. If they're standing next to a leg, it's a big honking leg.

Doing this right would take some work. If the mood moves me, I'll do some searching later, but I fear this will take more work than I am willing to put into it.

[Atlantis]

@Potemkin, if you want to relabel every conflict or civil war in history a "revolution", then the term becomes so broad as to be meaningless. How many revolutions did Germany have in that case? And if your "revolution" was a precondition for democracy, why didn't the Russian revolution lead to democracy?

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin, if you want to relabel every conflict or civil war in history a "revolution", then the term becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

The so-called 'English Civil War' encompassed the whole of what is now the United Kingdom (it actually started in Scotland, btw), and was indeed a revolution. It is even called such in the history books. And we even had a second revolution in 1688, the so-called 'Glorious Revolution', just to prove the point that we can, indeed, do revolutions. Lol.

How many revolutions did Germany have in that case?

One too few.

And if your "revolution" was a precondition for democracy, why didn't the Russian revolution lead to democracy?

It did; it just took another 70 years or so to appear. Lol. But without the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy in the two revolutions of 1917 and the destruction of the White Army in the ensuing Civil War, Russia would likely not be a democracy today.

[Atlantis]

It did; it just took another 70 years or so to appear. Lol. But without the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy in the two revolutions of 1917 and the destruction of the White Army in the ensuing Civil War, Russia would likely not be a democracy today.

No, the Russian revolution did not lead to democracy.

The last Czar was a reformer. If the Bolsheviks hadn't won, Russia would have become a democracy 70 years ago - like numerous other European countries. The fact that Russia still hasn't fully embraced democracy even today is entirely due to decades of communist dictatorship. Communist dictators have retarded the development of Russia. Anyways, it's a bit rich for Stalinists to talk about democracy.

By your reckoning Germany would have had innumerable revolutions. Just think about all the wars that followed the reformation.

[JohnRawls]

No, the Russian revolution did not lead to democracy.

The last Czar was a reformer. If the Bolsheviks hadn't won, Russia would have become a democracy 70 years ago - like numerous other European countries. The fact that Russia still hasn't fully embraced democracy even today is entirely due to decades of communist dictatorship. Communist dictators have retarded the development of Russia. Anyways, it's a bit rich for Stalinists to talk about democracy.

By your reckoning Germany would have had innumerable revolutions. Just think about all the wars that followed the reformation.

The last Czar was NOT a reformer. His "reforms" were mostly forced on him by circumstances. In a manner of speaking, his "reforms" were initiated by the same processes as his "resignation".

[Potemkin]

No, the Russian revolution did not lead to democracy.

The last Czar was a reformer. If the Bolsheviks hadn't won, Russia would have become a democracy 70 years ago - like numerous other European countries. The fact that Russia still hasn't fully embraced democracy even today is entirely due to decades of communist dictatorship. Communist dictators have retarded the development of Russia. Anyways, it's a bit rich for Stalinists to talk about democracy.

By your reckoning Germany would have had innumerable revolutions. Just think about all the wars that followed the reformation.

I mentioned the French Revolution, the English Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution. In what sense were these not revolutions, Atlantis?

And who called the wars in Germany following the Reformation 'revolutions'? Certainly not me.

[Atlantis]

@Potemkin, if you don't understand that Müntzer together with so many of the rebels of the day are the original revolutionaries, you don't know the first thing about revolution.

Anyways, you are dodging the issue. The Russian revolution did not lead to democracy.

@JohnRawls, Russian-haters need to abstain from the issue.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin, if you don't understand that Müntzer together with so many of the rebels of the day are the original revolutionaries, you don't know the first thing about revolution.

First you deny that the wars of the Reformation in Germany were revolutionary, and now you proclaim that they were. Make your mind up, Atlantis.

Anyways, you are dodging the issue. The Russian revolution did not lead to democracy.

@JohnRawls, Russian-haters need to abstain from the issue.

John Rawls was correct. The last tsar was not a reformer; he was a rather dull-witted conservative. His only 'reforms' were introduced in the wake of the 1905 Russian revolution, which had been successful. The victorious revolutionaries made the mistake of compromising with the defeated Nicholas II when he promised a Duma and elections. In the following years, he rolled back the reforms, castrated the Duma, and then unleashed Stolypin on the dissidents. The hangman's noose became known as the 'Stolypin necktie', because he hanged so many revolutionaries and student activists. This meant that when 1917 rolled around, there were to be no compromises and no half measures this time. Nicholas II had to go.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis

The point is that a violent overthrow of a regime usually makes things worse and not better.

Things have to get worse for it to get better later on.
No one said it's pleasant building from scratch.

And "peaceful" reforms don't work, they never do, because those in power are still in power, and they'll still project their authority with force.

That the regime change will lead to an improvement in the long term is pure speculation and cannot be proven. Even if there is an improvement in future decades, it'll probably be due to other causes.

It's a gamble worth taking.
As said before, in regards to the people of the middle east, there isn't really much left to be lost.
The current situation is one of endless oppression, starvation, humiliation, suffering, and torment, with any descent being severely punished.

There is not one country where the Arab Spring has led to an improvement. Even in Tunisia, which holds on by a straw to a fragile democracy, the economic situation has deteriorated. And don't tell me that you are prepared to take economic suffering to achieve abstract values of human rights or democracy, because virtually every protest movement is motivated by economic hardship. The Arab Spring in Tunisia, the current protests in Iraq and Lebanon, the Yellow Vests in France, the violent protests in Chile, ..., they are all motivated by economic grievances.

As they say, better suffer some deprivation now for a better future than to suffer a future of deprivation.
And, plus, the diasporas are all wanting to come back, the only problem is the powers that be are preventing that.

There is no scenario in which a regime change in Syria would be an improvement, no matter how bad Assad's police state was in the past.

Actually no, I would disagree; The revolution had failed, but there will be another revolution, and another, and another until it succeeds.
And if you think that the Assad fascist regime wasn't worse, you clearly haven't read the history of the Baath party, both wings.
The only difference now is that the massacres are exposed in the open.

A ruler who needs to defend his regime against a violent opposition has to use violent means to defend his regime.

And the same applies in reverse, if a ruler took control through violence, and enforced its rule through violence, then the opposition has to use violent means to overthrow it.
The Baath party in both Syria and Iraq took power using excessive and extreme violence.

If another tribal ruler manages to topple the regime

If the Baath regime fell, then Syria will either adopt a federal system or be partitioned into multiple states, mainly returning to the old borders.

In Europe, there are still a number of monarchies that never had a revolution because the rulers agreed to gradually give up their power to an elected parliament over centuries.

Dude, I've read European history. European democracy rose either through violent revolutions, fear of violent revolutions, or being forced upon a country by wars or outside powers.

All of the infighting in the ME is a thing of the past. It shouldn't happen today, because we won't have a future if we don't fight climate change all together. And don't tell me it doesn't concern you, because the ME will be hit particularly hard by increasing temperature and the shift away from fossil fuels.

The middle east has the same problem as the US does in that regard.
A while ago there were floods in Jordan that killed several people, the reason why it led to that is because of poor infrastructure which there because the king and queen bankrupted the country and were and are unwilling to give up their wealth to actually reform and overhaul the country to face climate change.
It's almost as if they're the obstacle to a solution, don't you say?

The Syrian war started with uprisings caused by droughts, which the regime was not willing to take measures to counter since it would've required a degree of decentralization and to spend money on it obviously, which means to give up both power and wealth. Again, the regime was not willing to do so. And here we are.

The same goes for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. And the same goes for Iran.

If you are concerned about climate change in the middle east, you'd be against the regimes there since they're the obstacle to any solution.

[Atlantis]

@Potemkin, you are still dodging the issue that the Russian revolution (like most revolutions) was a complete failure. It didn't lead to democracy, as you claim. It can only serve as negative example, or as something to be overcome. Like in China, which had innumerable revolutions, the only thing that ever improved things were non-revolutions like Deng’s reforms.

The problem is that revolutionaries are narcissists who are in love with their own ideas. That’s also why you are wrong when you claim that enlightenment has nothing to do with it.

@anasawad, you don't realize it but you are part of the problem not part of the solution. You want to perpetuate a system of violence. The aim does not justify the means, it never does. It is wrong to believe that the opposition is better than the regime. They are identical. When the opposition comes into power, it'll do the same thing as the regime does now. The regime is corrupt. When the opposition gets into power, it'll be even more corrupt because it is hungry and has a lot of catching-up to do.

The time to break the cycle of violence is now. It is always now. Chances for good government will not increase, no matter how many cycles of violence you go through.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis
I'm not part of the problem, those who think that people should remain silent and let oppressive and tyrannical regimes grow and prosper on the expense of their people and countries are the problem.

And you don't "perpetuate a system of violence" by fighting back and defending yourself.

[Potemkin]

@Atlantis
I'm not part of the problem, those who think that people should remain silent and let oppressive and tyrannical regimes grow and prosper on the expense of their people and countries are the problem.

And you don't "perpetuate a system of violence" by fighting back and defending yourself.

I think the problem is that Atlantis is from Germany, a nation which was simply given democracy by its former enemies. In fact, Rosa Luxemburg pointed out as early as 1919 that the fact that the German people had simply been given their freedom by the Kaiser's abdication rather than having to fight for it was going to lead to all manner of problems in the future. True freedom is not given; it is taken. By force if need be. What comes too easily can be lost too easily.

[Rugoz]

I think the problem is that Atlantis is from Germany, a nation which was simply given democracy by its former enemies. In fact, Rosa Luxemburg pointed out as early as 1919 that the fact that the German people had simply been given their freedom by the Kaiser's abdication rather than having to fight for it was going to lead to all manner of problems in the future. True freedom is not given; it is taken. By force if need be. What comes too easily can be lost too easily.

Well not exactly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Re ... %80%931919