Transnational Revolutions

CHUQ · Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: Transnational Revolutions

This is a good synopsis that was printed back in April in UPI. Please give me your thoughts.

WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- Transnational revolutionary movements seek to promote their brand of revolution not just in one country, but in a group of countries or even the entire world. Nationalist revolutionaries, by contrast, seek to promote revolution just in one country.

Marxist-Leninist, Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist are three transnational movements that have been particularly active in recent decades.

Transnational and national revolutionary movements may be motivated by similar concerns: the desire to rid their country of authoritarian rule and/or foreign domination; and the desire to change existing patterns of income distribution.

LINK
_________________
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

please visit my blog: http://studiesandobservations.blogspot.com/

Google · AdSense

trivium666fan · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject:

If ou read my signature, you can see exactly what my views on revolution actually are(when it comes to some physical disobediance or destruction). But yes, this article hits the idea of revolutions right on the nose.

Communist nations and religious groups can only survive peacefully if the entire world falls under it's command. If a "communist" nation doesn't have international support, the area and resources will be lacking for the country. Religions cannot agree because of the simple fact that they tell you not to agree with eachother. The most common stereotype passed along by religious groups is "follow my ideas or I'll hurt you."

Most of the time, political revolutionaries are just few people that are being screwed over and idiots that are easily mobiblized. Religious groups are few learned devoted followers brainwashing the rest.

Revolutions are for the most part violent government overthrows that fail afterwards, i.e. USSR's dissmantel, Cuba's new dictatorship, Mexico's failing economy and growing lower class, Hitler's "suicide," China's cultural revolution destroying many old customs, etc. They are all examples of what has happened after many revolutions.
_________________
"Revolution is a means by which one group of idiots displaces the predominant group of idiots."

CHUQ · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject:

I will agree that the people that have started revolutions have been some meglo,aniacs that love to see their name in lights. However, let us talk about Castro, in the beginning he wante3d what was best for the Cuban people. His first act when he returned to Cuba was to burn his family's sugar crop. He was not a Marxist until his rag tag group took control of the country. He seasrched for the best and quickest way to provide a descent living for ALL Cubans and socialism was what he came up with. Lenin was a Communist when they took control of Russia, but as with Cuba these people were not prepared for the task that was npresented them. Most make horrendous mistakes, Lenin's was he died and Stalin came to power. Mao, now here is a piece of work. An guerilla warfare expert, his writing s are still required reading for special forces. He loke otherss was not ready for the big time when it comes to running a country. He became a cult of personality and that played to the whackos in the government. I am not saying they are all misunderstood, that few were prepared for the positions they found themselves in.

Revolutionaries unfortunately all have the same problem, they stick to theory and actual adminstration eludes them. This is one of the reasons that revolutions are seldom effective, they have no pratical experience at government, plenty with theory, no good people skills.

I do not think that all revolutionaries are idiots; I have been a revolutionary for many years. Revolutionary does not necessarily mean violence, but rather a desire for change and the betterment of the people. Without revolutionaries where would the US be? Look at Thomas Paine he was a revolutionary that started the whole thing and he never fired a shot. He had more influence over the revolution than any of the pistol packers.
_________________
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

please visit my blog: http://studiesandobservations.blogspot.com/

trivium666fan · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject:

CHUQ wrote:

I do not think that all revolutionaries are idiots; I have been a revolutionary for many years.

The quote itself, at least for me, represents those who bring about the voilent and destructive revolutions. Those are usually led by people with much theory and no experience. That is what I mean by "idiot." Not so much stupid, but inexperienced.
_________________
"Revolution is a means by which one group of idiots displaces the predominant group of idiots."

CHUQ · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:43 am Post subject:

MOst revolutionaries start out with good intentions for the country, look at Gandhi, but ambition gets in the way. By ambition I mean instead of concentrating on stabilizing the country they start looking to promote their theories alsewhere, i.e. Russia, China, Cuba, etc. In Gandhi's case he help India gain independence, but that is all they gained, few of the things he wanted to change have not and it has taken India about 60 years to improve their international status. Another reason for some of the hard handed stuff is that the ones that were thrown out of power will want it back and that incident must be addressed and overreaction is the norm. Having to fight a civil war while trying to repair the country is difficult, at best.

To me the theories are not flawed, the leadrers are. IMo, they spend too much time worrying about their legacy and their place in theoretical history and not enough stabiliizing the country they just "liberated". So I say the major flaw with revolution is ambition.
_________________
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

please visit my blog: http://studiesandobservations.blogspot.com/

trivium666fan · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:21 am Post subject:

CHUQ wrote:

MOst revolutionaries start out with good intentions for the country, look at Gandhi, but ambition gets in the way. By ambition I mean instead of concentrating on stabilizing the country they start looking to promote their theories alsewhere, i.e. Russia, China, Cuba, etc. In Gandhi's case he help India gain independence, but that is all they gained, few of the things he wanted to change have not and it has taken India about 60 years to improve their international status. Another reason for some of the hard handed stuff is that the ones that were thrown out of power will want it back and that incident must be addressed and overreaction is the norm. Having to fight a civil war while trying to repair the country is difficult, at best.

To me the theories are not flawed, the leadrers are. IMo, they spend too much time worrying about their legacy and their place in theoretical history and not enough stabiliizing the country they just "liberated". So I say the major flaw with revolution is ambition.

It's more than worrying about their legacy, because the Bolshevik Revolution never had any major player think much about their legacy, nor did the America Revolution(the most admired of all was George Washington, and he won 3 of 9 battles).

Looking for their ideas to be spread in other countries is normal, though. Many revolutionaries go to countries that are powerful or simply stronger than theirs to support them. That is like when the Americans needed help against Great Britain and got France to back them up, except America was fighting for something different. And everyone wants power, not just those who were removed. That is just a once-powerful group looking to regain their power. The only difference between them and other groups of a nation is that the other groups are gaining power for the first time.

As for "repairing a country during a civil war," well that is just ridiculous. If you try and "fix" a country, and then let the civil war occur, then the country will just break again just as bad as it was before, if not worse. A civil war is needed for every country to survive, and afterwards, it will be re-built by the winners(or survivors, whatever you wish to call them). We have to let a civil war happen in a country for it to survive, and THEN attempt to fix it.
_________________
"Revolution is a means by which one group of idiots displaces the predominant group of idiots."

CHUQ · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:05 am Post subject:

I think legacy is one of the major movers in the world. Lenin did not want anything but what HE considered best for the people (I will agree that he made many mistakes along the way) But Stalin was looking for a legacy, that is why there were a ba-zillion statues of him, the Lenin statues were put up after his death to legitamize Stalin as the heir to Lenin.

I will agree that if you try to export revolution before the country is stable it will fail. Look at the US, after the War it became isolated and that gave time for all the stuff to take and for the States to accept a central govt. Russia did not do this, it failed.

IMO, if France had not already been at war with the Brits, they would have stayed out of the Am. revolution. They would have had little to gain by involving themselves in it. And to Russia was not occupied by a foreign govt, it was a hoimegrown prob. I think if they had been a possession of GB that the revolution might have succeed, but they is purely speculation on my part. There would have been a common enemy, instesad of one class against another.

I do not think that repairing a country before the Civil War is ridiculuous. If there were not huge divides in the people a civil war would not need to happen. But you have ppl that are use to being in control, like an army or a slave owner, and then when power is taken they will react. Shoot! Iraq is a prime example. Again it is not about the ppl but who gets what and in as such it is a power struggle to control the country, not the benefit of the ppl. MONEY!

THe Americsan Civil War is another example, after the shooting ended, the Federal govt had to have a military presence to force a settlement of past grudges. The North raped the South for damn near 100 yrs (some say they still are, but that is just a talking point). So force is always needed, you may not agree with the tactics, but it is still force.

It is early and little sleep, so if this is run on and confusing let me know and I will try to clear it up!
_________________
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

please visit my blog: http://studiesandobservations.blogspot.com/