Survivalist group wants to build medieval-style fortress in Idaho
258 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39543213]the american revolution was violent. [/QUOTE]
No, the American Revolution in the context you're speaking of was not violent.
The war [I]for independence[/I] was violent. But the "revolution" to form a nation without a monarchy and to rely on democratic and republican principles formed without a single shot or violent act in the US, mainly because it had an overwhelming history of democracy and representative government in the colonies as far back as Plymouth. America was basically trained to be a democracy from the beginning, you can't attribute its war to shake off British dominion of it as a "violent switch to democracy". The fact that the Continental Congress existed before the war actually began is another proof.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39546394]No, the American Revolution in the context you're speaking of was not violent.
The war [I]for independence[/I] was violent. But the "revolution" to form a nation without a monarchy and to rely on democratic and republican principles formed without a single shot or violent act in the US, mainly because it had an overwhelming history of democracy and representative government in the colonies as far back as Plymouth. America was basically trained to be a democracy from the beginning, you can't attribute its war to shake off British dominion of it as a "violent switch to democracy". The fact that the Continental Congress existed before the war actually began is another proof.[/QUOTE]
that's a fair point, but doesn't hold much weight in the context of the idea of violent revolutions. i mean you could say the anarchist revolution in catalonia was completely nonviolent because the cnt existed long before any shots were fire, or that the russian revolution to communism was nonviolent because the bolsheviks officially took power legally.
you can surely see how this sort of thinking can muddle up a comparison between different ideologies and revolutions in real life that endorsed that idea.
I didn't read much into your guys whole discussion on revolutions, I just wanted to clarify that one bit about the American Revolution.
Honestly, the "revolution" America had was really just one in name.
[QUOTE=scout1;39546081]You say that like being correct is a bad thing. No wonder you've argued so terribly.[/QUOTE]
nope
[QUOTE=FZE;39499141][B]CHILDREN![/B] HAVE THEY[I] NEVER EVEN PLAYED [/i]DWARF FORTRESS?[/QUOTE]
Or Minecraft.
Building farms underground is oddly practical...
[editline]11th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39500434][url=http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=235733]Welcome to Ayn Rand land! Get a gun! Do your work! Fucking listen to me you peasant slave![/url][/QUOTE]
Holy shit this is one of the best things I have read in a while.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39543294]so the american revolution, english civil war, glorious revolution, and german revolution did not exist then?[/QUOTE]
The American revolution just took power from the British landowners and gave it to the American landowners. People didn't kill others for the right to vote.
The English civil war ended up with a constantly shrinking parliament until it declared a dictatorship, then later brought back the king as though nothing happened.
The Glorious revolution, true, it reduced the power of the monarch a lot, but I would argue that the same type of people ruled the country until 1832.
Which German revolution?
They're only making a fool out of themselves.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39551338]The American revolution just took power from the British landowners and gave it to the American landowners. People didn't kill others for the right to vote.
The English civil war ended up with a constantly shrinking parliament until it declared a dictatorship, then later brought back the king as though nothing happened.
The Glorious revolution, true, it reduced the power of the monarch a lot, but I would argue that the same type of people ruled the country until 1832.
Which German revolution?[/QUOTE]
i meant the german revolution in the interwar period. that doesn't seem incredibly bloody, but it still was a civil war i think.
and the problem is you want to use a different definition of "revolution" when talking about democracies than you do when talking about leftists. in the case of democracy it is a slow process taking years, but with leftism it is a violent uprising. this isn't true at all, the anarchist revolution in spain started long before the spanish civil war. we can either look at the actual fighting part of the revolution, or the cultural and legal parts of the revolution, but you cannot apply them unevenly in your comparison.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39551676]i meant the german revolution in the interwar period. that doesn't seem incredibly bloody, but it still was a civil war i think.
and the problem is you want to use a different definition of "revolution" when talking about democracies than you do when talking about leftists. in the case of democracy it is a slow process taking years, but with leftism it is a violent uprising. this isn't true at all, the anarchist revolution in spain started long before the spanish civil war. we can either look at the actual fighting part of the revolution, or the cultural and legal parts of the revolution, but you cannot apply them unevenly in your comparison.[/QUOTE]
Yes let's talk about the anarchists assassinating employers they felt weren't submitting to their demands, that'll show how not violent that revolution was
You see I had a chance to read up on Spanish history today, specifically the left from 1918-1923.
You're acting like anarchists are the only people that have used violent measures in their history. You don't define an ideology by the actions taken by some of its members
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;39552965]You're acting like anarchists are the only people that have used violent measures in their history. You don't define an ideology by the actions taken by some of its members[/QUOTE]
Yet at times the core body of the CNT embraced these tactics. Do we discount the majority as not being representative of the movement? Only your ideals are real?
[QUOTE=scout1;39553104]Yet at times the core body of the CNT embraced these tactics. Do we discount the majority as not being representative of the movement? Only your ideals are real?[/QUOTE]
Ideas are subjective m'son
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39551676]i meant the german revolution in the interwar period. that doesn't seem incredibly bloody, but it still was a civil war i think.
and the problem is you want to use a different definition of "revolution" when talking about democracies than you do when talking about leftists. in the case of democracy it is a slow process taking years, but with leftism it is a violent uprising. this isn't true at all, the anarchist revolution in spain started long before the spanish civil war. we can either look at the actual fighting part of the revolution, or the cultural and legal parts of the revolution, but you cannot apply them unevenly in your comparison.[/QUOTE]
a revolution is generally accepting as something happening in a short time
you can't say that a revolution is a long and ongoing process, by definition it has to happen in a relatively short time and cause a great deal of change in the process
[editline]11th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;39553182]Ideas are subjective m'son[/QUOTE]
apart from mathematical and scientific knowledge
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;39553182]Ideas are subjective m'son[/QUOTE]
Do you deny the fact that the CNT embraced violent methods to bring about change or revolution?
Look you can say yes, then I can pull a dozen book citations on your ass. So we'll assume you say no. That makes the organization violent. Ding ding ding, the revolution/whatever you want to call it was violent.
[QUOTE=scout1;39553253]Do you deny the fact that the CNT embraced violent methods to bring about change or revolution?
Look you can say yes, then I can pull a dozen book citations on your ass. So we'll assume you say no. That makes the organization violent. Ding ding ding, the revolution/whatever you want to call it was violent.[/QUOTE]
lmao I never said the revolution wasn't violent
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;39554834]lmao I never said the revolution wasn't violent[/QUOTE]
Yeah you know, you just can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39553226]a revolution is generally accepting as something happening in a short time
you can't say that a revolution is a long and ongoing process, by definition it has to happen in a relatively short time and cause a great deal of change in the process
[/QUOTE]
do you get my point then? if you want to talk about revolutions you need to use the same measuring stick.
[QUOTE=scout1;39553253]Do you deny the fact that the CNT embraced violent methods to bring about change or revolution?
Look you can say yes, then I can pull a dozen book citations on your ass. So we'll assume you say no. That makes the organization violent. Ding ding ding, the revolution/whatever you want to call it was violent.[/QUOTE]
american patriots tarred and feathered tax collectors. black panthers killed people as well. that doesn't mean the idea of liberalism or civil rights is violent. the cnt are not all good, and they are not all bad, but they are an organization who's ultimate goal(the eradication of capitalism), is morally valid.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39546394]No, the American Revolution in the context you're speaking of was not violent.
The war [I]for independence[/I] was violent. But the "revolution" to form a nation without a monarchy and to rely on democratic and republican principles formed without a single shot or violent act in the US, mainly because it had an overwhelming history of democracy and representative government in the colonies as far back as Plymouth. America was basically trained to be a democracy from the beginning, you can't attribute its war to shake off British dominion of it as a "violent switch to democracy". The fact that the Continental Congress existed before the war actually began is another proof.[/QUOTE]
not true
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
there was plenty of street violence and thuggery on the part of the whigs
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
"basically trained to be a democracy from the beginning" is a funny way to describe a country that nearly tore itself apart because of slavery and was essentially aristocratic for the first few decades of its existence
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39556200]american patriots tarred and feathered tax collectors. black panthers killed people as well. that doesn't mean the idea of liberalism or civil rights is violent. the cnt are not all good, and they are not all bad, but they are an organization who's ultimate goal(the eradication of capitalism), is morally valid.[/QUOTE]
well what, praytell, would mean that liberalism and civil rights were violent, if not their violent methods?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.