I vote this as the dumbest argument so far for 2009. :up:

-S

Elections are no revolutions, even if one occasionally describes them to have a revolutionary effect if resulting in unusual strong shifts in power structures, compared to "lamer" elections - but that is metaphorically meant only, not literally. Elections play by the old rules nevertheless. Revolutions kick the old rules out of the window.

If this autumn the German great coalition gets replaced with a conservative-liberal one, this is just an election - not a revolution. If the people rebel in the streets, fight down the forces of the established constitutional order and replace democracy with let's say a left or right leaning dictatorship - then that is a revolution. While the term had a wider meaning in earlier times, since the French revolution the meaning of the word includes the understanding of a forceful, violent revolt resulting in a coup during which the old order gets smashed and is attempted to be wiped out completely.

Not even Obama following Bush is a revolution. Let's simply call it a "change".

Are you trying to make one of your jokes again...? Anyhow, let's not play wordgames here, that's not my business.

Study the events in Eastern Germany during fall 1989. That was the first truly peaceful revolution in Europe indeed. And we call it that over here indeed: a revolution, not more, not less.

The only reason elections do not throw the old rules out of the window is because
so far most people are happy with the old rules.
That does not mean elections are not capable of as much revolutionary change as a
civil war. There is nothing a violent revolution can do that an election can not.



I vote it the most obvious.

That aside, care to elaborate?

Stalin industrialized the USSR, eventually making it a superpower. This industrial capacity was instrumental in destroying the Nazis.

Certainly, similar economic results could have been attained without killing 20 million people. I'm just saying in some ways the Soviet Union did benefit from Stalinism, so there was some social benefit.

Beside several other imp0ortant implications opposing you claim, the most obvious is this: at no election you can vote and bring a faction to power that has promised to overthrow the consitutional order, for almnost every constitution we know in the West forbid anti-constitutional activity and sets the constitutional order itself beyond reach of election results, aily politics. The German constitution even grants you the right (if you are German by nationality) to resist to such attempts by violence and brute force. Also, constitutions usually define certain things that are "verboten" and if you do them nevertheless, you lose basic rights of your citizenship and/or freedoms usually guaranteed. Abuse of such freedoms and assault on the comnstitution for example is such an offence. Rights of members of special branches of service also see limitations to their freedoms. Compare German Basic Law, articles 17a, 18, 19, 20.

Elections have limits, they obligate you to play by the rules of the system and not violating them. Revolt against such rules, that is not allowed by, in and through elections, could lead to revolutions. that'S why people get it hammered into their heads that they should vote: participiating in elections usually is the best way to prevent them revolting in serious, for in the act of participating it makes them submitting to the system's rules they eventually wanted to overthrow. But if you follow the rules, you can't overthrow them, and almost certainly not at the desired speed. You cannot accept something and be against it at the same time. However, if you are willing to invest years and decades (assuming you have not only such patience, but also the needed time), it may eventually work. The "re"-Islamisation of the secular state in Turkey by the fundemantalists of the AKP is such an example. And the most effective way to throw back these radicals would be to allow the military it's constitutional role to protect and guard the state against anti-secular assaults and ambitions - by force, which here would be sued for good, then. That is why the Turkish military plays such an active role in Turkish politics - fully legally by the Turkish constitution that it is oligated to protect by doing so.

You could say the same about hitler, and Germany after Versaille. There certainly was no unemployment under the Nazis, and the industry boomed, and before the middle of WWII people had bread on their table again. that was the reason why Hitler managed to blind the Germans initially - he turned the treaty of Versaille against the Allies, so to speak.

If the majority of the people want drastic constitutional change, then the disallowing of
anti-constitutional activity is not going to stop it happening once a government with a
mind to change the constitution is in power. All they need is popular support and a
revolutionary atmosphere. No violence is needed.

And when the government does not allow thsat, and defends the constitution? Parties working against the constitution get legally forbidden, once that is proven. It does not matter whether or not the government really believes in that cojstitution, or is just in defemse of an oligarchic interest group abusing the label of democracy to conceil itself (current status today in most Western nations). Also, not all governments are really democratic - most are not. none of the Eastern "revolutions" in the wake of 1989 would have been succeesful without Gorbatchev essentially dismantling the Soviert Union all by himself. How it goes without the power agreeing on peaceful transition rules, we have seen in Hungary and the CSSR. there the marching crowds got shot into pieces.

I think we can stop the conversation here. It has become clear that it will lead us nowhere.

They get voted out if favor of someone who will allow it!

Germany didn't have any unemployment but they were geared toward only one goal, war. And not just any war, a world war. So I don't see the Germany of 1930's as a state that had any other option but to try to take over the planet through war. Any other option wouldn't have worked for them.

For the Soviets, they rose after the WW 2 as a significant world power. This after having been the attacked by the nazis and beaten about 75 - 80 % of the nazi war machine to a pile of junk. Not bad for a nation that only recently emerged from under the yoke of the Czarist rule, serfdom and slavery.

No unemployment?

Please, feel free to educate yourself..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2064901AADCOge

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/stati...11b/index.html

http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/events/1930.html

Well I guess both me and Skybird are wrong about this then. :)

I suppose there was unemployment but there weren't people who made a noise about it. If they did they wouldn't have been around for much longer. Hence, no unemployment.

Generally there is this idea that under the nazi rule there were so many government projects etc. that there simply wasn't much unemployment. But I guess there was some.

:yep:
The second link shows the progression of the unemployment numbers from 1921 until 1939. After 1932 the numbers decline steeply, which suggests that there where huge projects before the drafting and training of troops began in '38 and '39. The Autobahn, among other, didn't built itself.

Some yes. Most not. How long was honecker head of state? And do you really beoieve that for 20 years 97% of Egyptians voted for Mubarak? and were Mao, Hitler or Stalin democratically elected by the people? Or The Taleban in Afghanistan until 2001? Why was there a French revolution, if elections would jhave done the trick?

You are talking about an ideal utopia in which reason and humanism rule and reasonable decisions by altruistic minds form actions and policies for the benefit of all. I do not know a single country working like that, nowehre - and that includes germany and america as well. And I say that despite Obamania. He will only make a difference like lets say Reagan made a difference to Carter: another man, some decisons being made different, some accents get reset. The general rule set by which the system runs remains the same. It will not be different in the upcoming German elections.

As I said, I think these thought experiments lead nowhere. Let's move on.

LMAO :rotfl:
You really meen they shifted from Czarist yoke to Stalinist rule, serfdom and slavery?

Its funny how you can talk about the two maniacs and their regimes so differently.

You do know USSR really had a plan to take over the world and Nazi Germany didnt?