Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 24, 2005 7:42:28 GMT
The elimination of the former oppressing ruling elite is indeed justified to put an end to the counter-revolution. If the King had lived on in France, the former aristocrats and foreign powers would certainly have rallied around him to reinstore the monarchy, it was a wise decision - in particular given the crimes of the ancient regime. I'd say the the cold murder (it's nothing more) of the King have radicalized others Monarchies in Europe in their war against France. It should be noted that British supported the revolution as long as the King was kept and became mortals enemies of it when he was beheaded. Keeping the King could have avoided the Napoleonic wars and changed Europe's face. It was People's Justice. The king payed for his crimes and the death and misery he had spread in France - fair deal. I agree with SGP on the thought that invasion can not bring freedom or democracy. Robespierre said "Invasion can not bring freedom" and I quite agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 25, 2005 12:09:08 GMT
If I was to invade a region to turn it to socialism I would have to have popular support, such as in Gulf War one, german incursion into the east during WW2 etc.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 25, 2005 22:32:01 GMT
Popular Support: WHO: Nationals living in target nation. TO DO WHAT: Open Uprising and decent against the current goverment. HOW: Supply expertise and arms covertly to rebel groups, when the time looks right provide direct military assistance to rebels, similar to how the US aided the Northern alliance as an example.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 26, 2005 16:16:53 GMT
The nationals of the target would provide the planning, foundation and continuation of the state, "my" armed forces would provide military, financial, material aid to the revolution and help protect it from counter-revolutionary forces should it be asked. From then both states would hopefully co-operate and the revolution would be consolidation in the new terratory and started in the next area.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Oct 27, 2005 12:49:49 GMT
The Chinese People's Liberation Army liberated the working class in Tibet from the clutches of feodalism, with substantial support from the locals, in particular the former slaves who assumed control of the tibetian branch of the CCP.
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Oct 27, 2005 14:59:59 GMT
The sovereign state of Tibet was invaded and mercilessly annexed by China. What ever you think on the changes of worker's conditions, I hardly call that a liberation.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Oct 27, 2005 17:26:29 GMT
If Napoléon hadn't gone on a roadtrip round Europe, the Italian, Belgian, German, Hungarian and Polish nationalist movements would have been either significantly delayed or never stirred-up at all. SSG: Didn't Napoléon's plans force France to industrialisation? EDIT - Well, the Poles were sufficiently pissed off about constant partitioning before the Grand Armée came along. OMG an argument about history and no-one invited me?? Firstly - the execution of the monarch, just as it had been in Britain in 1649 and in Russia in 1918, was a desparate measure by the revolutionaries. It was a sign of their weakness, not of their strength. Of course I am not defending either Charles I, Louis XVI, or Nicholas II - they were all reactionaries, and yes the counter-revolutionaries would have gathered around them. But look at each of these characters and you'll soon find they are all quite weak and pathetic individuals, not blessed with a huge amount of intelligence or understanding of the world around them. By themselves they posed no threat to the British Commonwealth, the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik regime. With hindsight there were far more humane ways to deal with them. Execution, whilst it may have satisfied with the radicals' desire for blood and revenge, only antagonised the civil populations and ultimately aided the reactionaries. We can see this happen in all 3 countries. We also see the Revolutions go pretty crazy; with Cromwell doing away with Parliamentary democracy and turning against his radical allies (the Levellers and Diggers), Robespierre and his tactics of 'Terror' pursuing socialism through violent means, and Lenin establishing the authoritarian Bolshevik state. The execution of the monarchs is perhaps indicative of the revolutionaries going out of control. They ended all hopes of progress through consensus and civil unity. Napoleon felt that the French people simply were not ready for a Republican government; they needed a monarchy to look up to. Rather than risk the Revolution being destroyed by the reactionary Royalists of the old aristocratic class, he used the ideals of monarchy to cement - what he saw - as the values of the Revolution. Of course this meant he crowned himself Emperor, but at the same time it was an act of political genius that ensured much of the progress of the Revolution survived.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Oct 27, 2005 17:27:37 GMT
The Chinese People's Liberation Army liberated the working class in Tibet from the clutches of feodalism, with substantial support from the locals, in particular the former slaves who assumed control of the tibetian branch of the CCP. Did you get this from a Communist party website? It's such Orwellian propaganda I can't take it seriously!!
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Oct 27, 2005 19:36:18 GMT
It is interesting to mention that France took more than 30 years of lateness in industrialization by enduring the revolution and Napoleonic era. Without both France would have been a real match for England on industrial power as soon as the 1850's. The French economy was collapsing and the 'ancien regime' was unable to successfully reform itself. The Revolution (by which I mean the Constituent Assembly seizing power, establishing a constitution, etc) was absolutely necessary for France moving away from feudalism into a modern state. Just to add....The Jacobin regime introduced policies that we would today recognise as socialist. But they were obviously unable to maintain any semblance of civil stability and carry out radical left-wing reforms at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 27, 2005 23:49:16 GMT
RF, I would say the Chinese occupation of Tibet is verging on the racist in reality. Not that conditions were great under the Theo-Monarchy (Theonarchy?) of the Dalai Lama. Very democratic.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 27, 2005 23:54:39 GMT
If unifority breaks down we go our seperate ways, unfortunate but if I was to invade and take a more direct control it lose independance which would lead to inevitable troubles later on, better avoided as who knows the new govt may swing our way again.
Knowing how much popular support we had would be difficult, I suppose when general order brakes down, people take to the streets in major population centres and the goverment starts to crack down/look treatened would be the right time to lend assistance in a more direct fashion. Tricky one though, you would need lots of information from the ground. I suppose when revolution is realistic would be the best time LOL. The support would have to be universal though and lead by the nationals, I would only move directly to ensure a revolution did not fail once it had started and looked widespread, including in the nations armed forces, when those supposed to protect a goverment are opposing it that would be a good sign. To put a figure maby 30/40+% pop are known to be active revolutionaries would be reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Oct 28, 2005 11:28:07 GMT
The Chinese People's Liberation Army liberated the working class in Tibet from the clutches of feodalism, with substantial support from the locals, in particular the former slaves who assumed control of the tibetian branch of the CCP. Did you get this from a Communist party website? It's such Orwellian propaganda I can't take it seriously!! Shortly after the stunning victory of the revolutionary forces led by Mao against the nationalistic U.S.-backed dictator Chiang Kai-shek, the revolution naturally spread to Tibet. The feudal ruling class of Tibet, comprised of monks and various aristocrats whose status were determined according to certain religious criterias actively participated in ruthless series of armed anti-communist actions to crack down on the dissidents and to stop the revolutionary undercurrents in Tibet. The Dalai Lama was a textbook figurehead of an oppressive feudal regime that considered it's citizens as his private property. As per the request of the oppressed people of Tibet, the Chinese People's Liberation Army moved in to wipe out this clique and liberate the working class and slaves from their owners - although modern pop culture and various american funded films with Brad Pitt for example ( who are held up as a beacon of truth and light by Ketoprofen ) are of course keen to portray the Lamaist regime as fair and just. What they fail to do is to mention the fact that out of the 90% of the population were nothing but slaves and that these hailed the Chinese People's Liberation Army throughout the conflict and supplied them with food, arms and other ressources. This was all a reaction to Danitoria's comments on popular support during invasions and so forth. Following the liberation by The Chinese People's Army, several measures taken by the Communist Party helped the socialist cause - until capitalist restoration in 1976. Concerning France, The execution of the King was a just and wise decision. He payed for the crimes and suffering he caused the masses and it symbolised the concrete overthrowal of the old oppresive regime.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Oct 30, 2005 10:47:24 GMT
Of course. Once the liberation has been succesfully carried through and a stable, native socialist government installed - the troops should be pulling out. Unfortunately, China did not pull them out, which was indeed one of the many misstakes that were made. When China coughs, Tibet grows seriously sick. Same could be said about the relation with Eastern Europe and the USSR.
North Korea's regime for example, saw to the fact very early in their history to evict the Soviets from their territory after WWII and installed their own, highly effective military to protect themselves and therefore managed to hammer out an independant policy without taking sides with either the Chinese or Soviets and yet receive aid from both. Wether the policies adopted by the KWP and Kim-Il-Sung should be construed as socialist is subject for yet another debate, but this highlights that a liberation followed by immediate withdrawal from the region can lead to the establishment of a new, independant and self-reliant socialist order with the ability to protect itself from external forces.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 30, 2005 16:32:51 GMT
Didn't they rely on the Soviet Union for aerial combat? MiG-21s, et al...
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 30, 2005 17:25:04 GMT
They recieved a lot of aid from both sides, including pilots. Like when Russia helped Egypt during their little wars namely the war of attrition I think. The flip side is that the US helped the oher side! Theres no war like cold war :.)
|
|