[QUOTE=Buster;3428664]First off be nice no need to be a meanie, let your ideas be your power not an insult.
Depends on your definition of 'industrialized capitalist country' but the Iranian revolution in the 70’s was a shocker.
Usually revolutions are doomed when the country they attempt to 'change' has a large middle class. Folks with jobs and property are less likely to throw all that away for some ideology no matter how appealing it may sound.[/QUOTE]
OK you're right about the mean part, but I tend to get a little perturbed when people romanticize commie revolutionaries and advocate it as a good idea for my country.
As for the revolution in Iran, one of the reasons that succeeded is that the only real support the Shah had amongst his people was in the upper classes and the Jewish community. They fled the country when things got dicey and took their money with them. Iran really didn't qualify as an open market industrialized capitalist country. If they didn't have oil Iran would be no different from Jordan or Syria. The Shah and SAVAK brutally repressed the educated middle class that had ideas contrary to those of the regime. If some charismatic secular figure had managed to gain widespread support before the Ayatollah then you might very well have a democracy right now in Iran. That might have happened with Mohammed Mossadegh, but the UK and the US didn't like that he was going to nationalize the oil industry. So they overthrew him and installed the Shah in his place.
[QUOTE=Equilibrium;3428425]Without turning this into a political thread, I would only venture to say that Castro and the 26 of July Movement was not the only revolutionary movement on the island, it was, for a long time, not even the most predominant one. Nor was it an avowedly socialist one.
By the time Batista fled the country, the primary movements, the urban insurgencies' leadership had been decapitated and Batista had lost the support of the middle class and wealthy about two years before. Batista had long been conscious of the need to maintain such political support. Fidel Castro had survived his arrest and trial for his failed assault on the Moncada Army Base in the early '50's because of the influence of his wealthy father and his politically influential in-laws- the grandparents of US Representative Diaz Balart of Florida. His sentence was commuted from death to eventual exile to Mexico.
Castro learned this lesson well; when he came to power, he eliminated the anti-socialists and moderates from his 26 of July movement through imprisonment, forced exile or, in certain cases, execution while proclaiming that his revolution was not red as communist, but green as he island and based on democratic principles. Under the guise of claiming that Batista's fall had led to the collapse of the Cuban government, he obtained total control of the state and its institutions under "state of emergency" with the promise of free elections in 1960-1. Secretly, he obtained Soviet support to obtain the political support and weapons to defend his regime from internal and external challengers. The US was aware of this and planned the Bay of Pigs; its execution gave Castro the pretext to postpone the elections indefinitely under the claim of perpetual state of emergency for the next 50 years.
A good analogy to would be to observe what Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has been attempting to do for the last eight years. He has been trying to create a pretext to proclaim perpetual rule, but the Venezuelan people would not support such a blatant proclamation (according to polls overwhelmingly conscious of the Cuban example- even among his supporters), thus, he has used elections and referendums to legitimize his rule, but will only call referendums when he is confident of his prospects and will seek to manipulate voters and marginalize the opposition in election years.
With him trying to provoke a crisis with Colombia and the US in a time when Venezuela's economy is near collapse, he knows this is likely his last opportunity to achieve his goal. in short, he trying to utilize similar methods used by Castro, but drawn over a longer period of time to avoid provoking a reaction.[/QUOTE]
This is CORRECT! From a family who actually LIVED through it.
[QUOTE=Buster;3428897]You underestimate Iran. Iran has a highly educated population and that is why they are able to build the bomb.[/QUOTE]
I didn't underestimate the intelligence of Iranians. The analogy to Jordan and Syria which I used was an economic one. Nuclear programs take a great deal of money. Something which countries like Jordan and Syria don't have since there isn't any oil or a lot of foreign investment in those places. India developed a bomb because despite all of the poverty there they still have a huge economy. Pakistan had the money to develop one because they have developed their economy since 1947 and have lots of foreign investment.
Hey Morano, Why would Cuba need the U.S. anyway? They were a sponsored State of the USSR for 30 years and had 50 years of "the worker's paradise" so they should way more advanced the the repressive USA. Then again the Soviets had 70 and oop's. Just curious, why is it that ALL these regimes you love have to control their populus with the barrel of a gun?
[QUOTE=acepepe;3428968]Hey Morano, Why would Cuba need the U.S. anyway? They were a sponsored State of the USSR for 30 years and had 50 years of "the worker's paradise" so they should way more advanced the the repressive USA. Then again the Soviets had 70 and oop's. Just curious, why is it that ALL these regimes you love have to control their populus with the barrel of a gun?[/QUOTE]
Chairman Mao said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. There's your answer. That's how people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ceaucescu, etc and so on all thought. That's the best idea they could come up with. Not freedom of expression or self determination and then reap the benefits of that. Just work people to death, funnel all the money back into the state to help secure the position of those in power, and then tell them it's for their own good. If they disagree, then throw them in prison or just outright execute them.
[QUOTE=VivaSanchez;3428578]Hey genius boy...name me the instance when a revolution has succeeded in an industrialized capitalist country where the upper 1% of the population holds a third of the entire wealth. What do you do in the highly unlikely circumstance that your revolution wins and the upper 5% of the population takes all of that wealth out of the country to protect it from your new govt? How are you funding your new govt? New taxes? Good luck getting blood from a stone. How about subsidies from a patron state like Cuba got from the Soviet Union? Hmmm how about China funding your new revolutionary govt? Oh yeah that's right the US is China's biggest trading partner. So when you shut off the cash taps then where is China getting the money to send to you and your revolutionary brother and sisters?
Marano, your new name is Moron-o. Advocating the overthrow of the US govt by means other than the ballot box is treason and a death penalty offense.[/QUOTE]
But your a little off that 1% owns 90% of the wealth in our great country and therefore are the defacto government. They own the government. You don't let them out of the country, you do what you said Che did with them, emliminate them, take the government back from our capitalist economic system, restore democracy as our form of government in place of free market capitalism and give the majority of our people back the power to make decisions for the country that the 1% are making for us now. Wow your a ****ing genius and you have the balls to call me a moron.
[QUOTE=marano;3431780]But your a little off that 1% owns 90% of the wealth in our great country and therefore are the defacto government. They own the government. You don't let them out of the country, you do what you said Che did with them, emliminate them, take the government back from our capitalist economic system, restore democracy as our form of government in place of free market capitalism and give the majority of our people back the power to make decisions for the country that the 1% are making for us now. Wow your a ****ing genius and you have the balls to call me a moron.[/QUOTE]
One flaw with your brilliant plan....the US isn't some technological backwater like Cuba in the late '50's. There wouldn't be an exodus of people with money, gold, and jewels stuffed in suitcases trying to get on planes or boats. The minute things looked scary for the rich people when your "revolution" looked like it might be gaining traction then all it would take is a few computer keystrokes and in a matter of seconds all of that money would be sitting in banks overseas. As for "democracy" replacing capitalism, what do you think capitalism is? It's majority rule. Those with the majority of the money rule.
That would be some democracy you'd have going there. You get a vote, but by the way, this new gov't says you can't leave the country or do what you want with your money or we'll kill you. What happens if your revolutionaries lose an election? Do they relinquish power peacefully or just invalidate the results and jail the opposition?
By the way, anyone who would advocate "eliminating" anyone as a viable option for solving a problem is a ****ing moron.
[QUOTE=2009fatman;3435093]Yea, tell that to the CIA who got away with doing it in 1963.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Watched "JFK" one too many times have you? Besides, eliminating a head of state whether by assassination or voting them out is not an overthrow of a government. It's a change of leadership of the executive branch. All the members of Congress and the Supreme Court were still the same the day after Kennedy was shot.
If you want to learn what a real CIA overthrow of a government looks like, then read up on what they did Guatemala, Iran, Honduras, Chile, or South Vietnam.
Somewhere in the midst of the usual juvenile name calling and sarcasm posing as an argument, there are some interesting posts here. Equilibrium seems to be wasting his time trying to articulate a perspective based on his knowledge of history. Somehow the same old yapping dogs show up and derail substantial discussion and reduce the thread to posturing sound-bites. Equilibrium, Sanchez, even Marano, carry on. I'd say let a man speak his mind, even if it runs opposite your own beliefs. I seem to remember Jefferson getting into a revolutionary lather after the Sedition Acts were passed, so trotting out the ol' "treason" card is pretty lame. Ulysses S. Grant called down the wrath of God on the US after the Mexican American War, which he opposed strongly... I think Marano is pretty far from organizing an armed militia, or at least pretty misguided if he's commencing his plan by debating it on a Jets site.... ;)