Org Mobile Site
Thread: Democracy or What's Right?
I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.
are these a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._d%27%C3%A9tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._d%27%C3%A9tat
edit: lol
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
are these a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._d%27%C3%A9tat
Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?are these a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._d%27%C3%A9tat
nope. 
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.
In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.
If there have been more leftist revolutions, that's because there have been more right-wing/conservative (in the sense of preserving the status quo) governements/regimes to overthrough. Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.
There's also a question of terminology here, a right wing "revolution" is often not called a revolution but a "Coup d'etat" or "Putsch" (counter-revolution may also be more accurate in certain cases, given that a right wing movement is more likely to be reactionary, e.g. Spain).
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?
I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?
As has been remarked here, democracy and elections are alone no guarantee of representative government.
edit:
While reading around this subject, i just came accross this fascinating page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism
Don't be put off by the title, it includes a run down of how democracy can contribute to the social good (as well as to the interests of the working class).
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
nope.
nope.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).
So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).
I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.
(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...
funny, i didn't see you prove that conclusion, and many examples from the cold war had as much to do with proxy conflict as internal pressure.
You are just being evasive as the evidence seems rather overwhelming. The right is much more likely to overthrow a democratic government than the left.
There are many left wing uprisings that just hadn't managed to take power: India / Nepal for example. But one reason for this is that Right revolutions tend to be organised and efficient at taking power. Leftist ones are more like rabbles. Look at the communist Army: decided to scrap ranks, and have votes on battle plans. A few horrendous slaughters later and ranks were reinstated.
Others that did: Eastern Europe post WW2 for example. I'm pretty sure there were some in Africa too.
Others that did: Eastern Europe post WW2 for example. I'm pretty sure there were some in Africa too.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.
Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.
so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it
I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.
(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...
I have to disagree. In these fairly crude terms, Fragony is right to say the political right/left is immaterial. What matters more is what the incumbent system is, and what the overthrowers stand for. If incumbents have traditionaly been conservative, preserving the interests of an elite/old order, then it is natural that the revolutionaries appear progressive, and by comparison to the conservative incumbents apparently left wing.So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it
I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.
(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...
To provide the most obvious filibuster to your theory, one need look no further than Communism and its revolutionary doctrine which ultimately drives for a proletarian Dictatroship. Whilst it's clear that on the path to that dictatorship, Communists supported democracy, this was only ever a transient phase -witness the February & October revolutions in Russia and the Spanish Communist party's gradual corruption/creeping control of the Republican (democratic) movement druing the civil war. Democracy is even seen by Marx as one step on the path towards communism.
Marxist/Leninst Communism is highly antagonistic to capitalist democracy, seeing it at as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It considers liberal democracy a utopian pipe dream. Perhaps the relative (social and economic) success of "liberal" democracies has gone some way to erroding support for communism.
I have been interested to see how little people here are actually attached to democracy, for all its failings I'm happier with consensus forming politics than centralised autocracy.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.
so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.
None of those could have been considered democratic at the time of there overthrow which was the point of the earlier postRussia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.
so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.
so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.
Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.
so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
Marxist/Leninst Communism is highly antagonistic to capitalist democracy, seeing it at as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It considers liberal democracy a utopian pipe dream. Perhaps the relative (social and economic) success of "liberal" democracies has gone some way to erroding support for communism.
Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.Marxist/Leninst Communism is highly antagonistic to capitalist democracy, seeing it at as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It considers liberal democracy a utopian pipe dream. Perhaps the relative (social and economic) success of "liberal" democracies has gone some way to erroding support for communism.
Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?
But democracy is evolutionary, do you want a list of country's growing more democratic, or at least try to do so .Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?
I don't see why that matters. Lenin chose to institute a dictatorship, ignoring the elections his Communists did badly in - so that's one example. More generally, you argued that doing what is "Right" over what is "Democratic" is a trait more of the political Right than the /Left. The fact that most Left-ist revolutions were anti-democratic surely proves this to be incorrect; regardless of the system they replaced.Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it
I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.
(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...
Are you counting the Kerensky government as democratic? Or Batista (I know, a stretch as best....).So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it
I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.
(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.
I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.
yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.
It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
Originally Posted by alh_p:
I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...
That's an interesting discussion we could have on another thread, but it isn't really material to this thread as Russia was a monarchy, not a democracy.I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Are you counting the Kerensky government as democratic? Or Batista (I know, a stretch as best....).
The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.Are you counting the Kerensky government as democratic? Or Batista (I know, a stretch as best....).
Originally Posted by Idaho:
The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.
What we see as left and right stays within our conventions, it's not powerplay it's a mere disagreement. The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.
bit of a cynical read but OT http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
Also applies for internal affairs. Left or right, comes down to power, no matter the scale.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.
Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.
Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
I dissagree, I am certainly not evaiding. This was your original question:It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?
*right as defined by you.
You then said this was an opinion held more by the Right than the Left. I gave you a list of anti-Democratic revolutions, the fact that they overthrew monarchies is irrelevant, because they instituted oppressive Tyrannies.Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?
*right as defined by you.
If you want to now redefine the question as, "who has overthrown more democracies", I think that is a very different issue - not least because until recently most governments were "Right" of the modern centre and not very Democratic. Ergo, there were not many democracies to be overthrown.
My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.
Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.
Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, I think Stalin was Left Wing, Trotsky was just as unconcerned with traditional morality, as ruthless, and as blood-soaked, so the point is irrelevant.Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.
Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
i think you're evading, democracy is not a desirable end in itself, it is merely a possible means of achieving representative governance (i.e. the absence of tyranny) for the people. many of the revolutions or coups have been against tyrannical government, or merely unrepresentaive government, to talk of left or right is simply irrelevant except in the context of 20th century history, and even then it had as much to do external influence as internal pressure on either side.It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.
Red Army Fraction in west Germany and the Japenese Red Army (link)The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.
There's also a handful of ultra-leftists groups wich were founded when their respective countries were autocratic, but continued to exist once they became democratic. Examples: FARC, ETA and the PKK.
The discussion was at first more about left/right ideology, rather than how these translated into revolutions, and I think the ideological perspective is more useful, since the reality was clouded by a ton of other factors that obscure things.
In purely ideological terms, both the far-left and far-right are anti-democractic. Everything inbetween is democratic to some extent.
For the far-left, political equality is meaningless so long as there is material/social inequality. For the far-right, its collectivist approach to the idea of the good of the nation as a whole means there is simply no need for democracy.
For leftists or rightists to try to claim a monopoly on democracy and slander the other is just plain stupid.
In purely ideological terms, both the far-left and far-right are anti-democractic. Everything inbetween is democratic to some extent.
For the far-left, political equality is meaningless so long as there is material/social inequality. For the far-right, its collectivist approach to the idea of the good of the nation as a whole means there is simply no need for democracy.
For leftists or rightists to try to claim a monopoly on democracy and slander the other is just plain stupid.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).
Must refrain from derailing another thread.... *tries really hard not to argue with the above*My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.
Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.
There was factionalism all right, but it was never seen in left/right terms. I think it would be fair to say than rather than being left or right in ideology, Stalin was really a product of the totalitarianism of his time, something that transcended the left/right divide.Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.
Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
While I'm inclined to agree with your historical analysis, you're stretching it to make a political point. Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
In any event, the reason that right wing coups generally have more success has less to do with ideology and more to do with practical realities on the ground. Specifically, military institutions are generally favorable to the right and coups usually only succeed when the military takes a side.
alh_p's point is prescient. There is nothing in far left ideology that makes it particularly more favorable to Western style capitalist democracy than far right ideology. Marxist thinking revolves around enforcing its tenets regardless of public opinion.
As for the poll, I'd rather live in an autocracy that promotes my interests than a democracy that doesn't. That's just basic self preservation.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO