Whats really going on in the world?

[rejenorst]

Russia actually isn't, like Spain they underwent a transition rather than a revolution. AFAIK the only nation to see actual revolution since 1950 is Romania, though I suppose you could consider the Yugoslavia/Albania disintegration as a government collapse.

And you would put this solely down to socialism? Baring in mind that we are arguing that socialism has brought us stability over the past 200 years. Personally I'd say the last two centuries have been seen some of the most turbulent events in the history of mankind, given two world wars, *shakes fist at socialism and nationalism*.

Just noticed Caba'drin's good points as well.

Spoiler

As coded by Adam Przeworski et al. in Democracy and Development (2000), which covers 1950-1990 (unfortunately stopping short of many Central and East European transitions), the following "Western" (European) countries experienced a transition from authoritarianism to democracy: Bulgaria (1989); Czechoslovakia (1989); Hungary (1989); Poland (1989); Portugal (1975); Spain (1976). Greece experienced two transitions in that period, dem->authoritarian and then back to democracy. Turkey experienced 3 transitions, from dictatorship to democracy to dictatorship and back to democracy. So, those authors, widely cited among scholars, identify 8 European countries having some governmental transition from 1950-1990. (The remainder of countries in the study are non-European.)

Not really, people were pushing for socialism long before the Industrial Revolution. In fact if anything the industrial revolution would potentially have been a hindrance - it's partly thanks to the industrial revolution that the governments of the early 20th century were able to shift to the far right in response to communism; at the dawn of the 19th century it wouldn't have been a viable choice thus governments were forced to shift to the left. It's why Socialism is effectively a compromise.

That shift may have saved us all

On consideration would you say that what we define as socialism throughout the period may often have overlapped or even equated to in some cases: humanitarianism?

He was the founder of the Conservative party. Important not to conflate that with conservatism, let alone modern conservatism. In 19th century Britain it was the liberals who had the pro-capitalism, pro-free market agenda; the tories were protectionists. Also note party politics didn't exist yet for several reasons, members of parliament would switch which side of the floor they were on according to the single issue splitting the government rather than any broad consensus, a member could be Liberal on Monday and Conservative on Tuesday while being an independent on Wednesday.
Peel himself was a socialist insofar as that term applies to 19th century British politics. His agenda was the same, though the rationale behind it was somewhat different to modern socialism.

Ah yep. I ****ed up there.

Spoiler

You need to understand the politics of Victorian Britain The Tory/Conservative party was by and large comprised of the landed gentry, they saw an alliance with the working classes as the main means of combating the rising power of the middle class. The Whig/Liberals on the other hand saw an alliance with the working classes as the easiest way to break up the traditional power of the landed gentry.
Both had been influenced by the enlightenment and revolutions of the previous century though, so the ideas of social responsibility and social contract had a deep hold. Essentially, the era was 100 years of arguing over whether the best system was the upper classes notions of patronage (based on a romanticised ideal of the feudal era, whereby the land owner takes it upon himself to look after and improve the lot of those working his land) or the middle class notion of moral imperative (which is much the same as it is today). Took till near the end of the era before anyone hit upon the idea of actually asking the lower classes of course, but to be fair they were somewhat distracted by nightmares of a gin fuelled mob erecting a guillotine in Westminister Square. Turned out the working classes didn't actually care how they got there as long as they got there

I found that interesting and informative I am moving closer to reconciling the idea that perhaps socialist principles have helped foster stability (from my earlier position of no) in western countries, however I find that it's not the sole reason. 200 years is not long and I fear that we are moving into very interesting times that will definatly test the durability of our current system(s) under the pressure of immense civil disorder thanks to twat ass management. I doubt the fundamental principles will change in any future systems but we need to resume this discussion 200 years from now

One a sidenote the U.S. has raised the debt ceiling:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/geithner-congress-raise-debt-ceiling/story?id=13393920

 

[Archonsod]

Russia and Spain both experienced governmental collapse/toppling/a transition. A transition is not a revolution, clearly, but rejenorst wasn't asking about which governments experienced revolution.

No, he asked about which collapsed. A transition is not a collapse of government, by definition it's somewhat impossible for a collapsed government to undergo transition - someone needs to be able to enact the reforms ...

And you would put this solely down to socialism? Baring in mind that we are arguing that socialism has brought us stability over the past 200 years.

Bear in mind that neither of 'us' is Spanish.

Personally I'd say the last two centuries have been seen some of the most turbulent events in the history of mankind, given two world wars, *shakes fist at socialism and nationalism*.

Whereas I'd suggest that the fact there were only two large wars is what marks the century out as being different. Compare that to say the seventeenth century when most European nations spent more years in a war than they did in peace. In terms of turbulence I'd say the industrial revolution was also greater, consider a peasant born on an English farm in 1760 would by the time he died - a mere 35 years - have seen his entire society shift from working the land under a near feudal system to living in a city and working in factories. By comparison the twentieth century was rather quiet.

On consideration would you say that what we define as socialism throughout the period may often have overlapped or even equated to in some cases: humanitarianism?

I'd say socialism and humanitarianism are pretty much linked yes. Philosophically they both stem from the same root.

I found that interesting and informative I am moving closer to reconciling the idea that perhaps socialist principles have helped foster stability (from my earlier position of no) in western countries, however I find that it's not the sole reason.

When it comes to internal stability socialism is the main reason we didn't see almost universal revolt after the French in the 19th century, and similarly why we didn't see a wave of communist revolt in the 20th. Obviously there's other reasons - the adoption of democratic governments, the move from warfare within Europe to proxy wars in the colonies - but it's hard to think of any specific events which threatened social stability to the same extent and scale as the French and Russian revolutions.  Both overturned the centuries long underpinnings of society in their respective countries, both demonstrated that such overthrows were possible, and both primarily appealed to a class which was both in the majority and yet under represented.

I doubt the fundamental principles will change in any future systems

I suspect they might, but I think if anything we'll move towards a more communal system. Hard to see how the species will survive otherwise.

 

[A_Mustang]

you know what i hate? when i'm gone for a day and everyone writes about 6 pages each of philosophical/technical/governmental material that i can't be craped to figure out even if i had the time to, which i don't. Seriously, don't you guys have jobs or something? or did i last check up on the thread a week ago? my history says 15 hours, but i'm not sure. 

 

[Caba`drin]

Russia and Spain both experienced governmental collapse/toppling/a transition. A transition is not a revolution, clearly, but rejenorst wasn't asking about which governments experienced revolution.

No, he asked about which collapsed. A transition is not a collapse of government, by definition it's somewhat impossible for a collapsed government to undergo transition - someone needs to be able to enact the reforms ...

Typically when the term "transition" is used, it refers to any time the regime of a state changes from one form to another. This can result from a regime collapse, but it need not. When there is a complete collapse, typically there is a longer "transitional period" between one stable regime and the next, but it is still termed a transition. Similarly, a regime can agree to make a series of reforms, democratizing for instance, in which there is never the period of instability associated with regime collapse. This regime, if the changes are significant enough, still underwent a transition.

EDIT
And rejenorst asked about when a government "was toppled", which I took in the broadest sense of the term and reported transitions. Topple didn't necessitate "collapse" to me. In any case, with the definition clarification I've offered here, it should be obvious why I've posted what I have.

 

[Shatari]

Topple would imply a toppler, generally speaking.

Personally I'd say the last two centuries have been seen some of the most turbulent events in the history of mankind, given two world wars, *shakes fist at socialism and nationalism*.

I'd blame the fact that our population and industrial base boomed as a result of the industrial revolution more than I'd blame modern developments in socialism and nationalism (the latter of which is far from anything new).

 

[Archonsod]

Typically when the term "transition" is used, it refers to any time the regime of a state changes from one form to another.

Typically it's used to refer specifically to a peaceful change of government. The word itself implies unresisting change.

 

[Caba`drin]

Typically it's used to refer specifically to a peaceful change of government. The word itself implies unresisting change.

I'm not certain why you are fighting me on this. ****s and giggles? Have I not demonstrated grounded backing to my posts here that you think I'm making something up for fun or out of ignorance?

My "typically" frame of reference is the social science literature on regime change and democratization. In academic discussions of regime change, "transition" is a generic term. If you have applied the connotation of unresisting change, that is your addition. It is not the typical use of the word.

 

[MadocComadrin]

You could simply call it a liminal period and be done with it. 

 

[Dryvus]

Assuming he could cope with the lack of copy-pasta, he'd still ignore everything you said and switch topics every time you undermined his point (or illusion of a point).

The point is that you would be able to apply negative reinforcement.

 

[Archonsod]

My "typically" frame of reference is the social science literature on regime change and democratization. In academic discussions of regime change, "transition" is a generic term. If you have applied the connotation of unresisting change, that is your addition. It is not the typical use of the word.

It's the colloquial use of the word, which you'll find used far more widely than the academic one.

 

[Caba`drin]

My "typically" frame of reference is the social science literature on regime change and democratization. In academic discussions of regime change, "transition" is a generic term. If you have applied the connotation of unresisting change, that is your addition. It is not the typical use of the word.

It's the colloquial use of the word, which you'll find used far more widely than the academic one.

Aye, there may be some distinction there, but even colloquially you'll hear news anchors talking about "ensuring a peaceful transition" (in Egypt for example)...I don't believe they are meaning to be redundant when they add the "peaceful" qualifier to transition.

But, the point is largely past...back to our regularly scheduled dose of copy-paste nutjobbery?

 

[Archonsod]

Aye, there may be some distinction there, but even colloquially you'll hear news anchors talking about "ensuring a peaceful transition"...I don't believe they are meaning to be redundant when they add the "peaceful" qualifier to transition.

Depends on the government I think. Over here a "peaceful" transition is when the PM voluntarily steps down for perfectly legitimate reasons, whereas a "transition" is when he steps down in the face of "hooker and coke" headlines.

But, the point is largely past...back to our regularly scheduled dose of copy-paste nutjobbery?

Or more pictures of millipedes?

 

[Equus]

you know what i hate? when i'm gone for a day and everyone writes about 6 pages each of philosophical/technical/governmental material that i can't be craped to figure out even if i had the time to, which i don't. Seriously, don't you guys have jobs or something? or did i last check up on the thread a week ago? my history says 15 hours, but i'm not sure. 

Try logging out for about a year like I did. I just randomly insert pointless thoughts and hope everyone goes with it.

 

[Shatari]

But, the point is largely past...back to our regularly scheduled dose of copy-paste nutjobbery?

Or more pictures of millipedes?

We could go back to pictures of kitties!
Here's a bunch of (old) pics of my cat Sega:
...thinking about climbing a tree.
...post tree climbing.
...with an up close shot of her ear.
...being cuddled by me.
...looking annoyed.
...relaxing.
...relaxing, again.

Since we've had a lot of Godfrey to meaningful posts, here's some (old) pictures of our bobtailed cat Smudge:
...gazing into the fog.
...playing a deadly game of cat and mouse with the camera.
...stretching.
...laying around.
...looking smug.
...requesting a snack tummy rub.
...I have no idea, but it's cute.
...sitting.
...bathing.

Edit: Actually, this one is of our late cat, Bob. He was Smudge's father.
Bob plotting to take over the world.

Don't push me Godfrey, I've got many more where these came from!

(All pictures were taken by my sister, Retasha [1][2].)

 

[Archonsod]

 

[A_Mustang]

yay, animal photos. now, this is something i can understand completely. 

 

[Archonsod]

What you don't realise is that the photo was taken just after I and the leopard had a stimulating debate on the current Dark Matter theories. The reason for his strange expression is that the wolverine in the next exhibit started banging on about string theory. How we laughed.

 

[Worbah]

What you don't realise is that the photo was taken just after I and the leopard had a stimulating debate on the current Dark Matter theories. The reason for his strange expression is that the wolverine in the next exhibit started banging on about string theory. How we laughed.

Was it a... Def Leppard?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

 

[A_Mustang]

well, there is only so much you can glean from a picture. Musta been hard to debate through the glass. 

 

[Shatari]

Actually, the transparency made things go my clearly. It's far better than dealing with a pane like Godfrey.