The Nature of Death and Violence

[FoolOfWorms]

On 12/31/2021 at 9:13 AM, Im_CIA said:

Really? How many bad actors were killed and used as mortar in the new order?

Just because they didnt assassinate anyone didnt mean they weren't prepared to, as many pictures of black panthers holding arms and a certain someone's speech will tell you. We were very lucky the united states were willing to give on this issue, because if it went the way of south Africa things would have burned fast. (you could actually draw parallels to the black panthers and south africa's spear of the nation, especially considering they were founded around the same time) The united states government wouldn't of founded COINTELPRO if they weren't afraid, rightfully, that the civil rights movement and protests would have turned into active rebellion if they didn't compromise to civil equality.

Thats not even mentioning other controversial aspects of the peaceful protests themselves, like the children's crusade, which even Malcolm X criticized because it endangered children in order to get publicity.

[HeartaceX]

On 12/31/2021 at 6:51 PM, FoolOfWorms said:

as many pictures of black panthers holding arms and a certain someone's speech will tell you.

Thanks for the link, I'll read it.

[Deep Dive Devin]

On 12/31/2021 at 6:13 AM, Im_CIA said:

It wasn't a sudden coup either,

Neither is anything I've ever seen you pretend is "too radical" including the OP of this thread. So you're full of shit either way. Your logic here is such that an armed revolution could be passed off as incrementalist so long as any concession had been made to the oppressed party beforehand. But arguing that civil rights gains simply came peacefully is foolish no matter what path you take to get there.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[kerdios]

On 12/31/2021 at 6:41 PM, HeartaceX said:

   Excluding Finland and Iceland which managed to become independent

in the early 20th century, all the famous Scandinavian countries that are

usually looked at as social democratic models are actually Constitutional

Monarchies similar to Britain. 

 

As far as I know, Britain is special in Europe (and maybe the world among democracies) as the only country that has a higher house of representatives that is not democratically elected. (i.e. the house of lords which is elected by the queen, the church and other lords)

Additionally there are 5 Scandinavian countries including Iceland, so 2 out of 5 is not bad in my book for representing peaceful gradual change from monarchy to democracy.

[FoolOfWorms]

On 12/31/2021 at 10:02 PM, kerdios said:

As far as I know, Britain is special in Europe (and maybe the world among democracies) as the only country that has a higher house of representatives that is not democratically elected. (i.e. the house of lords which is elected by the queen, the church and other lords)

Additionally there are 5 Scandinavian countries including Iceland, so 2 out of 5 is not bad in my book for representing peaceful gradual change from monarchy to democracy.

Sorry for deleting my previous post, I was wrong about something because of a conflation between to conflicts in the same region, Its kind of embarrassing.
Anyways, from what I can tell, the independence of iceland and finland were less peaceful demonstrations by the people trying to bring democracy to their previously monarchical nation and more bureaucratic issues. Iceland and Finland didnt exist as states for a long time before they became independent democracies, and the reason why both were released as democracies were more a result of both states being too cumbersome to handle after their controlling state became too exhausted financially to maintain their territorial claim to sovereignty over the state. Additionally both states were already fairly self governing due to their respective distance and ethnic population density. You could claim this was peaceful in nature but the circumstance seems to imply that the nations that held them previously wouldn't have been able to stop them from declaring independence without asking if they tried to hold on.
I wanna segway to another point however and say a big thing this conversation seems to be missing is context. Modern democracy wasn't born in a vacuum, and the United States and France founded a precedent for how to fight for democracy and against monarchism. After those bloody messes the ghost of revolution haunted monarchs for centuries, and as it became apparent they were less and less effective at ruling and the parliament of these nations started stripping more and more of their power away, constitutional democracy kind of became less of a peaceful acceptance of civil representation and more the final compromise between absolutism and getting your head removed from your shoulder. WW1 kind of put the last nail in the coffin for absolute monarchies in Europe, with WW2 being a massive battering ram through any sense autocracy would be taken seriously at all without open disgust in Europe.

Edited January 1, 2022 by FoolOfWorms (see edit history)

[HeartaceX]

On 1/1/2022 at 4:02 AM, kerdios said:

As far as I know, Britain is special in Europe (and maybe the world among democracies) as the only country that has a higher house of representatives that is not democratically elected. (i.e. the house of lords which is elected by the queen, the church and other lords)

Additionally there are 5 Scandinavian countries including Iceland, so 2 out of 5 is not bad in my book for representing peaceful gradual change from monarchy to democracy.

    Not denying anything you said, however what I do find important to

highlight that Iceland and Finland are never mentioned in discussions

about Scandinavian social Democracies, they are never taken as models;

Denmark and Sweden are the usual ones, and they are constitutional 

monarchies. 

Also I am pretty sure the change was not gradual in either Iceland nor

Finland; here is a brief history of Iceland's independence from the

University of Aarhus(Denmark), Iceland got its full Independence only

after World War I.

 

Furthermore Taken from the Swedish Constitution:

 

ART. 1 • All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people. Swedish democracy

is founded on the free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage.

It is realised through a representative and parliamentary form of government and

through local self-government.

 

ART 5 • The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the

Act of Succession shall be the Head of State.

 

As far as I know you are correct about Britain; ultimately we should

ask ourselves how come , We are considering monarchies as democracies.

I guess even monarchs need their social Welfare huh.

 

[kerdios]

On 1/1/2022 at 12:51 PM, HeartaceX said:

...

Also I am pretty sure the change was not gradual in either Iceland nor

Finland; here is a brief history of Iceland's independence from the

University of Aarhus(Denmark), Iceland got its full Independence only

after World War I.

...

 

 

 

It's funny, the way I read the article that is exactly the meaning of a gradual (and peaceful) change,
first the reinstatement of the Althing as an advisory to the king 1840-1845 and then receiving legislative independance in 1874;
and all the way up to receiving a status of a free and sovereign state in personal union with Denmark in 1918 with the right to rediscuss the decision 25 years later (which was delayed by ww2) until the final referendum in 1945 that resulted in the dissolution of the union.

[HeartaceX]

On 1/1/2022 at 5:53 PM, kerdios said:

It's funny, the way I read the article that is exactly the meaning of a gradual (and peaceful) change

    What can I say about it is that, gradualism subtends the idea of a slow

but constant change over a long period of time with piecemeal reforms,

not with a series of substantial leaps, each one of them happening as

a direct result of a political movement strongly pushing for concessions. 

 

I am not sure how you did come up with the idea that the change was

peaceful, since, Iceland had become a free and sovereign state in personal

union with Denmark only after WWI, while WWI was not directly a war

of independence for Iceland, the legitimacy of participation into that war

was of course ground of contention, reinforcing nationalistic claims 

of independence.

 

Also Iceland got invaded by the Britons in WWII, a Major energy event , 

and Iceland got it's independence thereafter, now as a thought

experiment try to rerun the same experiment without 2 world wars.

 

However yes, for what I know Iceland did not achieve independence

through an arms struggle directed specifically at their rulers (Kingdom

of Denmark), However their decisive diplomatic victories happened as

a consequence of violence which substantially warped and destabilized

many economies in the region including Denmark's; poor economical 

performance naturally leads to weakened political control on colonies,

which strengthen nationalistic movements.