Are revolutions possible in the modern world?

[GePap]

Obviously, any revolutionary movement would be labelled by the government it is trying to topple as terrorism, though how much sympathy that label gets depends on the form of revolution. A mass one, driven by huge popular demonstrations, like those that got rid of Marcos, or the Shah, or the East germans are undoubtly revolutions. "revolutions" of the Leninist type, with a small vanguard, certainly would be labelled by mosts state as terrorism.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
I don't think revolution is possible anymore. Now it's just labeled terrorism.

All revolutionists are terrorist at the time of the revolution. Only later they can be labeled as revolutionist.

[Kidlicious]

I can't see another revolutionary war coming in the US. The revolution will have to be supported by the army. The Army would crush any military revolt.

[axi]

Odin, the Sandinistas were not crushed by the Americans. They had alot of trouble with the Contras of course, but they stepped down simply because they didn't get reelected.

Cruddy, in a society full of antitheses, the antithetic positions have to clash for society to be able to progress. A political situation which derives from a revolution is much more clear and unrestrained in it's further progress than one which has not cut all it's links with the past situation. The reason that Portugal and Greece are a much better political environment than Chile or Turkey is that the first had their dictatorships toppled, while the last have undergone a prolonged phase of "democratisation" of the regime.

GePap, the Leninist vanguard party you mentioned does not rebel on itself, it first gains popular support. The Bolsheviks had the support of all the Russian fleet, half the Army and all workers in the vicinity of Petrograd when they toppled the Kerensky government. The kind of party that goes into guerilla warfare on it's own, regardless of the will of the people is not Leninist, it is Guevarist (it follows the theory of focismo; the possibility of military action to ignite the flames of revolution on it's own - which is a fine theory but has really worked only in Cuba). The only other possible case of a marxist party going to war against the state on it's own was a Stalinist party that would do so while following the line of Moscow.

[VetLegion]

A political situation which derives from a revolution is much more clear and unrestrained in it's further progress than one which has not cut all it's links with the past situation.

And then revolutionary methods are established as successful. Often a revolution is suceeded by another. The first party that does not 'cut all it's links with the past situation' as you put it will have a messier situation at first but it will promote instituionalised politics (and stability) in the long run.

Viva la victoria, siempre! today comes with obligatory

[South killer]

while in Argentina, merely the prospect of another Chavez or Lula or Castro, was horrifying for them.

You're wrong. it's the opposite!!! The government we toppled down was a centre-right one. 10 years of Menem's neo-liberal policies (recomended by the IMF and convined with corruption) destroyed our economy. Then on 1999 we elected De La Rua, who promised to end with corruption and send the country in the good way. But this never happened as de la rua was an inept and he lived isolated from reality and didn't do anything. When the economic crisis was on its top and the government didn't do anything to solve it, the people got tired and in an spontaneous manifestation we forced De La Rua to renounce. After that a series of interim presidents came and Duhalde was chosen president by the congress. One month ago we had presidential ellections and Nestor Kirchner, a centre-left, won. In his first weeks he did more than De La Rua on his whole term and the country seems to go in the right direction now.

[Odin]

Originally posted by axi
Odin, the Sandinistas were not crushed by the Americans. They had alot of trouble with the Contras of course, but they stepped down simply because they didn't get reelected.

The Contras got lots of political aid by the US, the US did everything in could to make sure the righties won.

[Giancarlo]

South Killer, Menem's policies weren't neo-liberal. They were just poorly planned and executed.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Read your Macchiavelli.

I have, and surely he claims that the only form of government that can break the cycle of tyranny and corruption is one where freedoms are safeguarded by the direct involvement of the populace, constantly threatening revolt?

Or maybe you're reading out of The Prince instead of The Discourses.

[South killer]

Originally posted by Fez
South Killer, Menem's policies weren't neo-liberal. They were just poorly planned and executed.

Last time i checked, privatization of national companies, favouritism to international companies, to put first the market than the people and to not protect national industries were in the neo-liberal agenda.