Bush's visit to Britain

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Were the Brown Shirts of Hitler wrong?
Were the peasants following Pol Pot wrong?
Were the common soldiers of the Taliban wrong?
Were the Confederates wrong?

They obviously were since they were all reactionaries. They protested against change, against the force of history driven forward by class-conflict. They enjoyed temporary succes but in the long run their methods were self-defeating. Now, you could hardly call the pro-peace faction today a reactionary force. And certainly not rabid nationalists or religious zealots.

[Pekka]

I don't know what the general atmosphere is in UK, I guess it's nation devided? But granted, if you get 1 or 2 million to march... that's huge. When is Bush visiting? It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


They obviously were since they were all reactionaries. They protested against change, against the force of history driven forward by class-conflict. They enjoyed temporary succes but in the long run their methods were self-defeating. Now, you could hardly call the pro-peace faction today a reactionary force. And certainly not rabid nationalists or religious zealots.

Of course I wouldn't call them that.

I'm just answering

when have demonstrators who have felt passionatley for a cause ever been proven wrong?

with examples when they clearly have.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh...and I'd love to see you make that stick against Pol Pot.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

with examples when they clearly have.

I would call those you mentioned Fanatical.

However would you say that the pro-peace faction is fanaticla and reactionary and willing to use violence as the first option?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Oh...and I'd love to see you make that stick against Pol Pot.

Pol Pots regime was clearly reactonary. Anyone who wore glasses or spoke French were shot.

[The Mad Monk]

However would you say that the pro-peace faction is fanaticla and reactionary and willing to use violence as the first option?

Did you actually read the entire post?

I answered that specifically.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Pol Pots regime was clearly reactonary. Anyone who wore glasses or spoke French were shot.

...and the storming of Bastille led on to Robespierre, The Committee of Public Safety and "the revolutionary razor".

Your point?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


...and the storming of Bastille led on to Robespierre, The Committee of Public Safety and "the revolutionary razor".

Your point?

And Robespierre was eventually guillitined himself. I would still say that overall the revolution eventually brought many good things to the French people.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


They obviously were since they were all reactionaries.

I think you could make a strong cause for calling all protests "reactionary". That's not to say they're right or wrong, of course.

However, I think you're wrong. There have been any number of protests from causes I'd consider wrong, anyway.

[The Mad Monk]

And Robespierre was eventually guillitined himself. I would still say that overall the revolution eventually brought many good things to the French people.

Also much bloodshed, terror in the name of progress, and eventually, the rise of Napolean on a tide of blood not to be equaled until World War One.

[The Mad Monk]

BTW, Pol Pot's regime ultimately choked on its own blood, and "many reforms were brought about".

Does that justify the genocide?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


I think you could make a strong cause for calling all protests "reactionary". That's not to say they're right or wrong, of course.

However, I think you're wrong. There have been any number of protests from causes I'd consider wrong, anyway.

I certainly think that a case can be made that the current surge in hostility towards Bush's policies might be labeled reactionary. Certainly rightist intellectuals will say that Bush is the only major force of real change in the world. For instance his call on the Arab countries to democratize and his tax-reforms certainly.

If you look at it objectively i don't think any voter will disagree that it would be nice with a Muslim world that was Democratic and a world with no taxes. I guess many people are worried that such a process will mean some great upheaval in how the world is run.

It will be interesting to see if it will work.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Also much bloodshed, terror in the name of progress, and eventually, the rise of Napolean on a tide of blood not to be equaled until World War One.

They were fighting all the monarchies of Europe you know, who hated the idea of a revolution in thier own countires. Very natural, of course. Not all of it was brought upon them by the revolution solely.

[The Mad Monk]

Which does not contradict anything I have said.