Which set of revolutionaries do you have the most respect for?

[moomin]

Originally posted by Sikander
Are you kidding? McDonalds kills thousands every year!

Now that you mention it, I guess McD's could be held responsible for some small amount of the heart attacks that offs unwed inner-city mothers with severe weight problems, although I guess it ain't all that that compared to smoking, drugs and alcohol. Still, you're right insofar that it meets the socialist revolutionary ideas of killing of large numbers of the proles in the name of the proles.

But still, it's a bit tame, innit? A glorious socialist revolution requires a fair bit of terror, people being killed by others rather than doing themseleves in and above all everybody dying knowing that they're being murdered in the name of the People. Lacking that, I'm afraid the candidates proposed simply don't measure up to the high socialist standards set by true revolutionaries such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Cromwell did a lot in England... he presented to the world the first 'Constitutional' in the best style of the French third Republic, 300 years earlier and probably laid the foundations for legislative democracy.

After death, that is.

It's actually the opinion of most historians that he impeded rather than helped democracy. He comitted Pride's pruge and thus sacked Parliament and any hope of turning England democratic. He created a military dictatorship and brutally repressed those who opposed. him. His rule was so terrible people became fed up to him which led to alot of pro-monarchy feeling, and so once his iron hand died the Stuarts were put back in. There was alot of authoritarian and pro-Anglican sentiment as a result of his theocratic tyranny. Were it not for James II's idiocy England's transition to democracy would have been seriously impeded. If you want a hero for English democracy go for William of Orange, he did far more to advance democracy then Cromwell ever did.

And in addition to Cromwell's idiocy, again there is that little genocide business.

[KrazyHorse]

Cromwell wasn't even close to democratic. He even appointed his son as heir to his "throne". The son didn't want any part of it and repudiated his claim after his father died...

The Rump parliament that succeeded the Long Parliament only consisted of 30% (IIRC) of its original members, the rest either having been arrested, resigned or killed.

After the Rump Parliament was dissolved for the farce it had become, another Parliament was elected and quickly dissolved. Cromwell ruled as an autocrat for ~2 years before financial pressures forced him to call another Parliament (though one with its fangs drawn by his changes to the undemocratic House of Lords). He died while this Parliament was still sitting, and the Commonwealth fell apart rather quickly after his death.