4 ms·

What you're talking about is a problem of the political culture (that takes centuries to establish) and of the legitimacy of the core institutions and of the po

by Revisor 16y ago

What you're talking about is a problem of the political culture (that takes centuries to establish) and of the legitimacy of the core institutions and of the political system (democracy). I don't see how a revolution instead of a peaceful transition would help in any sense.

jwr 16y ago
Right on target. I'm from Poland and I can definitely relate to problems described by Maro (although we seem to have fared better than Hungary in the long run). Everybody thought that re-establishing Democracy (with a capital D, to signify a pervasive culture of democracy along with ethics, not just a political system) would take several years. It turns out it might take generations. The worst part is that people are used to subsidized life and instead of DOING something they expect the government will provide.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  The worst part is that people are used to subsidized life and instead of DOING something they expect the government will provide. This. I'd call this attitude the number one problem across most of Europe. (bad political climate is a massive problem, but I think its root cause is this) Riots in France due to raised pension age? Multiple attempts at budget reform in various countries failing? Students on the streets complaining about studying conditions due to poor funding? Something has to give, and we're approaching the point where the answer isn't "higher taxes" anymore. (we're already well beyond the "more debt" option) Except nobody is willing to sacrifice anything personally.
  - TallGuyShort 16y ago
    Amen! I qualify for a lot of government help as a student, but because I qualify for a good job, I'm working 30+ hours a week to pay for my schooling without having to go into debt or get grants from the government. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but it makes me sick when I see people around me complain about how he's ruining the economy, and then go by X-Boxes and motorcycles with the money the government gave them for tuition.
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  Agreed. I am from Ukraine and after the USSR broke up a "democracy" was established, except the people in charge are basically the same ones who where in charge under the communists. Same agenda, just different pretense. I think it will take several generations to realizes that nobody is going to come and fix the problems.
ThomPete 16y ago
I think what Marco is alluring to is that if the change isn't coming from the inside, because of an awareness of it's necessity, it's going to be very hard to maintain an actual change. In other words without a clean swipe, the power structures are still maintained making it possible for those who ruled before to rule again even if their titles are new.
Maro 16y ago
I'm not really qualified to have such a discussion, but I guess the reasoning is that, if you have an actual revolution, you can quickly throw out the old crappy stuff (bad laws, bad taxes, gov't agencies, etc.) and introduce new, better ones. Then, more importantly, if a nation had to fight for its political system, it will value it and not fuck it up. Eg. as I describe in a post below, our current gov't is using its current power to change the constitution to better fit its short term political goals, in other words they don't respect it, unlike eg. the way the U.S. Constitution is a symbol of the country's core social values. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unite...
- barrkel 16y ago
  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... Rules chosen in haste are very far from guaranteed to be better than what they replace. Most likely, in the massive rush to replace everything, cronies and political allies will carve off chunks, loopholes etc. to profit from. The USA is different in that its institutions grew up over a few hundred years, starting out with a fairly trivial population and minimal government over a primarily agricultural people, and growing the state in response to crises. It's certainly important that it had a very good core in the constitution and the early amendments (bill of rights etc.); but that just laid down the architecture of what grew like a crystal afterwords. Unfortunately, there's a brand of anacho-libertarianism in certain influential chunks of American thought, especially in economic circles, which believes that government itself is evil, and that if you only overthrow it, everything will be better. They tried that with shock therapy in Russia, and to a degree even tried it again in Iraq - no planning for aftermath etc. It's my opinion that almost every part of a well-functioning state is balanced between strain in multiple directions, getting larger and getting smaller, regulating more and regulating less, clamping down on moral offenses and easing back on others, etc. These kinds of strains oscillate with the political winds, and the organizations that are grown in prevailing winds are stunted in one direction or another, and only corrected when they've gone too far, in a crisis. In the light of this metaphor, it should be clear that an overthrow isn't the right recipe to grow a good new state: the organization won't have had the time and crises to grow in balance with its competing stresses. Instead, the immediate insiders will be unstoppable political gales, deep structural faults will be embedded into the heart of the operation that guarantee the politically favoured factions rents for decades to come. I speak of an Irishman, who has, of late, longed for a revolution in my homeland, but recognizes it for the folly it would be. My country's primary problem is that it has too many representatives, too much clientelism, too much of politics is cynically local, and above all too much voting is based on tribal allegiances that date back to civil war nearly 100 years ago.

by Revisor 16y ago

jwr 16y ago

Right on target. I'm from Poland and I can definitely relate to problems described by Maro (although we seem to have fared better than Hungary in the long run). Everybody thought that re-establishing Democracy (with a capital D, to signify a pervasive culture of democracy along with ethics, not just a political system) would take several years. It turns out it might take generations. The worst part is that people are used to subsidized life and instead of DOING something they expect the government will provide.

pmjordan 16y ago
The worst part is that people are used to subsidized life and instead of DOING something they expect the government will provide. This. I'd call this attitude the number one problem across most of Europe. (bad political climate is a massive problem, but I think its root cause is this) Riots in France due to raised pension age? Multiple attempts at budget reform in various countries failing? Students on the streets complaining about studying conditions due to poor funding? Something has to give, and we're approaching the point where the answer isn't "higher taxes" anymore. (we're already well beyond the "more debt" option) Except nobody is willing to sacrifice anything personally.
- TallGuyShort 16y ago
  Amen! I qualify for a lot of government help as a student, but because I qualify for a good job, I'm working 30+ hours a week to pay for my schooling without having to go into debt or get grants from the government. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but it makes me sick when I see people around me complain about how he's ruining the economy, and then go by X-Boxes and motorcycles with the money the government gave them for tuition.
IgorPartola 16y ago
Agreed. I am from Ukraine and after the USSR broke up a "democracy" was established, except the people in charge are basically the same ones who where in charge under the communists. Same agenda, just different pretense. I think it will take several generations to realizes that nobody is going to come and fix the problems.

ThomPete 16y ago

I think what Marco is alluring to is that if the change isn't coming from the inside, because of an awareness of it's necessity, it's going to be very hard to maintain an actual change. In other words without a clean swipe, the power structures are still maintained making it possible for those who ruled before to rule again even if their titles are new.

Maro 16y ago

I'm not really qualified to have such a discussion, but I guess the reasoning is that, if you have an actual revolution, you can quickly throw out the old crappy stuff (bad laws, bad taxes, gov't agencies, etc.) and introduce new, better ones. Then, more importantly, if a nation had to fight for its political system, it will value it and not fuck it up. Eg. as I describe in a post below, our current gov't is using its current power to change the constitution to better fit its short term political goals, in other words they don't respect it, unlike eg. the way the U.S. Constitution is a symbol of the country's core social values. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unite...

barrkel 16y ago
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... Rules chosen in haste are very far from guaranteed to be better than what they replace. Most likely, in the massive rush to replace everything, cronies and political allies will carve off chunks, loopholes etc. to profit from. The USA is different in that its institutions grew up over a few hundred years, starting out with a fairly trivial population and minimal government over a primarily agricultural people, and growing the state in response to crises. It's certainly important that it had a very good core in the constitution and the early amendments (bill of rights etc.); but that just laid down the architecture of what grew like a crystal afterwords. Unfortunately, there's a brand of anacho-libertarianism in certain influential chunks of American thought, especially in economic circles, which believes that government itself is evil, and that if you only overthrow it, everything will be better. They tried that with shock therapy in Russia, and to a degree even tried it again in Iraq - no planning for aftermath etc. It's my opinion that almost every part of a well-functioning state is balanced between strain in multiple directions, getting larger and getting smaller, regulating more and regulating less, clamping down on moral offenses and easing back on others, etc. These kinds of strains oscillate with the political winds, and the organizations that are grown in prevailing winds are stunted in one direction or another, and only corrected when they've gone too far, in a crisis. In the light of this metaphor, it should be clear that an overthrow isn't the right recipe to grow a good new state: the organization won't have had the time and crises to grow in balance with its competing stresses. Instead, the immediate insiders will be unstoppable political gales, deep structural faults will be embedded into the heart of the operation that guarantee the politically favoured factions rents for decades to come. I speak of an Irishman, who has, of late, longed for a revolution in my homeland, but recognizes it for the folly it would be. My country's primary problem is that it has too many representatives, too much clientelism, too much of politics is cynically local, and above all too much voting is based on tribal allegiances that date back to civil war nearly 100 years ago.