# Saudi Arabia on the verge of Revolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781 "2004-05-30T12:27:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/61 "2004-06-03T19:31:44Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > I don’t see why we would have to intervene in Saudi Arabia when the 101st Airborne is currently sitting on top of the second-largest oil reserve in the world. Maybe because SA is the FIRST-largest oil reserve in the world, and is fully productive whereas Iraq currently isn’t (and probably won’t be for some time to come…you know, with that fighting thing going on and all)? And its in not only the US’s best interest but the worlds to make sure it doesn’t fly apart, because if it does we are all in deep shit?? BTW, I’m pretty much in full agreement with what BrainGlutton is saying on this one. However, I’ve definitely learned a lot from this thread about SA…especially helpful was Tamerlane’s cite. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/62 "2004-06-03T20:05:30Z")
Um, no, that isn’t what he was saying. Marx only argued that class society brings different classes into conflict, and that the ruled class, if it were to be successful in the conflict, needed to organize itself and fight for its interests as a class. There were no formulas about the size of a class in relation to the whole of society or about its composition. Any country can have a socialist revolution, given the condition of a politically organized and militant working class. **BrainGlutton** , you keep picking on individual historic events, presenting them with no analysis or background whatsoever, and trying to pass them off as proof of your argument of the inherent bankruptcy of socialism (or something along those lines). The Constituent Assembly, for one. Yes, it was dissolved after only one day - but you neglect to mention the fact that, when presented with the proposal to recognize Soviet power, which had been established two months previously, they decisively _rejected_ it. A political body which refuses to acknowledge the new socioeconomic power of a country will be dissolved by that same power if it is able to do so. It’s as simple as that. Yes, socialist deputies in the German and French parliaments voted for war credits in 1914, but that does not mean working people are incapable of recognizing they have more in common with the workers of other countries than they do with the rulers of their own; nor does it mean that those same deputies had any serious basis for considering themselves marxists. They had long ago consciously rejected the revolutionary road to socialism, instead believing in a gradual reform of capitalism. Clearly they were mistaken. The native-born workers in Saudi Arabia may well indeed believe that foreign workers are part of the problem, but such ideas don’t naturally spring up complete in their heads. Nor does it mean their beliefs are correct; nor does it mean those ideas should not be argued with and confronted simply because they are the ideas held by the majority. > [@](#): > > [W]e do not have the right to prop up undemocratic regimes, or do other unpalatable things, to defend the oil supply. We have the need to do so. There is no alternative. If human society is structured in such a way that one group _needs_ to actively interfere in the political, economic, and social affairs of another group, to that group’s obvious detriment, in order to maintain some sort of perceived or actual advantage then something is seriously wrong with that society and it should be replaced. If a world based on a ‘free market’ means that an economically and militarily powerful country like the US faces an ever-increasing need to reinforce the violation of human rights and democracy elsewhere in the world in order to support its own domestic economy, then the free market economy needs to be scrapped, and the people who run it as well. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/63 "2004-06-03T22:28:19Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > If human society is structured in such a way that one group _needs_ to actively interfere in the political, economic, and social affairs of another group, to that group’s obvious detriment, in order to maintain some sort of perceived or actual advantage then something is seriously wrong with that society and it should be replaced. If a world based on a ‘free market’ means that an economically and militarily powerful country like the US faces an ever-increasing need to reinforce the violation of human rights and democracy elsewhere in the world in order to support its own domestic economy, then the free market economy needs to be scrapped, and the people who run it as well. Osama, meet Karl… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/64 "2004-06-03T22:37:47Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > **BrainGlutton** , you keep picking on individual historic events, presenting them with no analysis or background whatsoever, and trying to pass them off as proof of your argument of the inherent bankruptcy of socialism (or something along those lines). I am not arguing for the bankruptcy of socialism. I consider myself a socialist – a non-Marxist, non-revolutionary, democratic socialist, but a socialist still. At least by American standards. I’m also an internationalist – I believe the best possible path for the future is one that leads to a world republic. But that’s got nothing to do with this. In the short term, we have to keep this economy going somehow, and we can’t do that without cheap oil. Just no way. It is inconceivable that the United States will **not** go to war to prevent a serious interruption in the oil supply, regardless of whether our government is Democratic or Republican or Socialist or Communist or Green. Political revolution, socialist or otherwise, in the U.S. or SA or anywhere else or everywhere in the whole world at once, by itself will do absolutely nothing to solve America’s fuel problems and might make them worse. The real solutions, which I have outlined above, would take **time.** ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/65 "2004-06-04T02:21:30Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > I dug up this article for another semi-related thread a few months back. It takes a somewhat more Middle-of-the-road view: Thanks **Tamerlane** - great link. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/66 "2004-06-04T13:47:32Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Osama, meet Karl… Advocating radical social change != violent terrorism against civilian populations. Plain and simple. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/67 "2004-06-04T14:01:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I consider myself a socialist – a non-Marxist, non-revolutionary, democratic socialist, but a socialist still. At least by American standards. I consider myself a Socialist too, but definitely revolutionary and Marxist. Obviously, I strongly disagree with a lot of what you say - including your political self-assessment. > [@](#): > > In the short term, we have to keep this economy going somehow, and we can’t do that without cheap oil. Just no way. It is inconceivable that the United States will _not_ go to war to prevent a serious interruption in the oil supply, regardless of whether our government is Democratic or Republican or Socialist or Communist or Green. Just as it was inconceivable that France and Britain would _not_ go to war to protects its alliances and colonial possessions in 1914. Self-proclaimed socialists who vote in favor of an international war that results in the economic devastation of countries and the deaths of millions are not socialists at all. So let me ask you this, at least to try to get the thread back on subject. You would support a war in Saudi Arabia, which has just as much potential to turn into a political and military quagmire as Iraq, with the attendant atrocities on both sides, simply in order to keep the oil flowing? You would support the US government training, arming, and sending American workers halfway across the world to slaughter Arab workers so that US corporations can maintain control of the Saudi oil supply? If you answered yes, you might as well drop any pretense to calling yourself socialist. You’re supporting the wrong side. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/68 "2004-06-04T14:18:02Z")
[QUOTE=You would support a war in Saudi Arabia, which has just as much potential to turn into a political and military quagmire as Iraq, with the attendant atrocities on both sides, simply in order to keep the oil flowing?[/QUOTE] No, I would **oppose** a war in Saudi Arabia – unless the situation reached the point where the only realistic alternatives were U.S. military intervention, or a takeover by the ultra-Wahhabists. The latter possibility must be avoided at all costs. It would be like Iran in 1979, only much, much worse, because Saudi society today is in even sadder shape than Iranian society was then, and because such a revolution at the very core of the Arab world, the homeland of Mohammed, would be bound to spill over into other Arab countries. In the short term, however, I think pulling all U.S. troops out of the Middle East would do much more to calm things down in SA than any show of force we are making or could make. The less we do, the less they will resent us. Sometimes leaving well enough alone, or bad enough alone, is the most effective way to “intervene.” I do not think Khomeini would ever have come to power in Iran in 1979, if the U.S. had not deposed Prime Minister Mossadeq and restored the shah to absolute power in 1953. As for the oil supply, any oil-producing country will want to keep drilling, pumping and exporting the stuff, because it’s a valuable resource and what else are they going to do with it? The only thing that could interfere with that would be a completely insane anti-Western regime, or a state of civil war and social disorder that keeps everybody too preoccupied to work the oilfields. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/69 "2004-06-04T14:46:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, I would _oppose_ a war in Saudi Arabia – unless the situation reached the point where the only realistic alternatives were U.S. military intervention, or a takeover by the ultra-Wahhabists. The latter possibility must be avoided at all costs. How is that opposing the war? For a socialist in the US, acceding to US imperialism should be inadmissible, no matter what the circumstances. I don’t want to see an ultra-Wahhabist takeover in Saudi Arabia, either, but there’s no reason to believe a US military intervention would make things any better for the Saudis than it has for the Iraqis. We’ve got a lesson unfolding before our eyes - imperialism messes things up for workers on both sides. It’s a lesson most of us (present administration excepted) learned the hard way thirty-five years ago in Southeast Asia. Why should we even begin to think it might work the next time around? I would hate to see the Saudis confronted with the Scylla and Charybdis of ultra-Wahhabism and US military intervention. They need better alternatives. To even give them a chance at that, we need better alternatives here - alternatives to the two parties that refuse to even think of questioning the US’ heavy dependence on oil and choose to invade other countries to keep that oil flowing. The harder we fight to build those alternatives here, the more working people in places like Saudi Arabia will realize they can do the same thing, too - so that the only alternative to the House of Saud _won’t_ be the ultra-Wahhabists. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/70 "2004-06-04T14:48:20Z")
Killed off a paragraph I meant to include - the Bush administration lied through their collective teeth about Iraq’s possession of WMDs to justify the invasion. Who’s to say they - or a Kerry administration - wouldn’t lie about an impending ultra-Wahhabist takeover to justify invading Saudi Arabia? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/71 "2004-06-04T15:07:00Z")
As for whether I’m a “real” socialist (or a true Scotsman) – well, it’s impossible to discuss this without getting way off-topic, so I’ll try (and fail) to keep it brief. I am a member of the Socialist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Labor Party. I would join the Greens, too, except that I have a serious problem with their Key Value of “decentralization” – I’m a Hamiltonian, not a Jeffersonian; some problems can only be dealt with effectively at the national level or even higher. I would certainly place myself far to the left of, say, Tony Blair. My vision of “socialism” is something like what they’ve got in Sweden, but on a continental or even a global scale. A form of socialism that repudiates what has been called “the theology of the final goal” – a form that no longer conceives of socialism as something that is to come **after** capitalism, but merely as an ameliorating social and political force within the market economy. A socialism that aims at substantial social and economic equality, **however** we achieve that goal. An “all-or-nothing” approach is not necessary or wise. Perhaps it would be most socially beneficial for a given industrial sector to be completely owned and operated by the state, or perhaps not. We would have to find out by a gradual process of trial and error. Nor does economic equality need to be absolute. There will **always** be a social pyramid, I just want the top and bottom to be a lot closer together than they are now: There should be an upper limit to how much wealth and income a person can have, and a lower limit to poverty. The most persuasive and plausible utopian novel I’ve ever read is _Pacific Edge_ by Kim Stanley Robinson (St. Martin’s Press, 1995), set in a future America where there has been some kind of political revolution led by the Greens – presumably a nonviolent revolution, but no details are given. Everyone is guaranteed an annual income of $10,000, even if they don’t work, and nobody is allowed to have more than $100,000. This prevents the existence of poverty while still allowing plenty of room for ambition and achievement – “everybody wants to be a Hundred.” Most economic activity is done by private companies; the state’s main role is to keep them small, to break up any corporation that grows beyond the size where every officer and employee can know every other personally. It’s not a final formula for utopia, but it’s a good starting point for thinking about it. So, am I a socialist or not? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/72 "2004-06-04T15:12:52Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > To even give them a chance at that, we need better alternatives here - alternatives to the two parties that refuse to even think of questioning the US’ heavy dependence on oil and choose to invade other countries to keep that oil flowing. Indeed that is exactly what we need. Unfortunately, our political system is structured to prevent third parties, right or left, from even getting a toehold. Just to start with, we need instant-runoff voting for election to executive offices and proportional representation for election to multimember policymaking bodies. Check out the Center for Voting and Democracy at [www.fairvote.org](http://www.fairvote.org). ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/73 "2004-06-04T15:14:28Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Advocating radical social change != violent terrorism against civilian populations. Plain and simple. Big Lie. Anybody who ever advocated “radical social change” was always complicit in “violent terrorism against civilian populations”. In that respect Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and Osama are the same. Osama is animated by a chimera of Islamic paradise, you are animated by a chimera of Proletarian paradise. Osama condemns Western people to death for offences against Islam, you talk about “_scrapping free market economy and people who run it, as well_”. What’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/74 "2004-06-04T15:19:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > My vision of “socialism” is something like what they’ve got in Sweden, but on a continental or even a global scale. A form of socialism that repudiates what has been called “the theology of the final goal” – a form that no longer conceives of socialism as something that is to come **after** capitalism, but merely as an ameliorating social and political force within the market economy. > > So, am I a socialist or not? Revolutionary socialist? No. More of Bernstein or Kautsky’s type, whose followers were the ones who ended up voting to support their country’s entry into the First World War. There are serious problems with that perspective, and it’s been shown by history to lead to conclusions that are decidedly _not_ socialist. I think passing it off as “true Scotsman”-ism does too much to ignore the fact that there are very real differences in our perspectives; while I wouldn’t refuse to work with a leftist like you around issues that concern us both, like perhaps ending the occupation of Iraq (_that_ would be “true Scotsman”-ism, more properly called sectarianism), I wouldn’t hesitate to argue with you over your political perspective, which I consider rather utopian. Acknowledging and explaining differences is not playing the “true Scotsman” game. It’s how you handle the differences once you acknowledge them. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/75 "2004-06-04T15:30:40Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Big Lie. Anybody who ever advocated “radical social change” was always complicit in “violent terrorism against civilian populations”. In that respect Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and Osama are the same. How about the abolitionists? How about the advocates of women’s suffrage? Eugene Debs? The Chartists? Heck, throw in the leaders of the American Revolution while you’re at it. They all advocated radical social change and none of them can arguably shown to be complicit in violent terrorism against civilian populations. Your hostility to the left has been painfully obvious in other threads in which you’ve posted and I’m in no real mood to give myself another stress headache by engaging in a “back and forth” with you. I’ve done that often enough with others of your stripe on this board and it’s not yet accomplished anything. So you can go entertain yourself with notions that I’m just another one-man bloodthirsty Holocaust waiting to happen - anyone who’s actually paid sincere attention to my arguments and politics knows better. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/76 "2004-06-04T15:55:53Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > How about the abolitionists? How about the advocates of women’s suffrage? Eugene Debs? The Chartists? Heck, throw in the leaders of the American Revolution while you’re at it. They all advocated radical social change and none of them can arguably shown to be complicit in violent terrorism against civilian populations. Considering the abolitionists, a lot of radical atrocities happened there. John Brown comes to mind, followed by Civil War, so let’s exclude them for the sake of your argument. Are you now claiming the mantle of “_the advocates of women’s suffrage? Eugene Debs? The Chartists?_” In that case you must state explicitly that you advocate non-violent and especially non-militant social change. By all means avoid saying things like “_any country can have a socialist revolution, given the condition of a politically organized and militant working class_” and stop talking about “_scrapping_” living people and institutions. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/77 "2004-06-04T16:20:09Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Your hostility to the left has been painfully obvious in other threads in which you’ve posted… Considering that other posters already talked of their political leanings, I’ll explain my own. I can’t believe you don’t know about [Iskander, father or Russian socialism](http://www.agerits.com/php/order.php3?bnr=23027). ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/78 "2004-06-04T16:55:51Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Are you now claiming the mantle of “_the advocates of women’s suffrage? Eugene Debs? The Chartists?_” In that case you must state explicitly that you advocate non-violent and especially non-militant social change. > [@](#): > > The call of the Socialist party is to the exploited class, the workers in all usefull trades and professions, all honest occupations, from the most menial service to the highest skill, to rally beneath their own standard and put an end to the last of the barbarous class struggles by conquering the capitalist government, taking possession of the means of production and making them the common property of all, abolishing wage-slavery and establishing the co-operative commonwealth. Eugene Debs, 1 Sep 1904. > [@](#): > > We only know that the principles of Socialism are necessary to the emancipation of the working class and to the true happiness of all classes and that its historic mission is that of a conquering movement. Eugene Debs, 1898. > [@](#): > > The most heroic word in all languages is REVOLUTION. Eugene Debs, 1907. Herzen? > [@New Iskander's cite](#): > > Herzen viewed the gentry as a progressive class. The revolution he envisioned was for the people but not necessarily by them. Also, his socialism was a national destiny rather than a class one Marx had serious differences with him, to be sure. Lenin certainly acknowledges a political debt to Herzen, but a small one, and not without reservations: > [@](#): > > In commemorating Herzen we clearly see the three generations, the three classes that were active in the Russian revolution. At first – nobles and landlords, the Decembrists and Herzen. The circle of these revolutionaries was a narrow one. They were very far removed from the people. But their work was not in vain. The Decembrists awakened Herzen. Herzen launched revolutionary agitation. Your identification with Herzen’s politics, combined with your obvious hostility to proponents of radical change, marks you as more of a liberal than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/79 "2004-06-04T17:23:58Z")
I think the only solution to the problem is to: (1) Immediately begin a program of nuclear power plant construction. Within 20 years, we should be able to eliminat all oil imports (as require for electricity hgeneration) (2) Provide tax credits toinduce people to scrap all vehicles getting less than 30 MPG-and replace them with Toyota=Prius-type vehicles. (3) Open up Alaska, the Sana Barbara Channel for oil well drilling, and accelerate off shore leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. (4) Sign long-term contracts with Russia, for oil deliveries and exploration of Siberia. Then, once we have gotten rid of most ME oil, give the Saudis an ultimatum: accept a transition to a democratic government. Ease the house of Daud outof power, and transition the country to some kind of representative government. The alternative (and islamic revolution) issomething that we do not want to have happen. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781/80 "2004-06-04T18:48:29Z")
Well, to hell with Eugene Debs, then. Just for the pleasure of repeating, to hell with Marx and Lenin, too. > [@Olentzero](#): > > Your identification with Herzen’s politics, combined with your obvious hostility to proponents of radical change, marks you as more of a liberal than anything else. I certainly don’t oppose “radical change” under any circumstances. I absolutely oppose “radical change” to a theoretical chimera. For example, I support US implementing “radical change” in Iraq, because there is a possibility of new Iraq receiving and establishing our proven and workable principe of constitutional legality, which they can certainly benefit from. OTOH, there is no workable model of Communist state anybody can benefit from whatsoever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/saudi-arabia-on-the-verge-of-revolution/247781.md?page=5)