“Ends-oriented,” yes. But how do you determine whether your revolutionary ends are just?
Once again: "First be sure you’re right, then go ahead."
What NATO could or would do is irrelevant to the issue of Libyan rebellion. If the rebels could not win without foreign interference, then, according to my theory, their rebellion is unjustified.
You don’t. Without action, a thought/concept/dream is neither just nor unjust; it simply is. You can no more determine whether a future movement is justified than you can determine whether a fetus will be a decent human being. Only a wait-and-see approach makes sense.
[QUOTE=Commissar]
What NATO could or would do is irrelevant to the issue of Libyan rebellion. If the rebels could not win without foreign interference, then, according to my theory, their rebellion is unjustified.
[/QUOTE]
Could you point to some rebellions/revolutions that were justified in by your definition then?
-XT
Sure, since they are a dime a dozen. Even if we limit ourselves to the past couple months, the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings were both perfect examples of justified revolutions. In both cases, the overthrow was accomplished by domestic popular will, rather than by Western bombs.
Then I suppose the Nazi revolution was perfectly justified then.
I didn’t think Commisar was still posting here. Huh. Go figure.
Once you’ve started a revolution, you do not make it any less of a revolution by accepting foreign help.
Clearly we’d have to rule out the American Revolution otherwise, considering the sterling efforts of the Marquis de La Fayette
A revolution, by its definition, is an uprising by those not in power against those in power. A shifting of power between political parties, even when employing violent means, is not a revolution.
Perhaps not, but that’s neither here nor there. After all, we’re not discussing the definition of “revolution;” our discussion is limited to what makes a revolution justified. The current Libyan uprising is certainly a revolution, at least in the small part that is actually being carried out by Libyans. However, this revolution is not justified, for it fails the popular will test.
How do you know it fails the popular will test?
I encourage you togo back and re read your own posts.
i.e Any revolution that succeeds is justified because it reflects the will of the people, your words…
The revolutions that I cited WERE successful.
So whats your next debating tactic going to be ?
Shout out LOOK OVER THERE !
And then run out of the room ?
What? WHERE?
Where is everybody?
What the hell just happened?
I derive that conclusion from your admission that, and I quote, “The rebels could not win without NATO…”
If a revolution can not succeed on its own merits then, I maintain, it de facto does not reflect the popular will.
And hence, under my theory, our analysis ends at that final step: success. As soon as a revolution succeeds, it is justifiable, regardless of what happens afterward.
What if the people ultimately decide that, all things being equal, the revolution was a bad idea? Answer: it was still justifiable.
What if the nation, being in the habit of calculating Gross Domestic Happiness, finds out that the post-revolution years result in a decrease in GDH in comparison to pre-revolutionary years? Answer: it was still justifiable.
What if, having been driven mad by the bloody turmoil that brought them to power, the revolutionary leaders, on the very next day after seizing power, detonate the nation’s entire nuclear arsenal, turning the nation and everyone within it into a vast sea of glass? Answer: it was still justifiable.
So you would agree that the various communist revolutions that achieved success with assistance from the Soviet Union or other established communist states did not reflect the popular will?
False. Countless genuine popular revolutions have been crushed by well-organized, well-armed governments. It’s the force multipliers that make all the difference, everywhere but the voting booth. (And even there money can be a force-multiplier, but let’s not compare herpes to AIDS.)