Russia

[Big Fish]

The funniest part of the 'hate' against Russia was that it was because of the newest discovered government that we have it and it was because of very few people that it started. So what I am trying to say is that the current russian depresian is because of only the few ranking people

[Dauphin]

[Miznia]

The funniest part of the 'hate' against Russia was that it was because of the newest discovered government that we have it and it was because of very few people that it started. So what I am trying to say is that the current russian depresian is because of only the few ranking people

I *think* I understand what you're trying to say, but you left a bit off at the end, I think (been drinking?). I don't think we're *jealous* of Russia, if that's what you mean; I think Americans, at any rate, also have half a notion that they invented democracy, in some sense.

I can't agree with your second thesis. I think Russia would be in pretty rough shape with or without the ranking people. How Russia would be without the Soviet history is pretty hard to guess.

Regards,

Miznia

(P.S. I am a Warlord now, thanks to this message)

[Serb]

Big Fish,
I suppose only russian could understand what are you talking about
You are talking about Yeltsin, Berezovskii and company? Right?

Ili ya to zhe che to ne ponial?

Ili ty govorish pro bolshevicov, Ilicha i communism?

I cheto pravda ne dogonyau.

[Miznia]

Ya dumayu chto on pil vodku, ne mozhet pisat

Moi ruskii yazyk ochen' ploxoi!

Miznia

[Jaguar]

somehow this thread has lost me...

[Purple]

Originally posted by Miznia
Moi ruskii yazyk ochen' ploxoi!

Ne tak plokho pishesh'.

Pozdravlyayu tebya s perevodom na "Warlord"!

[Spiffor]

It's at times like this that I understand why I always was motivated to learn foreign languages

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Miznia
I think Americans, at any rate, also have half a notion that they invented democracy, in some sense.

Actually, rediscovered it. The "founding fathers" had read Greek history and their failure to create a lasting Republic. For hundreds of years, it was assumed that people could not govern themselves. After all, democracy had been tried and it had failed.

The founders modified the Republic with the principle of balance-of-power, incorporating the basic corrupt nature of human society, and created a workable system.

[Dauphin]

Was Britain not a democracy before the US was created then? How can the US claim rediscovery of an idea already being practiced in the UK? Contrary to popular belief the King (George III) was not the decision maker in the British political system in the late 18th Century. It was the Prime Ministers.

The only major political change the US made was reduce the restrictions on who were the eligble voters.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Was Britain not a democracy before the US was created then? How can the US claim rediscovery of an idea already being practiced in the UK? Contrary to popular belief the King (George III) was not the decision maker in the British political system in the late 18th Century. It was the Prime Ministers.

The only major political change the US made was reduce the restrictions on who were the eligble voters.

Most historians would agree that the U.S. Constitution was a landmark document, and a huge innovation in government. The British made many innovations in representative government, as well; but the British clung to the idea that a king was a necessary component of government. The Americans discovered otherwise, and based their new government on “the consent of the governed."

BRITANNICA
in England, the rise of Parliament introduced a republican, if not a democratic, element into the workings of one of Europe's oldest kingdoms.

[Dauphin]

The system of government has not changed in the UK since the time of Cromwell. The only thing to have significantly changed is who has voting rights.

I would agree that the US was pretty much the first to define their nation's democratic views and rights in the constition, but I think many component ideas were already in practice in the UK.

but the British clung to the idea that a king was a necessary component of government

The fact that Britain still has a monarchy could lead you to the same conclusion. Doesn't mean that Britain is not democratic in nature, even if not strictly a democracy in classification. In the US it wasn't until the 1920s that more than 50% of the adult population was eligible to vote. Would that mean they weren't a democracy until the 1920s?

I guess the whole idea comes down to what defines a democracy. Different nations' peoples no doubt have different views on what defines a democracy.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The system of government has not changed in the UK since the time of Cromwell. The only thing to have significantly changed is who has voting rights.

I wouldn't say that the British government hasn't changed since then, but you are right that the basic concept of a partnership between royalty and parliament was established at that time. Indeed, the American colonialists were just trying to assert their rights as British subjects; subjects, not citizens.

But once pushed into revolution by the British government, the Americans established a completely new form of government without a king or inherited royalty; with citizens, not subjects.

(Certainly Britain is a democracy today, as the Queen is politically irrelevant. By comparison, George III had great, inherited power.)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
(Certainly Britain is a democracy today, as the Queen is politically irrelevant. By comparison, George III had great, inherited power.)

But not culturally irrelevant! Kinda like a really cool heirloom. An icon of British national freedom.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zachriel


(Certainly Britain is a democracy today, as the Queen is politically irrelevant. By comparison, George III had great, inherited power.)

I think perhaps you're confusing the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain with the absolutist monarchies of Continental Europe- certainly the old cliched image of the tyrant George III is no longer applicable. For instance, George could not of his own accord have someone thrown into prison without reason-

'THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT: The English common law practice and procedure respecting Habeas Corpus was codified by Parliament in 1679 by enactment of the Habeas Corpus Act. This historic act of the English Parliament empowered English courts to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus even during periods when the court was not in session and provided significant penalties to the judge, personally, who disobeyed the statute. And while great hypocrisy surrounded the practice of the Habeas Corpus Act in the late 17th century, Habeas Corpus was nevertheless establishing itself as the primary means by which individual liberty was empowered at the expense of the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. During the 19th century the Writ of Habeas Corpus was further expanded to include those held by a purely private process other than that of the state. '

whereas in France we have:

'...lettre de cachet , formerly in French law, private, sealed document, issued as a communication from the king. Such a letter could order imprisonment or exile for an individual without recourse to courts of law. Of very early origin, the lettre de cachet came into common use in the 17th cent. as an instrument of the new monarchy. Although its actual use was restrained, the issuance to local officials of lettres de cachet with the space for the name left blank inspired great fear. The occasional invocation of them against leaders of opinion, including Voltaire, became a symbol of arbitrary royal power and tyranny. They were abolished by the Constituent Assembly in the French Revolution. Napoleon I briefly renewed use of the lettres de cachet.'

True democracy was thwarted in Cromwell's time by the landed gentry, such as Cromwell and Ireton, who opposed the democratic movement of the Levellers (as seen in the Putney Debates, October 1647):

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/...ke.Putney.html

and:

http://www.mindspring.com/~strecorso...agreement.html

Their radicalism was based upon the bitter lessons of the Civil Wars and the Bishops War and the war between the kingdoms- the poor, male and female, had fought for the removal of tyranny just as much as had the well-off gentry, so why should they not also have a stake in deciding who should rule?

You also have the Bill of Rights from 1689:

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/rights.html

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I think perhaps you're confusing the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain with the absolutist monarchies of Continental Europe- certainly the old cliched image of the tyrant George III is no longer applicable. For instance, George could not of his own accord have someone thrown into prison without reason-

You are right that George III was constrained in his power. These contraints started with the Magna Carta. Are you contending that George III was powerless? If not, then he has inherited power, and is an unelected head-of-state. Indeed, the entire royal class at the time had great power, economic and political. That makes the American experiment "revolutionary," in the sense stated above. (Scholars believing that only with a monarch could a stable society be created.)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You are right that George III was constrained in his power. These contraints started with the Magna Carta. Are you contending that George III was powerless? If not, then he has inherited power, and is an unelected head-of-state. Indeed, the entire royal class at the time had great power, economic and political. That makes the American experiment "revolutionary," in the sense stated above. (Scholars believing that only with a monarch could a stable society be created.)

You have yet to outline what powers inherited or otherwise, you believe George III possessed. Yes, I'm aware of Magna Carta, but it was more a document affirming the rights of the aristocracy/barons, than negating the rights of kings. Given that one Parliament had tried and executed one monarch for treason and other crimes against the state, and another had sent into exile James II, it should be clear where the executive power lay- with the growing middle/mercantile class, as for instance seen in the conquest of India, by the East India Company.

George III could only exercise influence through a political party and patronage, pitting the Tories against the Whigs- hardly a Peter the Great or Joseph II or Napoleon.

http://www.publicbookshelf.org/publi...nggeorg_j.html

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by molly bloom
[urlhttp://www.publicbookshelf.org/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/kinggeorg_j.html[/url]

From your own link, On the day of its enactment (March 18), the repeal act became a law by receiving the reluctantly-given signature of the king.

The law was not the law unless it had the king's signature. He may be reluctant, and must consider the political situation, but it is, nevertheless, his decision to make. Like an unelected and hereditary president, but with far more influence and prestige.

Still, the British experience is a storied one in the history of freedom. From the Magna Carta, no free man shall be . . . imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed] . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

(This is the direct historical antecedent to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.)

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You are right that George III was constrained in his power. These contraints started with the Magna Carta. Are you contending that George III was powerless? If not, then he has inherited power, and is an unelected head-of-state. Indeed, the entire royal class at the time had great power, economic and political. That makes the American experiment "revolutionary," in the sense stated above. (Scholars believing that only with a monarch could a stable society be created.)

Inherited power is common in all societies, for example there is no way in hell that Dubya would be President if he didn't have the influence of his father backing him. There are quite a few political dynasties in the US, families displaying inherited power traits similar to monarchies, going back to the 18th century. In a sense the US had substituted aristocracy with political elitism.

Certainly different, but still the same.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Inherited power is common in all societies, for example there is no way in hell that Dubya would be President if he didn't have the influence of his father backing him. There are quite a few political dynasties in the US, families displaying inherited power traits similar to monarchies, going back to the 18th century. In a sense the US had substituted aristocracy with political elitism.

I hardly think an elected politician with a limited term is equivalent to an inherited monarchy. Of course, today this is irrelevant as the monarchy in Britain is largely symbolic in nature. Britain has a mature democracy and the Queen reigns at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around.

[tandeetaylor]

America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights is what separated it from any other country at the time.

[Beren]

America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights is what separated it from any other country at the time.

UK, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and probably some other states are constitutianol monarchies.
The rest of Europe are constitutional republics.
Are you saying there are no democracies in Europe?

Look: I don't know much about the American revolution, but the fact that America was a constitutional republic doesn't mean they are not a democracy.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Beren

UK, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and probably some other states are constitutianol monarchies.
The rest of Europe are constitutional republics.
Are you saying there are no democracies in Europe?

Look: I don't know much about the American revolution, but the fact that America was a constitutional republic doesn't mean they are not a democracy.

That's a semantic feature of American right-wing politics that keeps getting repeated. Of course, in the normal sense of the word, all west european countries are democracies. The U.S. does not have direct election of the president and still uses the antique electoral college" Therefore, it is claimed, the U.S. is not a "democracy." Of course, most other "democracies" do not have direct election of the chief executive, either. It's a semantic distinction of questionable value even within American political discourse.

---------------------------

MERRIAM-WEBSTER
http://www.m-w.com

Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Democracy a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Miznia
I think Americans, at any rate, also have half a notion that they invented democracy, in some sense.

If they have, then they don't know their history. The American constitution was based on the Iroquois constitution. Iroquois chiefs advised the founding fathers, and they listened well.
The League of the Five/Six nations had the first nation- (and confederacy-) wide democracy in the world. Others followed suit, for instance the Seven Nations in Canada (partly Iroquois), but by then the Great Law of the League was already in exsitence for several centuries.

Interestingly, Friedrich Engels devoted an entire chapter to the Iroquois in one of his books. The tale is that Marx, when he read it, said that communism would have been quite different had he known about the Great Law before the Manifest was published.

(The above, btw, is not to take away anything from the importance of the Magna Carta etc. Without that, the Americans would probably not have had the background to grasp the value of the Great Law of the Iroquois.)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zachriel
That's a semantic feature of American right-wing politics that keeps getting repeated.

Do I take that you dont live in the South?

[CRAZY]

ya know its kinda funny. If you listen to alot of americans for more then 5 minutes they will have you believing that they created heaven and earth. Americans have done alot I suppose with techology and such within the last 100 years but prior to that they are just a blimp on the radar screen. What they have done I believe would almost be inevitable anyway.

Most of what they have discovered was discovered initally by Germany in ww2 anyway. Russia I believe is also underestimated. LIving in our western world we hear alot of american propaganda. The russians were the first to put a person in space. If it was the US would we be hearing a different verision of history? instead of the moon it would be all about the first person in space.

just a thought or 2. I just find its one thing if it happens in the states and another if it happens anywhere else. I give the US one thing, they are masters of the media. Could this somehow be put into civ 3?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights is what separated it from any other country at the time.

The Bill of Rights were not in the original constitution, but the lack of a king certainly was. But to offer support to your point of view, when people say that the U.S. is not a democracy, but a republic, they are usually saying that the American system is not simple majoritarianism; that certain rights remain with the individual -- and importantly for conservatives -- certain rights remain with the states. So the U.S. is actually a federated republic. tandeetaylor is right.

But in truth, there are no simple majoritarian societies. All societies are "federated," and cobbled together historical institutions. In England, the lords and commons; the U.S., the states and the feds; in Russia, the nation-states; in Bosnia, ethnic and religious representation; or any number of logical divisions of varying validity. And what may work in one society may not work in another. So it is a distinction without a difference.

[Signa]

Just to get my opinion on the record, I want to say that democracy is in essence impossible. Athens tried it and failed. The US, UK, and etc. are all either a Constituional Monarchy or a Federal Republic.

Democracy-> Layed to roots for Republic, but ultimatly will fail.
Republic-> This is what MOST of the world uses right now.

Of course many parts of a Democracy are retained in a Republic and the term is not redundant but my point remains: Democracy dosen't work.

[AlecTrevylan00]

im obsessed with Russian history pre 1920, and i still know alot after that. Everyone tells me "Stinking commies die! Go democracy!" I say "Yeah, and we beat them in the cold war didnt we? Just like we won in Vietnam" If the Czar/Tsar was still in power, the empire was so weak after the corruption of government officials and rasputin corrupting Alexandra, that if it had lasted to WWII, it would have the same weapons it had during WWI (which it had had since NAPOLEON!!!) andn the german tanks would have rolled right into St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg. Sorry, i just wrote a 20 page history paper talking about "If the bolshevik revolution and the fall in the Imperial government (NOT THE SAME THING) could have been avoided" I wrote that for 13 pages, then 7 pages of theoretical effects
And ive been reading a bunch of Peter Massie books so im now teaching the history class.
Teacher-Okay, does anyone know what happened in 1905?
Me-The Russians were in the Russo-Japanese war which originated...(3 hours later) and Nicholas II instituted the Duma, which caused...(glares)...Oh, sorry.

Anyone wanna talk somewhere else? I need someone to discuss, or i go on rambling like this

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Beren

UK, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and probably some other states are constitutianol monarchies

The UK doesn't have a constitution.