Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the major difference, between the American revolution of 1776 and recent revolutions, is that there was a working government in place, that had practiced Republican principles from the start, moreover, the people were, as De Tocqueville put it, self interested rightly understood.
The actual form of government in the Western countries are Republican forms of government, not Democracies. Republican forms of government have, as an attribute usually, some form of democratic representation but republican forms of government also include monarchy, and aristocracy.
Aristotle put it like this, There are only three right forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy and polity, there are three perversions of these right forms of government, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Because tyranny is rule for one person, oligarchy is rule for one faction and democracy is the tyranny of the many over the few. A Republic is a blending of two or more of these right forms.
So where we have a call for democracy we actually have a call for the tyranny of the many over the few. This was a very hotly debated item in the founding of the new American Republic after the revolution. They were very aware of Aristotle’s thoughts on this subject, and others, especially Montesquieu’s adding a third branch of government… the Judicial.
Modern revolutionaries have no such advantage. The opposition parties always seek to, replace the tyrant; not overthrow tyranny. They all make the same claims, they call for social justice, they decry violence even as they apply it themselves, they all seek for the benefit of a single faction of society only and seek the submission of all other factions of society. Universally when they come into power they install a more despotic government than the one they replaced.
Especially with the help of the protyranist elements in Western culture. The Michael Moores and the George Soroses epitomize the protyranist faction in Western society. They seek tyranny and believe it the best form of government. They have, at their philosophical core, a firm belief that the masses are only fit to serve. The masses are patently unfit to rule. “Democracy” is only a way to prove it to them.
Once the democratic experiment has failed the people will turn to another tyrant to restore order. That will be the communist or some other savior in name only. They will then reestablish a form of feudal system where they and their children will be the aristocracy and the benefits of society will be distributed by political merit instead of by market means.
There were protyranist elements in colonial days but they were separated by kilometers of ocean and were easily turned against one another. Just as today’s protyranist turns capitalist elements against each other. To reestablish the new fiefdom will take the same tactics as it did to destroy the old feudal system.
But really, who doesn’t want to live under a feudal system… like communism? It is great. You have no decisions to make your lords make them for you. If you are lucky you will be the equivalent of a serf in the new system. Then you will be looked after by your lord, or owner, depends on how you look at it. But really what could go wrong?
Everything. The loss a functional market system under a Caliphate or some Socialist fiefdom would throw humanity back into another dark age. One that I am sure we will pull out of, eventually, and reestablish a functional market but the loss to humanity would be incalculable.
There is a basic Republican system, that provides a standard, for new revolutions to follow in forming their new “Democracies,” it could possibly benefit a few. But, if any are helped, the better for us all. The standard, rarely followed, is the US Constitution, (arguments for and against) and the Manifesto of the International Capitalist Party…
