What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

This is sick!

Here it is, Friedman says it clearly:

Read more: Geopolitical Journey, Part 8: Returning Home | STRATFOR

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101206_ge...fdfd9aa4a8de2f9

Early, Stratfor said about the fact that The war on terror drove US attention from other parts of the world, other potential threads.

About our zone:

http://bogatu.voceabasarabiei.net/?p=677

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2010/12...a-de-grija.html

I don't trust anything (STRATFOR) that comes out of Texas. I don't care if it supposed to be "the shadow CIA". It's probably funded by big oil, and consequently blinded by usual lethal mix of self interest and faulty ideology.

What's next? Try to read Michael Rapport's "1848-Year of Revolution" and one will find many similarities with what is happening nowadays from social point of view. Maybe also about empires, but the austrian one maybe replaced with the USA. In the rest, the same thing: Germany as economical engine of Europe, but not invulnerable to economical and social crisis, France socialy debusolated as it was 150 years ago and the same socialist way of managing the country, Italy with the same questions, have it to be democratic or conservative, Russian the same big colossus and so on. In Romania, even if it not existed as a state back in 1848, the same atitude of leaders...

Only the end point we dont know it ... yet.

Looks like a GREAT book!!!

I really "dunno" about the parallel you draw, tho...wasn't 1848 more about the "beginning of the end" of the anciens regime?

Seems to me right now we have the "end of the begining." ....of postindustrialism, postcolonialism, post sovietism, the global economy, post democracy? ....you name it....that's why so hard to predict imo.

The situation is MUCH more fluid.....that's one more reason i don't put stock in analysis like friedman's (above) with it's fixed notions of lines of detente, etc.....how "old school can you get???

1848 was and was not the end of the ancient regime. At the begining of 1848 it looked like the ancient regime will fall under the presure of liberals, who wanted no more conservative rulers and freedom in a lot of sectors: freedom of speech, freedom of serfs, freedom for lower classes to make a better life for them, to represent them politically, to give them a chance to have a job who will pay a decent life. In France, for this lower classes, in order to achieve a better standard of life, were created some state run workshops, in order to pay them better than private antepreneurs and to ensure a place to work for everybody, in public sectors as construction of public roads and so on. Soon this will fail due to lack of proper funding and lack of people's will to work.

After a fast emerging of liberal ideas, the very former liberals from the begining of 1848 year turned their faces (and ideas) to ancient regime (conservators), due to the fact that their ideas couldnt be sustained properly and the freedom asked was not sustainable mainly due to lack of proper financing. Everything was turning around money, which seemed then (and now?), to be a rare and extremely precious bird. The "equality" and "fraternity" for everybody seemed not to be achievable for all people. Some of them seemed that needed to starve and die only because of money, which they couldnt get for their work.

yes...I understand that. I know the revolutions of 1848 were not ultimately sustained.

I wrote that it was the BEGIINING of the end. The end of monarchy.

It's my understanding that after the revolutions of 1848 , most historians say the days of the monarchs were numbered.

I'm sure there are parallels with today....imo they are limited.

IMO we are at the end of the begiining of something entirely different from what's gone before.

Globalization, postindustrialization, e commerce, the information society, have buried 19th and even 20th century power relations, and thought processes, or soon will imo.

The "real" end of the monarchies was 1918!
It's much easier to say things like "days were numbered" many years after. But, for example, who would have thought that communism's days were numbered when Gorbachev came to power in USSR, in 1985?
We have a saying in Romanian which goes like "after the war, many people prove themselves courageous"; it is good for historians, also!
PS: good thing they didn't have "political analists" in the XIX-th century... well, not available to the large public, anyway!

In 1848, Karl Marx published the "Communist Manifesto". That did more to change the world than any other revolutionary act of that year. Its effects are still felt.
Radu

True, indeed!
But most of the "communist" regimes beginning with 1917 had in real life almost nothing to do with Marx's 1848 Mannifesto! The second prophet was Engels and the third - maybe most important, because he did have the chance to put the ideas into real life, was Ulianov!
To get back to the un-quoted affirmation, "did more to change the world than any other revolutionary act of that year", I don't agree! In the very next years, the effect was to show to the "oppressed people" that a change can come, that the French Revolution wasn't "dead" etc. etc. IMO that was also important!

Do not dismiss Marx so easily. The Communist Manifesto also led to the later publication of Das Kapital, another massively significant document.

Karl Marx is controversial in Eastern Europe today, but there is no denial that he managed to change the world, and not all changes were bad. Some changes were delayed, but many were almost instant. His work came out at the height of the Industrial Revolution when workers were treated as mere livestock. At that time, it gave a voice and aim to workers, it eventually led to the formation of workers/labourer parties and/or trade unions and gradually led to improved workers' rights. Think of any right you enjoy now, working hours, working week, holidays, wage, pension, and you can trace them back to the workers' movements spurred by people like Marx. Such extravagant luxuries did not exist before.

I am not a Marxist (not by a long shot), but I studied him in University as part of the Sociology course. As it was an English-speaking "Capitalist" university, I was taught Marx in a completely different way from the way we were taught Marx in school (it was more like "Marx vs Weber", no adoration, just facts), which truly made sense. In most ways, the tenets of Karl Marx's understanding of the world still make sense (especially in these times of crisis).

Marx must be separated from Lenin. As the lecturer put it, "Marx diagnosed the disease: 'migraine'. Lenin administered the treatment: 'head amputation'".

Radu

Well, well, well... maybe the "dismissive" manner in which I studied Marx at college is to blame for my own dismissive attitude!
I didn't think at him from a historic, humanistic, fighter-for workers'-rights-activist point of view, but merely as the first "launcher" of the communism / socialism theory / plague!
As usually, you have a "broader" point of view...
Happy New Year!

True. And yes, hindsight is always 20/20.

But please tell the ghosts of Louis XIV and Marie Antionette that their "real" reign lasted till Versailles was "repurposed" for a little peace treaty conference. lol

Re 1985:you might perhaps wish to choose another example imo. Plenty of people saw in 1985 that the iceberg was not only in sight, but that the Soviet ship had hit it and it was sinking fast.

Most importantly, Gorbie saw it..and if he hadn't, you guys would likely be still be floating around in the lifeboats, imo. (maybe you are anyway? no offense intended).

Happy New Year! (offtopic PS: good luck with your new taxes!.....news item here today that Romanian witches have cast a spell on the politicians.....hope it works.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40930813/

Oh, thank you! I was kinda talking from the Romanian point of view about 1985; also, I doubt very much that the regular citizen (the buffalo, as we derogatory call the "voters" in here) saw the possibilty of communism fading away in 1985, but... whatever...
OoT: the government seems to have cast a spell, but not only on the witches (whose "profession", btw, was officially recognized so as they can pay taxes - as if they ever would... ), but on most of the citizens, as well...
Cheers!