Copy permanent linkObservable relevance in history
I do not think revolutions are comparable besides the fact that until now they haven't happened that often. The common fact seems to be uninformed public in need and some luck regarding who comes into power. The Bolsheviks where such examples, they utilized strength on some strategic individuals amongst those who wanted democracy (Sailors) (thus directly after the tsar), but in the last revolution these got overrun.
Why would anyone compare cities? Either for aesthetics (art/architecture) or demographics or to quantify? But it is always for a certain quality of information. I surely do think both are of historical relevance, but how to compare? What are trivial commonalities and what are relevant things both have in common? And how not to succumb to freedom of choice?
After some thought:
Despots seem to entertain (no matter how morbid) their public and thus there seems to be change for those and this creates repression through a lot of individuals (by way of sophisms or pointing to the fact at hand), and thus only those to follow Milosz: with weak stomach and a brain are able to get a notion of what is happening. And at times this I imagine is hard, because book burning(Mao/Nazi's) or war in terms of progression relevant to the countries condition (which is a hard nut also, because if the country expands there could be progression economically) (war also leads to new economic prosperity (Which I know is observed)). So my question would be, is this phenomenon historically significant?
Link of relevance perhaps:
Logi has 0 replies.
