Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Communism as historical tragedy
Message-ID: <299@l5.uucp>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 18:33:54 EST
Article-I.D.: l5.299
Posted: Sun Dec  1 18:33:54 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 22:44:48 EST
References: <364@ubvax.UUCP> <28200340@inmet.UUCP> <11115@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 27

>
>OK, I disagree with that statement. I claim that without
>the destabilizing influence of war, revolutions are much
>less likely to suceed, especially if the government in
>power knows what it is doing.

This depends on how long you are willing to wait.  If you are not adamant
about having change in your life time, then you don't need a war. If
no civil war had happened in Russia, and the industrial revolution had
just proceeded along its way, the whole structure of Russian society
would have changed.  Once it is possible to make wealth rather than
simply inherit it, you get a new influx of wealthy and powerful people,
with middle-class ideas and middle-class expectations.  The nobility tends
to dry up, and either become middle class, or be supported by the middle
class who for some reason or other wants to have a few royality around.

This sort of thing is happens again and again whenever a middle class
develops.  But as far as I know, except for England, I don't know a
single place where a decrease in relative power of the ruling class was not
also accompanied by a civil war.  But in every case I can think of, the
decrease in power was FOLLOWED by a civil war; the civil war only being
an indication that the days of absolute power by the ruling class were
over.
-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa