> >
> > That costly and protracted wars with high levels of casualties tend
> > to destablize all states involved, heightening social contradictions
> > & bringing down some regimes, is a matter of historical knowledge
> > (Cf. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War), independent of our ethical
> > preferences. How you make use of such historical knowledge
> > politically is up to you. BTW, there is another possibility that I
> > have not mentioned in my post that you condemn:
> >
>=========
>Historical knowledge is never independent of all agents ethical
>preferences; indeed alot of history is made as a result of agents
>ethical preferences. The independence assumption of 'historical
>methods' is too problematic to be of use at this juncture.
>
>Ian
dearest yoshie,
it is precisely because of historical knowledge that i find your speculations truly sad.
1. one of the reasons why the soviet revolution was followed by repression was, in part, because it had seized upon the turmoil of rapid social change in order to advance communism at an inopportune time, or so many critics thought. marx was asked about this endeavor and he replied: not using a state, though he supported the village mir. i will look up the ref, if you want.
the soviet revolution and its aftermath during the 20s and 30s does not inspire me. that topic is offlimits. 'nuff said.
2. it is funny to read you speculate on this idea that we could possibly successfully manage a revo given that the Pope has said over and over again that we are ill-prepared, that the institutional conditions are not particularly good.