<div>On 4/26/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <<a href="mailto:critical.montages@gmail.com">critical.montages@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> In any transition that involves radical social change (that goes beyond a mere switch from one political party to another), it seems to me that the military is a key institution to consider, though leftists generally give little thought to this question. </blockquote></div> I generally agree with you about one thing -- unless the armed forces of a country are won over to an opposition for radical political change, radical political change will fail or be awfully bloody or lead to massive civil war.  But, if military officers - especially military officers of the old regime - are the core of the leadership of radical change, a "revolution" will soon turn into a dictatorship or collapse from within.  I think this has been true of all modern movements that have led to revolutionary change.  The ur-example of this is the Revolution in England..  Cromwell's Roundheads were officers of the people -- shoe cobblers, blacksmiths, farmers and the like - and constantly pushed Cromwell and the parliament to more and more radical Republican measures. And through their own active pamphleteering they brought a substantial layer of the non-merchant middle classes along with them.  Yet, it was very fact that some of the best of the radicals were in the military that produced a very thin revolutionary leadership.  Of course I am over simplifyng here.  AndI am not really arguing against you, I am just trying to put together some basic thoughts on the relation between standing armies and wider mass movements.  Particularly, I am interested in how , military officers involve themselves in "left" social movements... a rare enough phenomena all in all, but important when it happens.  I think an important question in such situations is: What is the actual political weight of the military officer groups in each political social movement?  If the political weight of the officer group is actually the part of the movement radicalizing the political decisions, then there is one kind of danger.  If the political weight of the group is such that it is really establishing a kind of Bonapartism then there is another kind of problem.  I know, growing out of the success and failure of the Portuguese Revolution, there have been good books written about  this issue but they are in Portuguese.  Unfortunately there are none that I know of in English.  Unfortunately, my Portuguese is only good enough to get me a good cup of coffee or find my way to the bathroom in Rio. Jerry -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/ </a>