Marv Gandall wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox:
>
> > Just a footnote (taking the above as literal): In developed nations
> > without a peasantry, "vilent" revolution is not all that violent.
> =========================================
> What revolutions in "developed nations without a peasantry" are you talking
> about? I don't know of any.
>
Tyhe USSR. Hungary 1956 untiol the Russian tanks came in. Iran. Franc68 (DeGaulle checked with the army leadership on what the troops would do before he proceeded to quiet things dow). And for that matter, even where there is a peasantry (e.g. Russia 1917) if the revolution occurs just in the cities, my model applies. It is essentially what Engels said in his essay that the SPD censored when they published it.
You can even see something vaguely analogous happening in mini-micro form when a street demo is large enough the cops decide not to smash it even when it's illegal.
All the denials of the possibility of revolution (socialist or otherwise) tend to have a romantic image of what an insurrection must be.
I actually didn't need to include my qualifier of "without a peasantry," because even the nations that still have alarge peasantry are probably too urbanized for the strategy of "surrounding the cities" to work -- and that is the romantic image of revolution left over by the wars of liberatin at mid-century.
Carrol
P.S. Of course Civil War may follow a succesful insurrection If the 'reactionary' forces receiveoutside support (as in Russia after the Bolsheviks had seqized power). But I doubt there would have been a Civil War in Russia had not there been interference by England, France, & the U.S.