Date: Sat, 17 Feb 96 1:02:42 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: The role of the developed and undeveloped capitalist nations in






	
		Mr. Dean,




	What's wrong with your analysis is simple and ugly.  People CAN be
oppressed completely.  Moreover, oppressed people are degraded by their
oppression and are more likely to be unable to replace tyrannical social
constructs with democratic ones.  The most wretched people in the world,
unfortunately tend to stay wretched.  Remember, the capitalists, not the
proletariat were the first to effectively overthrow feudal authority. 


	My own, simplistic analysis is that revolution is likely where ruling
classes have become complacent.  When ruling classes forget that they are
leaning on social institutions, take them for granted and antagonize them,
those social institutions will create revolutionary change.  This usually
happens with ethnic groups.  Ruling classes forget that they are depending on
the tacit support of ethnic groups in their domains, become alienated from
them both in terms of active confrontation and active courting.  Chiapas,
Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and the American south in the '50's are examples of this,
I think.  


	I think most third world populations are either too poor to make much
of a stink, and are abandoned totally (like in Africa), or they are actively
oppressed and exploited (like in Asia and South America).  Russia is going
through near revolution because, in my opinion, the ruling class simply took
the Russian worker for granted.  



	The US and Britain are far closer to having taken the worker for
granted for long enough to create a fundamental rift in society, than other
developed nations - as far as I know.  Therefore, I think that these
countries have more revolutionary potential than other nations.  Still it
will probably take a while to tap it.  





		peace




			boddhisatva






     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------