JUST PHILOSOPHISING ON - HOW VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS NOW INCAPABLE OF BEING A MEANS OF BETTERMENT! FINIS !

 

For a start, if the ruling and wealth elites and Czars are forced out or partially destroyed, the tendency is for them to be replaced. 

Either by their remaining families, friends and associates, or by new elites from amongst the 'revolutionaries' and their newly acquired supporters. 

A further weakness of the 'violent revolution' model of societal change. 

Is the fact that the incumbent regime has tended to corruptly export much of the country's wealth to their foreign bank accounts and property portfolios, while they are in power. 

As well as mortgaging its future to external creditors and global businesses.

This usually means that the 'revolutionaries' who replace them, find themselves in a more indebted country. 

One with less or little foreign currencies, big international debts, and probably low credit rating and depleted intellectual, civic, economic, diplomatic and political leadership pools.

To different degrees, we can find evidence of 'the failure of the violent revolution regime change' model, in probably all of the countries which have experienced the model. 

These include, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, South Africa, Angola, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, et al.

So, for the newly enthroned 'revolutionary regime', there is no such thing as being able to 'make a fresh start.' 

It is about 'working with what you have inherited, and, in order to make the best or most successful outcome of it, they have to be able to draw on the 'best talents in each and all the relevant fields of society. 

This, of course, is a major challenge and even obstacle, as many of 'the revolutionaries' have an expectation that they will and should 'be rewarded for what they have done during the struggle.' 

This debt, they believe, should take priority over the merit of having 'the best person for each of the key jobs or position which need to be filled, in order to increase the chances of achieving the best outcomes.

So, what have I learnt/concluded after decades of being somewhat wedded, though to diminishing degrees of conviction.  

To the theory of the validity of violent revolution as a legitimate means of effecting desirable socio-political and economic change? 

Mainly that it is not an efficacious method, in that it rarely, if ever succeeds in realising the 'utopia' its advocates promise or 'the masses' believe or deceive themselves into believing it would. 

And, finally, it tends to cost too many destroyed lives and livelihoods, and too often results in a regression of the socio-economic and/or political conditions of the people and the country.