www.owohrod.com.

  The fact is that, violent revolutions are not really ideologies per se; rather, they are a means to an end.  With the violence which is to be perpetrated being the 'means' or one of the main 'means' to be used to remove the incumbent regime and its active supporters.  This violence cannot be used to 'build the new better society', because violence is about destruction; whether it be called 'defensive' or 'offensive' violence.  In the earlier stages of ages of the 'evolution of violent revolutions', the economic, social and political conditions of the different classes were more absolute, almost discrete, and more compartmentalised.  As opposed to the much more diffuse classes and social status structures which predominate in most, if not all societies today. With the socio-economic and political infrastructure, like that of what passes for the 'class-structure', so interwoven on all levels, regional, national and international. 

  'It is the case that a violent revolution can be the means by which a people, class or country can be freed of their chains of oppression or enslavement.  However, there is more than sufficient evidence, from the observation of history and its evolution.  That it, the violent revolution, does not of itself, has the capability and inherent qualities and attributes to establish and maintain a dynamic, just and progressive society.' Revolutions must be lead, and be led by more one person. They need to be led collectively, by competent, capable and flexible leaders in all the key areas of society, social, economic, industrial, cultural and political.  'Revolutions' need to be organic and evolutionary in their development.  Where one person or a cadre attempts or succeed in 'arrest and use the revolution' to achieve their own ends, probably legitimising 'their right' to do so, on the spacious argument that they have somehow earned it by 'liberating the