www.owohrod.com.

  This might well be a survival characteristic, since, although a parent might be disposed to be more protective of a favourite child, the significance of this parent/child dynamics is unlikely to be readily understood by the child at the time of its beginning.  And so it seems to me that, this rather primitive or prototype 'alliance' which a child tries to establish between his/her parent/s and the rest of the sibling group, where there is one.  It is one which the child will or can try to extend to his/her relationship with their sibling group.  By trying to become the dominant sibling and having that status recognised and acknowledged by the rest.  Of course, this runs counter to the hierarchical relationships which are prominent in patriarchal societies, where status and dominance is expected to run vertically from top to bottom. So, not surprisingly, I have learnt that, upon reaching school attendance age and entering that process.   The child has to struggle to fit into a

  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 f

   Yes, there are many people who 'love a revolution.'  They include the opportunistic jobless,  the aspiring and the idealistic young person.  The opportunistic business person, the global arms industry, the people who are hoping to move in and make loads of money 'rebuilding what has been destroyed.  The political protagonists and the media and media moguls and, yes political idealists.  But most of them/us, are more than satisfied with 'other people' fighting and dying in the revolution.  All or most of us would not want to be in the thick of such seemingly pointless and illogical destruction of lives, livelihoods and natural and manufactured resources.  After all, where is the evidence that violent revolutions increases, instead of reduces a nation's wealth? If there is any, I am not aware of it.  This is probably not surprising, as it is a nation's productive processes and its applied intellectual properties which and governance which can increase or de

   It is reasonable to argue that certain violent revolutions have, indeed, performed a  constructive role in progressing human and societal development through the ages.  However, they have not done so in a direct linear manner. It has not been a case of violent revolutions destroyed a given oppressive and exploitative social order, and then giving rise, almost magically, to a significantly less oppressive and more just and equitable one.  This, of course, is not surprising, since it takes less skills, intellectual prowess and capabilities to destroy social systems and infrastructures, than it takes to build and maintain more commendable and functional ones. With the means of terror and the will to use them against people, a person or group, enormous harm can be done to the personal and national welfare of a people or nation. However, building a nation or country requires enormous resources and time. Yes, it is the case that, with the popular mobilization of a people or nation, great

  My contention is that there is no longer any merit in young and not so young men and women, sacrificing or allowing themselves to be sacrificed.   In violently overthrowing or attempting the overthrow of this or that oppressing and exploiting ruling elite or government.  Thinking that it will result in a better and more compassionate and just social order.  The tendency or pattern of change has been for all violent revolutions to ultimately fail in improving and maintaining the improvement of the social, political and economic conditions of the greatest proportion of the people. Why this is the case is not clear to me. However, part of the answer could lie in the fact that, the event of violent revolution goes against the stronger and sounder process of evolution.  Evolution is a more measured process which, over time has a develops a better grasp and understanding of the challenges confronting its survival and development, and applies the 'best fix' for each challenge and mo

  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