The Godfather II last night, Dr, Zhivago today.

[speedoo]

The Cuban Rvolution last night, the Russian Revolution today.

I'm not a historian by any means, but didn't both initiate from excessive concentrations of wealth and lead to communism?

Is there a time in history when obscene concentration of wealth did not result in failure of a nation?

Will those who seek to accumulate limitless power never learn?

[WinkyDink]

1. Here's the deal: All popular uprisings depend on people willing to risk their lives.

So, to quote Condi, though out of context: "Don't hold your breath."

[leftchick]

3. yes

it requires a good portion of the population realizing WTF is going on. That is not happening here.

[speedoo]

5. Agreed.

The optimism that remains in me gives me hope that those of us who have figured it out will be able to gain the necessary power to make changes without revolution.

[YOY]

2. There were alot of things that led to the Russian Revolution

An indifferent monarchy/aristocracy: some of which was coming internally (ala the Decembrists).

World War I being a horrible failure.

Russia's failure to industrialize.

The slaughter of protesters outside the winter palace.

and many more. It was 'a perfect storm' for revolution.

[MikeNearMcChord]

6. France also in 1789

Outrageous concentration of wealth by the royalty as well as the Nobles, also like Russia, the church failed to be a voice for the oppressed as a matter of fact, they were the defenders of the status quo, and thus with revolution the church was targeted also. In saying this though, violent revolutions never help the poor and oppressed either, those who fought in them end up either at guillotine or the gulag.

[YOY]

7. But the Russian Revolution created a new group of elites...

The French had its share of innocent victims as well. Comparing the two is interesting but the differences are myriad...

[rockymountaindem]

8. Indeed

I've taken a bunch of classes at university on Russian history and politics, and in third year I was quite surprised to learn that, despite the 1905 revolution, support for the Tsar among peasants and workers actually *surged* at the outset of WWI.

How's that for crazy?

[YOY]

11. At the onset, but in the decline and after heavy losses that support dwindled

or so I have read.

Russians during the second world war was neigh inhuman. Comparitivly the cult of personality that Stalin wove put a strangle hold on any and all lack of support to the gallows. The fanatical moral of the
Perhaps it was the nature of the fascist invaders as well.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. The problem in America is...

That many of the poorest Americans identify their interests with the wealthiest Americans. Antonio Gramsci asked the same question as to why the poor were not rising up against the facists. He concluded it was because the poor wanted to join the ranks of the facists themselves so they supported them.

To put that in an American context, it is like the dirt fucking poor who are diehard republicans, they vote for the Republicans not because it is in their best interest, but because they aspire to what the facists represent, wealth.

[Captain Hilts]

9. The Middle - NOT lower - classes ignited both revolutions. So you're half right, half wrong. nt

[speedoo]

10. The middle class is not insensitive to wealth concentration. nt