Pre-warning: This is an *extremely* long post. I was bored when I wrote it earlier today and what started out as a little message became more or less a book-report/sociological type essay relating to the above topic. I hesitated sending it earlier because of its length, however now it's 1:30 a.m. and I'm in my "can't sleep, play on the internet mood" and feeling froggy so why not...For anyone interested read on and everyone else who doesn't care just skip it over. ______________________________________________________________________ Background Information: I don't know how many of you are or are not Marxists or know anything about Marx's ideals, so I will try to make this as simple and as explanatory as possible from my own perspective on revolution. Note, I have read very little Trotsky so I do not have a very good understanding of the idea of permanent revolution, thus I probably cannot give an accurate portrayal of Teckla or Phoenix. However, I recently I have been reading a lot of Marx because my own ideals very closely correspond and my SO finally told me after several years that 1) There is no such thing as an Orwellian Socialist, or a person that closely follows the ideals of Orwellian thought and shares Orwells concerns about society but with a stronger emphasis on anti-capitalism, anti-fascism and anti-stalinism (*turns her head rolls her eyes and leers at the author as something just occurs to her "humph, Blackchapple. But then maybe you were just doing that Joyce white=black black=white thing, and if you were then I am surprised every section wasn't predominated by *the feeling* of a color"*); that such a person is just a Marxist in denial (so far he's right *shrug*) and 2) he hates Marxists, collective socialists and communists, but he felt I should truly take a look at these ideas because the stigma around the name doesn't mean it's not what I have been contemplating and explaining since he met me. His claim was that I looked stupid to other people when I explained ideas that had already been made, though I didn't realize they had already been made because I came up my ideas on my own and had never looked into what they truly are. (Note: my SO is teeters between history and psychology major so he's very informed about these things, he just hates them.) Okay, so with that back-ground, which says I basically know nothing though I have an *extremely* small amount of knowledge, I will try to explain my thoughts on the idea of revolution in Teckla and Phoenix which was written by someone who has much knowledge from the view of a 'Pure Marist' theory. If the author cares to put down all my arguments and tell me I am full of crap, well then it is always welcomed as I have heard it from my SO constantly for the past 6 mo's or so, and lately though Teckla wasn't my favorite book, I am starting to feel like Cawti in it. Anyway, ______________________________________________________________________ Teckla and Phoenix -- A comparison of Kellys Revolution with the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution in connection with The Cycle: Comparison based on World History and "Teckla" and "Phoenix" by Steven Brust. (or, in alternative my book report of the day :)!) My understanding is that much of what has been contemplated on the above topic so far has to deal with a) Verra believing Kelly would have done something different than he did and b) the realization that the Cycle was not ready for a Teckla revolution because the phase of the cycle is not in the phase of the Teckla. In essence the Teckla cannot end their suppression and rise to power because they are not ready for it, their society is not ready for this change. I will make an effort to compare these points to the Bolshevik revolution and Marxist thought yet only in relation to and as necessary as it is to compare to these things to Teckla and Phoenix. In order to have an understanding of what pre-empted the October Revolution it is necessary to have an idea of Marx's theories on economy. To take on a full analysis here would be beyond lengthy and without point. Therefore, I will try to condense and summarize the main points as I see them relating to the topic above, as such vital theories such as the circuits of capital and commodities will not be explained. This will be very basic. My current understanding of Marx's ideas come from reading some of his earlier works, Capital, and reading others writers works on their opinions of what these pieces mean. So far my deduction is that Marx as a philosopher believed in the following regarding economics (though this is lengthy, in order to understand the logic it is necessary to follow the logic. It wouldn't be reasonable to say A->B->C->D->E->F=A and begin a discussion on C without explaining A): An economic structure is only as good as its laborers, the product they produce and the technology that comes about by their increasing production. [1] As technology develops and labor divides the infrastructure under which a ruling class exists begins to collapse because the infrastructure cannot support the technology and changes man is imposing upon it by his labor. The infrastructure cannot support this change because the lower levels, which are holding the basis of the technology begin to rise and become equal with the ruling/elitist classes. In feudalism, the last infrastructure, there were three main classes. These were the elitist (kings, lords, etc.), the semi-elitist (owners of businesses -- a distinction from the workers since it required special permits by the elitist) and the working masses. With the invention of the technology that led the industrial revolution, that caused a division of labor and an increase in production, the economy which was only available to the elitists became available to the semi-elitist. The reason for this was because the semi-elitists controlled the business in which this technology was used. As such, the foundation of the elitist/semi-elitist world began to shake and break down (this was an economic revolution in that the production of man could no longer be supported by the infrastructure; a natural result of mans allowing his creations to control him and become larger than him. Man must grow, and the economy change to keep mans creations in check). With this economic revolution two major things happened: 1) The semi-elitist were rasied to a similar economic level of the ruling body; and 2) as the semi-elitist gained wealth, the ruling body was down trodded to a similar economic level as the semi-elitists (they became economically equal). However, this wasn't enough, in order for a total revolution to take place, and a new governing power to come into place there had to be a social revolution as well. In feudalism this revolution occurred as the semi-elitists with their new found wealth rose up against the aristocracy and demanded less taxation on their product (particularly corn in England). The semi-elitist won this battle (as the ruling body had to cave or be without production which was in the hands of the semi-elitists) and the ruling class was left with less bargaining power and lowered status. (Reminds me much of the taxation on wheat in FYA). Anyway, we now have capitalism. We also, consequently have only two classes; a new found elitist class (which is a combination of the prior two classes) and a working class. During the invention of capitalism, the working classes were not raised in status but rather were suppressed even further (or at least this is my personal take on it). The reason they were suppressed is because *everything* depended on money. The new-elitist/capitalists could pay the working class as little as possible in order to get them to work, there was nothing to govern over this. Jobs were scarce and the need to survive was great, the working classes had to work for what was offered or starve. [2] Without going into the great lengths of a larger Marxist style history lesson I will say that my interpretation is that Marx believed the infrastructure on which capitalism is based would eventually begin to fall on its own accord, he thought that at one point it could no longer hold the technology which humans were producing. He believed this would happen in his life-time (though it seems a little premature to me, especially as I look at the reign of feudalism). As I understand it, he believed it would occur naturally because our economic structure, a man made structure, could not contain itself any longer as our production increased to points beyond the ruling classes control(our product starts to rule us we have to maintain control of it, our economy changes). So, he believed this production/technology would start to break down the infrastructure and we would again have an economic revolution. My understanding, is that he believed with the next change of infrastructure, so long as the working masses united and did not allow themselves to be ruled and controlled and manipulated by the elitist, the working class would lead the social revolution (because they are the only ones suppressed they would have to be the one to revolt) and the two classes would combine again to create one universal group wherein class no longer existed. Once class was taken away people would once again feel a sense of community and would be humanistic with each other; this because discrimination was no longer in place. He believed that it would begin with the formation of more technology, and the uniting of the working classes coming together against the ruling bodies. As such, there would be another economic revolution and another social revolution. This would in turn create a communism, which is his ideal society. However, a problem with this (or so my understanding of it is) that if the society is not ready and both revolutions do not take place, then another elitist class takes control and becomes the bureaucratic rulership that the society is already under (or worse). In short, there must not only be a social revolution but a *natural* economic one as well. Okay. So we shoot ahead 60 or so odd years and we have Trotsky, Lenin, and a bunch of dead guys who probably sound a lot like me to the SO though more radical and "in the minuet" type guys. (Note: this is where my understanding becomes even more pitiful but still I have some ideas on them). These guys see what is occurring in their society and they don't like it one bit. They start to read Marx who they agree with and they start philosophizing and they decide that they are sick and tired of the way things are and they are going to unite the working masses. They see war breaking out around them and they take this as a sign the infrastructure may break, they need to be ready. Then an actual economic revolution does take place after the February revolution which usurps the royal family and feudalistic-capitalism. The new regime exiles the revolutionaries but as war breaks out in Europe they are brought back.[3] Again they, led by Lenin, begin rile the masses. As they do this they begin to see real change. They like this change and desire to force the revolution and force the fall of the now capitalist-democratic infrastructure (note: one economic and social revolution has already taken place, but the Bolsheviks want more, they want the full gambit). [4] They did this by first taking their already united working class and causing a social revolution. The revolution is forced as the masses rise up in an effort to take down the ruling body. Here I make speculation that seems logical considering things to come though I might be wrong as I have not but briefly studied it. My speculation is that these revolutionaries are extremely well versed and truly believe in this stuff. They realize that they need not only a social revolution but also an economic one. Though they believe an economic one may still be taking place they are not positive. Certainly the labor and technology has not risen to a point where it can no longer be contained by the infrastructure as capitalism through democracy and not feudalism was completely new to Russia. So, they decide to not only force the social revolution, but to force an economic one as well. My take on this maybe a little extreme, and therefore is probably off a bit. My thinking is that they either ignored the fact that an economic revolution had already taken place and the feudalism developed into capitalism (which will then have to exhaust its labor potential), or they thought of the capitalistic-feudalism which they were ruled under before the February Revolution as a capitalism, and thus believed the economic revolution was taking place and hadn't finished running its course; all that was left to do was for the social revolution throughly occur and the working class to rise and take control (which they did by first seizing seats in the first government and then by force and overthrowing the government in November of 1917). In sum, the occurrence went something like this: The people overthrew the tzar which created a magnanimous economic change, this was replaced by a capitalism as the semi-elitist (lawyers, landlords, doctors, whatever) took control. Quickly afterward, through the urging of the Bolsheviks the masses rose against this new economic structure by forming alliances with each other and the military which forced another economic revolution which was then accompanied by another social revolution as the Bolsheviks took power. (Phew! That is a mouth/finger full) So they now have both revolutions occurring again, but as they take control of the economy and government they have to control the masses again. So, loe and behold, I know this is going to be a shock, they become the new elitists and begin to rule over the working class, except they place it under the guise of a communism. Like, emmm, Marx with a twist, like religious people that only choose to believe what they *want* out of a particular religion, good intentions-bad circumstances. So, now we have Lenin in power, who may or may not have become nothing more than a bureaucrat and an elitist himself -- consensus still out on that (though he does remain an idealist which is okay), then he dies and Stalin takes over and he truly *is* a bureaucrat and an elitist. Stalin, in power, takes nice pleasant humane ideas of Marx, like that liberties granted by the state are worthless unless the discrimination of humanity falls, and only listens to the first part, that liberties granted by the state are worthless and gets rid of them. Consequently, what happens is that some of these original revolutionaries become extremely critical in what is occurring. What they see is not the idealism of Marx, or what they were originally rallying for, or the foundation of what they were trying to do. They say "hey hey hey Man, this is not what we were struggling for, you're becoming just like them. You're becoming just like what we despised. Did you forget what we started out fighting for? Get an idea, hell remember some of your own prior thoughts, look at you in your big elitist mansion, damn man, what is with that?..." [5] (Now I'll leave a lot of stuff out, which shouldn't be so shocking since I have already left out so many crucial points.) Since these people are questioning the new infrastructure, they are deemed counter-revolutionary and cannot be tolerated. Not only can they not be tolerated but neither can anyone they are related to. So, first their children and families are assassinated and then they are hunted over the globe and assassinated themselves. Very tragic and very sad. Even sadder because connotations of the words Marxism and communism become to equal Stalinism, dictatorship and totalitarianism in the eyes of those that won't take the time to bother to understand. (In my humble opinion it's one thing to despise something you understand and simply despise, it's another thing to despise something you are completely ignorant about.) Okay though I could probably type a message on this all day, I'm sure everyone here is sick of reading it. I simply think at least the first half of it, up through the October Revolution, is essential to know in order to understand Teckla or Phoenix as anything but a good stories. [6] So we need to relate it to Teckla, Phoenix and Kelly & Co. [7] So, now then this will be short and sweet because much of it can be inferred by having read the stories, I'll try to only put things in which I am not sure can be implied. So here is my take on the parts of Teckla and Phoenix *I am wanting* to discuss. Kelly and his revolutionaries don't like what they are seeing in Dragaera. They want to revolt against the Imperialistic government which is suppressing them. The Teckla and Easterners are the working class. It can be possible to say that the Creotha and Jheggela are the middle class (which makes Dragaera similar to a feudalism) or that the other sixteen houses are all elitists (which makes it a capitalistic imperialism -- something like what we have today). I think the later is probably correct as the Teckla are who are attempting to rise and revolt. So, Kelly & Co. decide to force a social revolution (sounds familiar right?). They start uniting the masses (the Teckla), combining forces, making speeches, sending out pamphlets, and all that stuff we see happen that gives to rise to the October Revolution. They also phamplet South Adrilankha and the Teckla conscripts in an effort to get them to turn on their side. Much like how Lenin & Co urged the soldiers to turn on their government and form alliance with the Bolsheviks. Kelly is the Lenin of the bunch of Dragaerans (or maybe the Trotsky as my understanding is Trotsky actually grouped together the first people and started the October Revolution). We have some other main players who take the place of the rest of the Bolsheviks, one of which is Cawati (though to me she almost seems like someone who would be your "normal" person who is rallying around the leaders, philosophers and idealists). So the Teckla start to rally and unite and effect society and make small change. They are in essence creating a the social revolution, but have only succeeded to the point the Bolsheviks did before they decided to force economic change. Kelly and his idealists have not read Marx and therefore have a good grasp on what their desires are, but no philosophy to back what is actually required to entertain this desire. They are like, emmm, acting but without real foundation. To them it does not matter that the production and technology that is important to their society (sorcery/agriculture?) is at a level where it may or may not be changing the economy. It is also unimportant whether the infrastructure is breaking down on its own, whether their labor and/or technology has outgrown the economy, or whether their economy needs to change at all in order to force social change. They only see a humanistic need (Marx also talks about need a lot, but even that comes down to labor, but then labor isn't what one would think it is unless one reads Marx) and this need is for a better economy and government which is more humane. The problem they forget is that in order to create this better economy the old one must break down first this must occur by the old infrastructure being out grown, and with the length of Dragaeran life spans, the length of the interregnum from the first government, the length of Dragaeran history, this probably hasn't occurred. [8] (Hypothetically posed note to the author if he reads this or reads this far into this: So Mr. Brust, how am I doing in my analysis, right or wrong is it at least well thought out?) So, now there is this social revolution beginning to develop and take place, as Kelly gathers more followers an actual social revolution begins to emerge. At the same time Vlad says in Teckla and Verra in Phoenix something to the effect of "The Cycle's not ready for it yet" or "it's not in the cycle". Now though this just reiterates my point, here's where I make another jump that is probably completely wrong, though I will present it anyway. I think, though I am not sure (and frankly am probably totally reading this into the stories), that Vlads words in Teckla, Verras in Phoenix, and the Cycle are all acting as a constant reminder of both Marx and perhaps Trotsky before Lenin and after Stalin, and the anti-revolutionist movement. They are in essence saying that in order for the infrastructure to collapse and have a socio-economic change, there must not only be a social revolution but there must *also* be an natural/true economic one, otherwise the populous/Cycle *is* *not* *ready* *for* *it*. What we see different in Teckla and Phoenix, I think, than what perhaps happened in Russia is that in Steven Brusts works the Phoenix Guards eventually fiercely fight back. At first they fight back in a similar manner to what happened in Russia (forming lines, etc.) but eventually they calm the storm in an extremely forceful militant manner and the social revolution dies and does not create the desired change (hummm, makes me begin to think on how in reality the desired change was not made by the Bolshevik party). And though I am not sure, I am led to believe that the actions of the Phoenix Guards may come close to what might happen if our society was to try to revolt. We would be fought against very harshly by the suppressing regime and it would probably fail first because our economy may not be ready for it (then again it might be) and secondly because our ruling classes would fight back in such a way we wouldn't stand a chance. Our only hope is to perhaps change the system through the inside, but then we just become... well never mind (I have to keep of my tangents). So, there is my analysis, in my poor reasoning, of why Vlad and Verra saying the cycle is not ready yet... the cycle has to be ready in two very distinct ways for revolution in order for revolution to work. Next we have Verra saying that she thought Kelly would do something different. Though I may be wrong, I think she expected Kelly to have the sense of reason to realize that not only was the cycle not ready, but the populous was not ready either. It is like, emmm, if he had truly studied and taken to heart the knowledge he was granted, he would have seen this. Verras retreat is to try to create a war between the Greenaere/Elde Islands and Dragaera hoping that Dragaera will ban together. Of course, this doesn't work, because even in the wake of WWI the Bolshevik party and Russia still revolted, I think they simply emmm, tuned the war out for awhile and then when the time came that they had what they wanted, the engaged in the world once again. My consenses then, is that since the stories Teckla and Phoenix appear to follow the path of the Bolshevik Revolution, their paths must follow a similar route which they do indeed. However, though because Dragaera is fantasy the outcome can be different and such is how it was written perhaps as a reminder and perhaps a warning of the October uprising. [9] Notes: [1]I won't even get into production and labor and what constitutes each and why it is so important in the world as this leads into big arguments regarding Hegel and Feuerbach and religion and atheism and we've all treaded down this path before. [2] This goes into Marx's ideals on the human need for community and finding this in religion and then when religion breaks down the state supplementing this need with false liberties. [3] This is a lengthy part of history that deals with treaties between Russia and Germany, I am not completely clear on it, however the SO says it has much to do with WWI and Germanies desires to make allies where it would otherwise have enemies. [4] My understanding also is that Trotsky said something to the effect of "we're/they're not ready yet" though later changed his mind being convinced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, though I am not sure on this and not clear if it means what I think it means. It is possible I have this completely wrong. [5] eh, hem, I am sure several reading this statement will have a hard time imagining these people speaking like a cross between Dennis Hopper and Jello Biafra, but simply because they were great stylists (Lenin, Trotsky, et al.), does not mean my interpretation of their thinking was different (though I am not sure that I am right), I just, emmm, modernized it a bit. [6] For those that already are far more knowledgeable than I in these matters and therefore now know I'm full of crap, remember there are people out there that don't know these things because they haven't studied them. [7] I hope I kept this simple enough without going into too great detail or using complex words that stand for entire ideas make little sense unless you have an understanding of the whole of everything. I also hope I was somewhat accurate in my understanding, if not then I can once again call myself an Orwellian thinker, which frankly suits me just fine considering the connotations with the other words, and I can say "well I guess I just don't understand Marx" After all, thwarting ignorance is half... emm, never mind. [8] Being home and running this through spell check before sending it, I am no longer AFB. Consequently, though I don't really feel like rewriting this, I was able to look at Phoenix real quick, and I note that Mr. Brust so much as makes similar reference to this in Vlads discussion with Verra wherein Verra tells Vlad that Kellys policies on which he is building his fire has no basis in the Empire at that point in time, and that perhaps they would in 10,000 or 100,000 years but not then. Furthermore he even wrote in this regard: "He is building a world of ideas with no foundation beneath them" -- so though I may still be full of it, perhaps I am just a little less. [9] Don't make fun of my consensus, I had to come to something, this sounded good at the moment. :) _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail