On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Chris Olson - SunPS <Chrisf.Olson at Sun.COM> wrote: > They've changed in many ways, but to move from feudalism > to socialism, I feel, isn't possible without the consent > of the Cycle, if not the Noble Houses themselves. And > can you see Dragons, Dzur, Athyra, or Phoenix allowing their > aristocracy to be pushed aside in favor of a total Teckla > revolt, destroying the Cycle itself? I don't think so. Except that in real life, socialism and communism don't have to get rid of the elite. Certainly they don't eliminate power structures and the powerful. Sometimes they change who are powerful - but that's the nature of all revolutions. The cycle isn't dependent upon particular noble houses and dynasties. If one cycle has a emperor/doge, and 17 cycles later a descendant is comrade for life, life goes on. The real difference is which government gets the most production from its underclasses. In general, when societies find ways to get more wealth from the underclasses, they do so. If factory-working voters are more productive than slaves - then the elite have more power ruling over factory-working voters. Here's an exercise. For various houses that we have a decent understanding of, compare and contrast the lifestyles of the rulers if they rule ignorant serfs, trained factory workers, and educated professionals. It is interesting that the Dragon we know best seems to work well with educated professionals. Certainly the more devious races would not have too much problem getting the proletariat to do what they want. Feudalism isn't an end to itself - it works well to counter central power. Owning serfs isn't an end to itself - it works well to get some minimal wealth with minimal threats. But wealth is power, and power is more important to most rulers than security. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/