Ibn Khaldun wrote something about nomads conquering the throne because the rulers grew fat and demanded ever higher tributes. Then the nomads became rulers and at first demanded low tributes because they were not used to luxuries anyway, but as timed passed so grew their appetite until it was time for new nomads to conquer the throne.

Fits with Curtis latest btw:

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: HOW TO KILL A RATIONAL PEASANT

Galula was the star guest and he got up to speak first. To begin with he put forward his fundamental theory.

"Revolutionary warfare requires a revolutionary approach on both sides in the struggle. Whereas in ordinary war the objective is to destroy the enemy and occupy his territory, the guerrilla's aim is to control the population.

This, therefore, must be the aim of the counter-guerrilla as well"

But then Galula put the boot in to the aspiring counter-insurgents. Whether it was due to his disenchantment with what had happened in Algeria is not clear - but Galula laid out the central problem for the counterinsurgents when they tried to mirror the communist revolutionaries - they didn't have a cause:

"One basic difference between insurgency and counterinsurgency is that the insurgent starts out with nothing but a cause and grows to strength, while counterinsurgent often starts with everything but a cause and gradually declines in strength to the point of weakness"

So the RAND corporation decided to find something equivalent to a cause, powerful enough to bring the villagers in SE Asia over to the American side.

But somehow the ideas of the rulers had problems gaining traction, perhaps because they underpinned a system designed to control the very same persons they tried to sell the ideas to.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

 interplay that you are missing when you posit that only actions count. And, the motive (or ideology, if you will) of the action is often calculated with reaction in mind. In short, one does not engage in one acts neccesarily with only a mechanistic view towards the results of those actions, but it can happen, when with an ideological impetus and with a proper institutional apparatus, that those actions be calculated to bring about not only economic progress but also social and environmental change.

For all their shortcomings and authoritarianism, I cannot help but not that the Party in the PRC has also overssen vast social change which has moved China from a country where women had their feet stunted on purpose in order to walk in a certain way (and certainly not ever be able to run) to a world where Chinese women are nearing equality with men on par with many if not most of the western oligarchies (and I have no doubt strides will continue to be made in this regard). I note a China whose attitudes towards homosexuality were as backwards as any in the world and see that equality in this regard is equally seeing great strides. I note a China which is far more open to tourism both of its own citizens and of peoples of other countries to the PRC, something we did not see in proper measure in other coutries with "actually-existing-socialism". And, I note that the Party is allocating resources (capital, if you will) to Green energies in a way the banks of the western oligarchies are incapable of doing, especially in Solar.

So, I'm with you on actions, I just interpret the actions a bit differently than you seem to.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs