As for the post-Stalin period, then score B.P.Kurashvili scathing: "authoritarian bureaucratic socialism - it is natural law, historical accident," stray "child of Soviet society. Gravest sin that ugly model ... "etc. Well as you can not kill the bastard - that's how the idea to this estimate suggests the reader. A special place in the history of this scheme is the problem of bloodshed. Historical materialism, from the point of view of B.P.Kurashvili gives a simple answer: "Revolution - big bloodletting that class-antagonistic society ... uchinyaet over themselves for the transition to the next stage of development." But the real story did not confirm this, even on the contrary. Let us remember all the bloodshed associated with revolutions. We will not go to the Inquisition and the Reformation. They are directly related to the case, but we are not well known. That Cromwell: because of class antagonism his "Ironsides" Puritans were bled in the UK and Ireland? That is the terror of the Jacobins. Is it caused by the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the peasantry? After classes antagonists - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but them- a conflict never leads to greater blood. And China? Blood basically let each other the two wings of the revolution - the Kuomintang and the Communists. Both, selling, provided, in many ways, a very rapid social and economic development (on the mainland and Taiwan). What's the "next level"? The whole concept of the civil war, which gives historical materialism, in my opinion, is wrong in principle and has never been podtverzhdena204.