Convergence theorists enjoy an almost unique intellectual position: they are supported by both academics and non-academics without really having been subject to a comprehensive analytical examination. Theirs is an hypothesis encompassing many, if not all, spheres of so-ciology, and applicable to the whole of the industrialised world. By implication it also involves the future of all the industrialising nations. It is this very breadth of scope which has denied it the enquiry it deserves.

This paper examines convergence theory in relation to welfare-the institutional pattern of a society concerned with meeting needs. In contemporary industrial societies needs are met through a variety of patterns, viz. social services, tax rebates, fringe benefits provided by enterprises, mutual-aid, and voluntary and charitable assistance. The question is whether in the course of transition from early to advanced industrialization, Western and communist societies have become more alike in respect of such institutional patterns.1 The proposition has been examined in relation to evidence drawn from one communist and one Western country and the underlying theory criticised in the light of evi-dence.

‘Peasant revolution’ is an anomalous concept. The oppressed in past class societies have been predominantly peasant,1 and this situation continues in the contemporary world, if the definition of ‘peasant’ includes the dependent agricultural producers of the Third World. However, the distinction between humanistic sympathies and political realities led Marx, and subsequent theorists, to a negative view of the capacity of peasants to carry out successful revolutions. According to this reasoning, the parochialism of peasant life precludes the scope of comprehension, organization, and program required to overthrow the existing class structure. These limitations have led, over and over, to abortive revolts, to the impossibility of purely peasant revolution.

One of the most interesting features of Balkan politics during the interwar period has been the spectacular rise of peasant movements and parties which have had a profound influence on the social structure of these societies. The only Balkan country which did not experience a strong peasant movement was Greece. As I will try to argue below, the development of Balkan peasantism can be seen to a large extent as a political reaction to the strains and disruptions created by the increasing penetration of Western capitalism into this underdeveloped part of the world. Since this penetration was as strong in Greece as in the other Balkan countries during the interwar period, the failure of Greek peasants to organise themselves politically poses an interesting problem for anyone concerned with the past and present development of modern Greek society.

A historical survey of social scientific literature would undoubtedly disclose a tendency (analogous, perhaps, to that evident in popular fiction) toward faddishness. From time to time certain topics enjoy great popularity and seem to attract more than their share of investigation and debate. Such is the case with the study of revolution, which is currently deemed a quite ‘fashionable’ object of scientific research.