Breaking news: in one of the most productive countries / economies in the entire history of humanity, the majority of people creating that productivity do not get to enjoy the rewards of that productivity.
same as it ever was.
Breaking news: in one of the most productive countries / economies in the entire history of humanity, the majority of people creating that productivity do not get to enjoy the rewards of that productivity.
same as it ever was.
deleted by creator
The French Revolution saw less poverty and less inequality than what exists in modern day America.
The wealthy view this as progress: “we milked more of the production and still have a docile subservient society”
deleted by creator
The French revolution saw a shitload more innocent civilians killed than what exists in modern day America.
This is so incredibly stupid it boggles the mind. There were not even 300 million civilians in France, especially considering that today there are only 60 million people living there.
Exactly, so many were killed there’s almost no one left.
The point is to draw attention to the idea that the French Revolution was bad in every possible way
wanton murder
gave rise to an Emperor
was mob rule led by a small group, not democracy
did not materially change the lives of the majority of the French moving forward
was literally called the Reign of Terror
Your opinion is tainted by British and reactionary voices writing the history of the French Revolution.
Overthrowing the Ancien régime left the average French person with much more political voice in the 1870’s than the average member of the 3rd estate could have hoped for at any point in the 18th century.
-Wanton Murder
Yeah there was violence political and non-political due to the anarchy that came from the revolution. This is unavoidable when the political elites do not respect the voices of the majority of their citizens.
-Gave rise to an emperor
Yeah because the entirety of Europe declared war on France several times in order to save their cousin king Louis, to save the estates of their rich noble exile buddies, then to avenge King Louis, and finally to protect British and exile monetary interests.
-was mob rule led by a small group, not democracy
It was eventually figured out, and it was always better than the pre 1789 status quo. **
-did not materially change the lives of the majority of the French moving forward
Lol, except for the entire political upheaval of the French Society.
-was literally called the Reign of Terror
It was called the Reign of Terror by British papers, the average Parisan had nothing to fear from the revolution other than reactionary mobs. Which was much safer than offending the wrong noble, or walking in front of the horse of some member of the gentry.
I am basing the French Revolution from the Estates General of 1789 to the start of the 2nd French Republic.
I’m not interested in your revisionist history, thanks.
It’s weird for you to put this much effort into a post encouraging violence in the US. Violence you most assuredly would not benefit from.
deleted by creator
Weird that you claim to know these things and yet you’re pro mob-rule.
Literally rule 1
deleted by creator
You’re wrong, and your advocation of violence is abhorrent. Democracy does indeed work and your calls for the destruction of society over your power fantasy are awful and misplaced.
How is he “advocating” for violence? Where is his call to action?? Stop being so allergic to uncomfortable conversations. He is right. Look at all the big triumphs over tyranny that have happened throughout history, they were achieved through violence. Do you think America voted their way out of British rule? Do you think Ukraine can vote Russia out of their country?
In context, this argument makes no sense, because he is advocating violence against random wealthy people in the US.
They said nothing about the violence being random. If anything, it would take some planning.
You must not consider what the wealthy are doing to the working class to be tyrannical then
No, I believe that violence, if employed, should be collective and carried with a strategic intention. Anything less is reactionary and invites defeat.
You have a very privileged idea of what tyranny is.
deleted by creator
Cut back on the caffeine big chief
deleted by creator
Can’t disagree with this more.
Advocating for violence is wrong, and that’s probably why you keep getting your comments removed.
In fact I’ll go so far as to say that if we rely on violence every time to resolve issues then there’ll be nothing left but cockroaches and dolphins looking around the scorched Earth wondering “What the fuck happened here?!”
Well to be fair, he didn’t say which side would be committing the violence. One analysis of the civil rights movement is that is was successful because it provoked violence by the oppressors while cameras were present.
I speak towards violence of any kind, from either side. Self-defense notwithstanding.
deleted by creator
If you’re talking about overthrowing tyrants to become a free nation, then yeah /agree violence is most likely needed.
But the whole point of America and its political system is to resolve conflict in non-violet ways, so definately think your’e wrong there. Violence begets violence and destroys your land/homes.
deleted by creator
How does any vote get passed in Congress today? Congress has votes and passes laws all the time without violence.
deleted by creator
Our definition of ‘violence’ differs.
deleted by creator
You need to justify that statement with real-country examples, because unless your definition of “violence” is different than it is for the rest of us, your comment is easily proven false.
deleted by creator
Based on your definition…
FTFY.