Correct, but there is a lot of nuance.
Indeed, when things get bad, the public is willing to take risks. When everything is good enough, they don’t revolt.
However, successful revolts do require intelligent and capable leaders.
What the rich have realized, is that if they ensure smart and skilled kids get picked out of the drudgery and get comfortable working for the rich, then the exploited class will not really have anyone to lead them.
Put another way, in 1908, every factory had a few leaders workingnat the lowest levels. And they are the ones who spearheaded strikes and such.
Nowadays, society is really stratified in terms of skill.
Anyone who grew up poor, but had talent to organize, probably ended up in some kind of middle management or professional job and makes 2x the average.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Wow you really picked two of the worst possible examples. French Revolutionaries decapitated so many officials that they ended up decapitating the previous wave of French Revolutionaries, then Napoleon and the Church took over.
piratekaiser@lemm.ee 1 year ago
My example was about how people get together to make revolutions happen, not wether they were good/bad or what ended up happening after. I chose those examples because in both cases a revolt was long time coming but people couldn’t do it until they were organised