4 ms·

Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is not a pr

Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is not a priority. Social unrest is always about conflict within the elite or wannabe elite. The American Revolution was led by the richest of Americans. The French Revolution was led by the highly educated as was the Russian one. We have one historical example of a successful slave rebellion, in Haiti, and it was led by the most educated, cultured section of the free black population. For less violent examples look at the Labour Party in the UK, whose policy stance has almost always been that of the Fabian Society with some lag. A working class mass movement millions strong and what amounts to a debating/social club with well under a 1,000 truly active and engaged members had at least as big an impact on policy as the entire trade union movement.

watwut 7y ago
I think that you are simplifying those events quite a lot. The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. That is involvement and engagement in politics. The actual bottom is despised by everyone and comes with host of social problems. One of massive sparks for these political groups is fear that I will become part of the bottom. Both French Revolution and Russian one involved quite a lot of sides that fought among themselves and quite a lot of uneducated mobs attacking this or that place - these lost quickly. And yes, they are led by people in position to be leaders with education that gives them advantage. That does not mean the bottom is passive. Also, counting only successful attempts is probably not good enough. The slaves were running away and were resentful of inequality. What they did not had was the remote option to engage in politics - but they did engaged in it a lot when the opportunity arose. The subsequent suppression of black voting and politics did not happened because they were engaged or passive - it was because they were active.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it. A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée. The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.
  - watwut 7y ago
    You basically count the one victorious group and ignore all the others. Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners. French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex then Russian one. And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence - and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      I’m not ignoring the other groups, they’re irrelevant to my point, that the bottom doesn’t matter politically. All five groups were well educated, rich and cosmopolitan compared to the average Russian during the civil war. That the French and Russian revolutions were complex doesn’t mean that the competitors for political power were ever in any way representative of the population. They weren’t. They were members of the elite or had been educated to a level that they aspired to that. They weren’t on the bottom. The people on the bottom do not successfully engage in politics except as the tools of the current elite or of a counter-elite that aims to take over from the current elite.
      - watwut 7y ago
        Average Russian could not write and read. So of course average Russian could not organize anything as leader, writing and reading are necessary. So if you define elite in a way that includes everyone able to read, then it is starting to loose meaning. Plus rich cosmopolitan is not actually correct description. And regardless of these, average Russians had own gripes and opinions on what is fair and what they want. The periodic explosions of violence, the demonstrations and very real possibility of massacre (and refusal to perform it) and revolutionary attempts all played role in eventual loss of controll of the country, but more importantly do not show average Russian as never complaining opinionless person. But also, popular sentiment did played massive role in French revolution, the way it started and evolved. You can't write if off from history. Regardless of who wins power in the end, it is just not true that lower class people don't have opinions and complains. You choosing to ignore them is your choice. Just like popular sentiment in Syria played massive role in the way war started and evolved - despite endgame being eventually won by Russian support. You can't write those people's actions out of history.
redis_mlc 7y ago
And Trump populism is another example of the poor rebelling. Although them voting in a billionaire kinda defies logic, but hey, there's only two parties, plus Trump! :)
revolu123 7y ago
As this has generated some debate, I wanted to recommend The Revolutions Podcast https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ which I think I first heard about on another HN thread.

watwut 7y ago

I think that you are simplifying those events quite a lot. The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. That is involvement and engagement in politics. The actual bottom is despised by everyone and comes with host of social problems. One of massive sparks for these political groups is fear that I will become part of the bottom. Both French Revolution and Russian one involved quite a lot of sides that fought among themselves and quite a lot of uneducated mobs attacking this or that place - these lost quickly. And yes, they are led by people in position to be leaders with education that gives them advantage. That does not mean the bottom is passive. Also, counting only successful attempts is probably not good enough. The slaves were running away and were resentful of inequality. What they did not had was the remote option to engage in politics - but they did engaged in it a lot when the opportunity arose. The subsequent suppression of black voting and politics did not happened because they were engaged or passive - it was because they were active.

barry-cotter 7y ago
> The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it. A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée. The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.
- watwut 7y ago
  You basically count the one victorious group and ignore all the others. Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners. French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex then Russian one. And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence - and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    I’m not ignoring the other groups, they’re irrelevant to my point, that the bottom doesn’t matter politically. All five groups were well educated, rich and cosmopolitan compared to the average Russian during the civil war. That the French and Russian revolutions were complex doesn’t mean that the competitors for political power were ever in any way representative of the population. They weren’t. They were members of the elite or had been educated to a level that they aspired to that. They weren’t on the bottom. The people on the bottom do not successfully engage in politics except as the tools of the current elite or of a counter-elite that aims to take over from the current elite.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Average Russian could not write and read. So of course average Russian could not organize anything as leader, writing and reading are necessary. So if you define elite in a way that includes everyone able to read, then it is starting to loose meaning. Plus rich cosmopolitan is not actually correct description. And regardless of these, average Russians had own gripes and opinions on what is fair and what they want. The periodic explosions of violence, the demonstrations and very real possibility of massacre (and refusal to perform it) and revolutionary attempts all played role in eventual loss of controll of the country, but more importantly do not show average Russian as never complaining opinionless person. But also, popular sentiment did played massive role in French revolution, the way it started and evolved. You can't write if off from history. Regardless of who wins power in the end, it is just not true that lower class people don't have opinions and complains. You choosing to ignore them is your choice. Just like popular sentiment in Syria played massive role in the way war started and evolved - despite endgame being eventually won by Russian support. You can't write those people's actions out of history.

redis_mlc 7y ago

And Trump populism is another example of the poor rebelling. Although them voting in a billionaire kinda defies logic, but hey, there's only two parties, plus Trump! :)

revolu123 7y ago

As this has generated some debate, I wanted to recommend The Revolutions Podcast https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ which I think I first heard about on another HN thread.