3 ms·
That is all true, as far as I know, but then the question is why did they succeed, if not by exploiting widespread discontent in the general population?
by hanche 6y ago
That is all true, as far as I know, but then the question is why did they succeed, if not by exploiting widespread discontent in the general population?
- TeeMassive 6y ago> if not by exploiting widespread discontent in the general population? That wasn't the original point. Widespread discontent do not always lead to bloody revolution or communist regimes with despotic leaders.
- hanche 6y agoIndeed, but widespread discontent seems to be an important risk factor for that outcome, isn’t it? My understanding of history is limited, but this I know; History is always messy, and you can never identify just one single reason for the way things turned out.
- TeeMassive 6y agoThe US hasn't seen total war, famine and disease yet the Marxists are openly pushing people against one another to ferment a revolution. Again we see the same pattern of upper middle class intellectuals radicalized in universities openly opposing incremental reforms in favor of violent uprisings. Just saying "History is messy" is intellectual laziness, the patterns are clear and happened many times before.