4 ms·
Didn't you read the post I'm replying to? It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affai
by username332211 3y ago
Didn't you read the post I'm replying to? It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affair?
As to the French revolution, who ended up being the master of the French plebes at the end? Could it be a certain military officer named Napoleon and his marshalls?
- foofie 3y ago> Didn't you read the post I'm replying to. It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affair? I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous, but you should pay attention to what I said and understand that my comment was on your adoption and use of the weasel word "justification of getting more resources to consume". As if actually paying workers a living wage is somehow destroying resources. Either the company's profits go for the billionaire's pockets, or it is transfered to the worker's salary as part of the fair compensation for making everything happen. It's curious how you only see "destruction of resources" when profits don't line up a billionaire's pockets. Do you understand what I said?
- jacquesm 3y agoAs opposed to the violence done to them by the wealthy? In comparison it was quite surgical. That Napoleon managed to run off with it is an error but that wasn't the only possible outcome and even today France has some of the strongest social fabrics that traces its threads straight back to those guillotine ropes.