4 ms·

Too many people don’t learn from history. Especially the Rich. There was a very popular thing the French did when things got out of hand. And they were not the

Too many people don’t learn from history. Especially the Rich. There was a very popular thing the French did when things got out of hand. And they were not the only only to do it throughout the history.

nazgulsenpai 2y ago
How quickly do you think those people would be declared terrorists and neutralized in 2025?
- dingnuts 2y ago
  why dont you tell us, nazgulsenpai? I mean why bother resist against a tyrannical government right? sheesh. Relevant username.
  - nazgulsenpai 2y ago
    I'm not sure what my username has to do with anything, or why the combative tone. It's intended as a thought exercise, if a revolution in the spirit of the French revolution were to happen today, with the surveillance at the government's disposal, how quickly would it be justified legally (declared terrorists) and neutralized. The more time passes, the more technological advances are used for mass surveillance and propaganda, the less likely it seems.
    - metalman 2y ago
      there is a presumption on your part, that control of the net, is absolute revolutions of the past,have all included some control of the press and we can see, everywhere, the frantic efforts to control the net, and digital currency the old axiom of "control the press and the mint, and they can have the rest" is now bieng put to the test, internaly and externaly. the truth bieng that the level of control now possible, real realy realy, is cramping everybodys style, and so the forms of protest and revolution are evolving, and matching the wierdness, insanity for insanity, there IS absolute control , but there is no sure way to describe what exactly is bieng controlled, no revolutionary symbols,check no calls to kill the leaders,check billions of worky workers, worky working, check, trillions of hours spent grinding out an entirely new and evolving memetic language of comunication in a vast never ending seathing quest for some meaning, uh huh.
      - nazgulsenpai 2y ago
        The only presumption I'm making is that technological superiority rests with governments when it comes to implements of surveillance and violence and will likely continue to widen the gap. There's also another somewhat related consideration -- it would be a lot harder to get a military unit of citizens to fire against their fellow citizens than it would be for some operator somewhere to push a button to deploy the murder drones.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  We could debate, but when things go out of control, they go out of control fast. Talking about this example specifically, this is Bangladesh. It’s been less than a year when the country stood up against the government, the PM had to flee to save her life and despite the military initially try and squash the protests, gave up very quickly. At the end of the day, they are normal people with families too. What are a few factory owners going to do against thousands of workers who are completely fed up? They are losing their jobs any way, what is stopping them from burning the factory down? This is a country where violence is not unheard of.
  - nazgulsenpai 2y ago
    That's a fair point. I was thinking in my own context and not that of the Bangladeshi worker.
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      In your own context, if everyone is paid less, worked more and then eventually out of a job, there will be no one left to buy stuff from Billionaires. A concept Henry Ford understood really well, but Wall Street doesn’t.
      - pixl97 2y ago
        >but Wall Street doesn’t. Why do they need to, they'll just have the government print more money and give it directly to said billionaires.
        antifa 2y ago
        Makes you wonder if some kind of underground market would form that ignores billionaires, whether that's a commune or local government establishing a new local currency, that would cause the primary currencies (USD, BTC, etc. to further inflate itself out of existence).
- Teever 2y ago
  That depends on if they make use of drones to achieve their goals.
- hello_moto 2y ago
  When the leader starts shooting the people, they lost the country for good. The outcome is either they become a closed-autocratic/dictatorship country or the leader will be ousted super quick.
inglor_cz 2y ago
"There was a very popular thing the French did when things got out of hand. And they were not the only only to do it throughout the history." People conveniently forget that the Terror soon turned against completely innocent victims and eventually led to establishment of an authoritarian military regime that set out to conquer entire Europe, creating vicious reactionary backlash from its enemies, which eventually stifled liberal thought and societal progress on the continent for two more generations. I will take the English "let us have a non-violent gradual development" way anytime. If Lavoisier could be guillotined because "the Republic does not need chemists", how much better do you think that programmers would fare in similar situations? There is plenty of people who resent them for just having bigger income than them. Once you run out of the rich, the mob and the guillotine will demand more victims, and neither will be particularly picky.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  I never claimed it will be a great outcome. Only that the rich cannot perpetually get away with it. Revolutions often have people trying to personally benefit from all the anger and resentment. And revolutions often have innocents getting caught up unnecessarily. Minorities are also going to be blamed for their widespread discontent and they will be harmed before the rich because they are easier targets. The point being it’s not going to be pretty, and will be a lose lose situation, but it will be inevitable if the ruling class doesn’t slow down this race to the bottom.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > creating vicious reactionary backlash from its enemies, which eventually stifled liberal thought and societal progress on the continent for two more generations Yup [1]. If you're a billionaire, you almost certainly win in the aftermath of an American violent revolution à la the French or Russians. The country would fall into chaos while we hung our academics, minorities and upper middle classes. Then they would jet back in with foreign backing to carve up America's riches while becoming even more blazingly rich than they are under a democracy. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650418 https://www.jstor.org/stable/650418
  - 2y ago
chairmansteve 2y ago
Russia 1917 a better example,
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> was a very popular thing the French did when things got out of hand The French arisocracy mostly survived the Revolution not only with their lives but also their riches. Those that lost lands partly had them restored under Napoleon and the Bourbons. The degree of their survival is so great that it's debated whether the nobility benefited from the Revolution [1]. Today's rich and their wealth are more mobile. Idiots fantasising about violent revolution are mostly digging their own graves or playing into the hands of oligarchs unhappy with the democratic status quo. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023 https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023
cafard 2y ago
The French Revolution began when the government tried to repudiate its debts once too often. It wasn't the peasants or the urban poor who were holding the bonds. Once the revolution really got going, many things changed. But an Austrian historian remarked that men are very attached to their goods, and that the Jacobins fell more because of their assignats than because of the guillotine.
ecshafer 2y ago
What did the French revolution do to the rich? The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution that gave more power to the bankers, merchants, factory owners, etc. who had previously lacked rights. The san culottes ultimately didn't get ahead.
sc68cal 2y ago
Today's rich are betting on being able to get to their private planes and to their panic bunkers in New Zealand before the rabble catches them

nazgulsenpai 2y ago

How quickly do you think those people would be declared terrorists and neutralized in 2025?

dingnuts 2y ago
why dont you tell us, nazgulsenpai? I mean why bother resist against a tyrannical government right? sheesh. Relevant username.
- nazgulsenpai 2y ago
  I'm not sure what my username has to do with anything, or why the combative tone. It's intended as a thought exercise, if a revolution in the spirit of the French revolution were to happen today, with the surveillance at the government's disposal, how quickly would it be justified legally (declared terrorists) and neutralized. The more time passes, the more technological advances are used for mass surveillance and propaganda, the less likely it seems.
  - metalman 2y ago
    there is a presumption on your part, that control of the net, is absolute revolutions of the past,have all included some control of the press and we can see, everywhere, the frantic efforts to control the net, and digital currency the old axiom of "control the press and the mint, and they can have the rest" is now bieng put to the test, internaly and externaly. the truth bieng that the level of control now possible, real realy realy, is cramping everybodys style, and so the forms of protest and revolution are evolving, and matching the wierdness, insanity for insanity, there IS absolute control , but there is no sure way to describe what exactly is bieng controlled, no revolutionary symbols,check no calls to kill the leaders,check billions of worky workers, worky working, check, trillions of hours spent grinding out an entirely new and evolving memetic language of comunication in a vast never ending seathing quest for some meaning, uh huh.
    - nazgulsenpai 2y ago
      The only presumption I'm making is that technological superiority rests with governments when it comes to implements of surveillance and violence and will likely continue to widen the gap. There's also another somewhat related consideration -- it would be a lot harder to get a military unit of citizens to fire against their fellow citizens than it would be for some operator somewhere to push a button to deploy the murder drones.
darth_avocado 2y ago
We could debate, but when things go out of control, they go out of control fast. Talking about this example specifically, this is Bangladesh. It’s been less than a year when the country stood up against the government, the PM had to flee to save her life and despite the military initially try and squash the protests, gave up very quickly. At the end of the day, they are normal people with families too. What are a few factory owners going to do against thousands of workers who are completely fed up? They are losing their jobs any way, what is stopping them from burning the factory down? This is a country where violence is not unheard of.
- nazgulsenpai 2y ago
  That's a fair point. I was thinking in my own context and not that of the Bangladeshi worker.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    In your own context, if everyone is paid less, worked more and then eventually out of a job, there will be no one left to buy stuff from Billionaires. A concept Henry Ford understood really well, but Wall Street doesn’t.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      >but Wall Street doesn’t. Why do they need to, they'll just have the government print more money and give it directly to said billionaires.
      - antifa 2y ago
        Makes you wonder if some kind of underground market would form that ignores billionaires, whether that's a commune or local government establishing a new local currency, that would cause the primary currencies (USD, BTC, etc. to further inflate itself out of existence).
Teever 2y ago
That depends on if they make use of drones to achieve their goals.
hello_moto 2y ago
When the leader starts shooting the people, they lost the country for good. The outcome is either they become a closed-autocratic/dictatorship country or the leader will be ousted super quick.

inglor_cz 2y ago

"There was a very popular thing the French did when things got out of hand. And they were not the only only to do it throughout the history." People conveniently forget that the Terror soon turned against completely innocent victims and eventually led to establishment of an authoritarian military regime that set out to conquer entire Europe, creating vicious reactionary backlash from its enemies, which eventually stifled liberal thought and societal progress on the continent for two more generations. I will take the English "let us have a non-violent gradual development" way anytime. If Lavoisier could be guillotined because "the Republic does not need chemists", how much better do you think that programmers would fare in similar situations? There is plenty of people who resent them for just having bigger income than them. Once you run out of the rich, the mob and the guillotine will demand more victims, and neither will be particularly picky.

darth_avocado 2y ago
I never claimed it will be a great outcome. Only that the rich cannot perpetually get away with it. Revolutions often have people trying to personally benefit from all the anger and resentment. And revolutions often have innocents getting caught up unnecessarily. Minorities are also going to be blamed for their widespread discontent and they will be harmed before the rich because they are easier targets. The point being it’s not going to be pretty, and will be a lose lose situation, but it will be inevitable if the ruling class doesn’t slow down this race to the bottom.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> creating vicious reactionary backlash from its enemies, which eventually stifled liberal thought and societal progress on the continent for two more generations Yup [1]. If you're a billionaire, you almost certainly win in the aftermath of an American violent revolution à la the French or Russians. The country would fall into chaos while we hung our academics, minorities and upper middle classes. Then they would jet back in with foreign backing to carve up America's riches while becoming even more blazingly rich than they are under a democracy. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650418 https://www.jstor.org/stable/650418
- 2y ago

chairmansteve 2y ago

Russia 1917 a better example,

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> was a very popular thing the French did when things got out of hand The French arisocracy mostly survived the Revolution not only with their lives but also their riches. Those that lost lands partly had them restored under Napoleon and the Bourbons. The degree of their survival is so great that it's debated whether the nobility benefited from the Revolution [1]. Today's rich and their wealth are more mobile. Idiots fantasising about violent revolution are mostly digging their own graves or playing into the hands of oligarchs unhappy with the democratic status quo. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023 https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023

cafard 2y ago

The French Revolution began when the government tried to repudiate its debts once too often. It wasn't the peasants or the urban poor who were holding the bonds. Once the revolution really got going, many things changed. But an Austrian historian remarked that men are very attached to their goods, and that the Jacobins fell more because of their assignats than because of the guillotine.

ecshafer 2y ago

What did the French revolution do to the rich? The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution that gave more power to the bankers, merchants, factory owners, etc. who had previously lacked rights. The san culottes ultimately didn't get ahead.

sc68cal 2y ago

Today's rich are betting on being able to get to their private planes and to their panic bunkers in New Zealand before the rabble catches them