9 ms·

That's a strange comment considering that most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.

cmurf 8y ago
Depends on your perspective. There are worse things than death. And equalizing misery is almost romantic. And compared to other revolutions, the French Revolution was not that bloody. It was just the localized executions that made for all the blood running in the streets for weeks. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
- vondur 8y ago
  Well, the revolts in the Vendée killed up to 130,000 people. But I doubt most of them were the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    But this was a counter-revolution, not a revolution.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      No, while it was a revolts against the revolutionaey regime, it was not one to restore the pre-revolutionary regime or the classes who lost power in the revolution, it was a popular peasant uprising sgainst conscription by the revolutionary regime. OTOH, even if it were a counter-revolution, why would it be excluded: would you really make the argument that a revolution isn't particularly bloody, if you have ignore the cost in lives of putting down attempts to restore the old order? That's part of the cost of achieved a revolution.
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        The counter-revolution was more to restore church power than the monarchy (that's how the peasants were enlisted, anyway), but that's not a relevant detail. Re why exclude: You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Might be true but can't be shown by citing counter-revolutions. Sure, similarly, White Russian soldiers killed a lot of poor peasants - but then, why wouldn't they?
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Well, it wasn't me, and the claim didn't mention “initial”, it was: “most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.” I think it's fair to characterize people killed in resistance by the old order before the institutionalization of the revolution to be hurt in the revolution.
        Nomentatus 8y ago
        You are agreeing strenuously, I think.
- baud147258 8y ago
  It's not just the executions for the French Revolution. You have to add all the wars that followed during 20 years, including the wars fought by Napoleon. So we're talking a few hundred thousand deaths still.
Nomentatus 8y ago
"Most." Which implies a spectacular increase in the risk to the rich, who were previously exceptionally secure.
Terr_ 8y ago
In absolute terms, sure, but that doesn't mean much since the rich and powerful are already a tiny (but powerful) minority. Are you saying that in proportional terms the non-wealthy were hurt more as well?

cmurf 8y ago

Depends on your perspective. There are worse things than death. And equalizing misery is almost romantic. And compared to other revolutions, the French Revolution was not that bloody. It was just the localized executions that made for all the blood running in the streets for weeks. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...

vondur 8y ago
Well, the revolts in the Vendée killed up to 130,000 people. But I doubt most of them were the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  But this was a counter-revolution, not a revolution.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    No, while it was a revolts against the revolutionaey regime, it was not one to restore the pre-revolutionary regime or the classes who lost power in the revolution, it was a popular peasant uprising sgainst conscription by the revolutionary regime. OTOH, even if it were a counter-revolution, why would it be excluded: would you really make the argument that a revolution isn't particularly bloody, if you have ignore the cost in lives of putting down attempts to restore the old order? That's part of the cost of achieved a revolution.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      The counter-revolution was more to restore church power than the monarchy (that's how the peasants were enlisted, anyway), but that's not a relevant detail. Re why exclude: You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Might be true but can't be shown by citing counter-revolutions. Sure, similarly, White Russian soldiers killed a lot of poor peasants - but then, why wouldn't they?
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > You were trying to prove that initial revolutions, contra the present upper classes kill mostly poor people. Well, it wasn't me, and the claim didn't mention “initial”, it was: “most people who get hurt in a blood-thirsty revolution are generally not the rich and powerful.” I think it's fair to characterize people killed in resistance by the old order before the institutionalization of the revolution to be hurt in the revolution.
        Nomentatus 8y ago
        You are agreeing strenuously, I think.
baud147258 8y ago
It's not just the executions for the French Revolution. You have to add all the wars that followed during 20 years, including the wars fought by Napoleon. So we're talking a few hundred thousand deaths still.

Nomentatus 8y ago

"Most." Which implies a spectacular increase in the risk to the rich, who were previously exceptionally secure.

Terr_ 8y ago

In absolute terms, sure, but that doesn't mean much since the rich and powerful are already a tiny (but powerful) minority. Are you saying that in proportional terms the non-wealthy were hurt more as well?