Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor
Not implausible either historically. It is amusing how well off many famous revolutionaries were but it makes sense when you look at it sideways because the really poor are to weak to rebel and to busy suffering.
|
It's not implausible, in any way. Poor people fight in revolutions, die in them, and occasionally even benefit from them. But revolutions are led by people who are doing well in the existing system, but who believe they'd do even
better if they broke the (frequently corrupt) lock on power held by those who currently exercise governmental power and authority.
Successful revolutions need people who understand finance, supply logistics, strategy and tactics, and human persuasion. Those people tend to have educational backgrounds that serve them well, under almost any circumstances. They're also seldom poor, and not deprived of much in the way of material needs.
Because such people already have the skill and motivation to lead effectively, any system that allows social mobility and a rise to authority by peaceful means will seldom experience successful revolutions, but will regularly endure economic, cultural, social and political change.