Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkoubaa | Hacker News Reader

Exactly. Revolutions are awful things that are only defensible if the conditions are brutal enough. And even then, there has to be the caution that the revolution can be co-opted by infinitely worse people than those that were overthrown (take the Russian revolution, for example)

View on HN

Also, actual revolutions require a significant chunk of "excluded elite". People who have nothing can generally manage a riot, maybe burn down some buildings until the police open fire, but nothing more coordinated. Revolutions require more money and organization. I'm reminded of how the convicted Jan 6th rioters were a lot more middle-class than you might expect.

No American revolution would succeed without a significant chunk of US military support. Either from above ("autogolpe"), or entire units defecting en masse.

The Russian revolution is not a good example if you are talking about the October revolution. It cannot be stated objectively that it turned out to be worse, and, in fact, for many replacing the czars with the Bolsheviks led to a lot better living conditions.

Tell that to the 60 million people who died in the Holodomor.

Holodomor was the result of several unfortunate events including the Ukranian kulaks burning their produce to protest collectivisation, a natural famine and misjudgement of the State.

If the responsibility of Holodomor lies solely with the USSR, the nexus between the NATO and occupied Palestine are responsible for at least a billion deaths, going by your intellectual honesty standards. I have factored in death due to military interventionism, gun laws, and capitalism related deaths (death from being uninsured, hunger, poverty).

I have no problem with the proposition that the post-ww2 global order is responsible for a billion deaths.

Why not 120 million?

What about the 240 million who died under the tzarist regime?

If you're going to make up nonsense numbers, why stop there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com