If I remember right, Lenin and Trotsky were both lawyers (but didn’t hold office and Lenin was in exile before returning to Russia) and Stalin was a career criminal (he robbed banks on behalf of the revolution) and soldier. Kropotkin didn’t partake in the October revolution nor Russian Civil War and was living in exile in France.
My soviet history isn’t very good, so others feel free to correct me and call me a dumbass for making shit up. I’d say a significant number of revolutions didn’t include anyone with a title or office. The major figures that created the USSR were public employees at best in a place where noblemen still held vast amounts of land and wealth.
I think Mao was from the nobility and renounced his title, but maybe I’m wrong there. I know Che’s Castro family owned a plantation.
Che’s family was Argentinian, you are thinking of Fidel. Mao was from a minor landlord family.
However none of these figures had any connections to people in political power. Being born rich is less important in this sense than being a social climber who is friends with some politicians. Fidel for instance had long since alienated all his former ties
No buddy that is how that works. You’re the one who made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Or did you mean “not how that works” in that people don’t get to push back on the obvious bullshit you’ve uncritically ingested from the front page of statedeptalkingpoints.com? go back to your echo chamber on
That’s now how that works. Please show me some examples of successful revolutions that had 0 ties to those in power.
Can’t get more obvious than the Haitian revolution
Russian, Cuban, Chinese, Haitian, all were working class revolutions.
You’re the one making the assertion so it should be easy for you to point out some examples that support what you’re claiming
Examples wouldn’t suffice since he’s making a claim of non-existence. Proving the contrary is, however, very easy.
You’re clearly the one familiar with the literature. I’m not making a claim. I’m asking for clarification. Surely you can give a single example.
If I remember right, Lenin and Trotsky were both lawyers (but didn’t hold office and Lenin was in exile before returning to Russia) and Stalin was a career criminal (he robbed banks on behalf of the revolution) and soldier. Kropotkin didn’t partake in the October revolution nor Russian Civil War and was living in exile in France.
My soviet history isn’t very good, so others feel free to correct me and call me a dumbass for making shit up. I’d say a significant number of revolutions didn’t include anyone with a title or office. The major figures that created the USSR were public employees at best in a place where noblemen still held vast amounts of land and wealth.
I think Mao was from the nobility and renounced his title, but maybe I’m wrong there. I know
Che’sCastro family owned a plantation.Edit: brainfart
Che’s family was Argentinian, you are thinking of Fidel. Mao was from a minor landlord family.
However none of these figures had any connections to people in political power. Being born rich is less important in this sense than being a social climber who is friends with some politicians. Fidel for instance had long since alienated all his former ties
Fixed. I knew that sentence didn’t look right lmao
lmao classic lib move, pull something straight outta your ass and then expect a detailed response to your baseless argument
I’m sure the Bolsheviks asked a lot of politicians for permission before occupying all strategic points in one night right?
As evidently in your other comment, your “in power” there meant “in the government”:
All revolutions
well stalin robbed the state bank of Georgia … and he was imprisoned 8 times … do you mean that connection to the state ?
No buddy that is how that works. You’re the one who made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Or did you mean “not how that works” in that people don’t get to push back on the obvious bullshit you’ve uncritically ingested from the front page of statedeptalkingpoints.com? go back to your echo chamber on