The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1].
The comment refers to an article specifically discussing only one aspect of a major historical event.
The French revolution is considered one of the most important events in the history of Europe, because of the great impact it had on the (among others) politics, economy and the quality of life of common people.
Downplaying its importance by trying to water its impact down to "but rich still rich, no?" is a sign, that the comment might have been made in bad faith or without proper understanding of the source material.
What the British did. Tale of Two Cities. Land and electoral reform.
One of them stayed geopolitically relevant for another century. One of them became Germany’s sock puppet.
By the same token, the normal populace was also way better off after the French Revolution, since using the money and wealth of the dead elites to improve everyone's lives made a substantial impact on the French civilization that they are still benefiting from today.
In other words...the French Revolution is exactly the wrong type of example you want to be using when talking about whether violence against tech elites is acceptable.
Ish. Most survived. And they didn’t have jets. Revolutions today are broadly accretive for elites.
All the jets in the world won't stop the violence once that bridge is crossed. Because the mob also has access to jets, and boats, and (at that point) an emotional reason to pursue their targets to the ends of the earth.
Ish. Most survived. And they didn’t have jets.
You have a very VC/tech-bro/Theranosesque definition of "most survived". More than 2/3rds of the French aristocracy was killed in the French Revolution. Even the low bound using just the official numbers puts almost half of the aristocrats having been executed or died in prison during the French Revolution.
Revolutions today are broadly accretive for elites.
They aren't, unless you're referring to the weapons dealers, warlords, or the complicit. Revolutions tend to have outsized impacts on reducing the wealth of elites. The only exceptions are where the elites were part of the security apparatus on the side that won the conflict and gained their wealth by murdering the people who had what they wanted. The inevitable result though is that when they lose that power, they tend to lose their lives (see e.g., Syria and South Africa).
I’ve never argued some upward mobility wasn’t permitted by the revolution. I’m just pushing back on the notion that elites should fear an American revolution. They don’t, because historically, they shouldn’t. Nine times out of ten they’ll consolidate power among themselves, which means more wealth flowing upwards. Nine times out of the rest of the time, they’ll escape with most of their money.
And for the average Frenchman, the revolutions were terrible. Some folks win. But they were seldom powerless before. Just wealthy. Compare that to the British case, where land and electoral reform permitted the emergence of a broad middle class, one that continued accruing power for another century.
Mostly by conquest. Not revolution, certainly not the popular kind.
