Sad that you want a return to the Reign of Terror.

Why do people assume revolutionary action must be violent? Emmeline Pankhurst will want to have words with them.

Have you seen people?

> You really need to read up on your history.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47888542

The suffragette movement was hardly a revolution in the traditional sense.

Dont defend accepting corruption, thats so lame

But, being more respectful to you and who i orignally replied to — yes actual revolution could/would be brutal and could/would create a much worse daily life for the non-elites.

Still, as I bet you could agree when not aguing semantics, its inexusable for people to declare we should accept corruption

> yes actual revolution would be brutal, and could/would create a much worse daily life for the non-elites.

50% of revolutions in the past 200 years have been non-violent, and the non-violent ones have a much higher success rate. Even for violent revolutions, most aren't brutal. When there is brutality, it's usually because the pre-existing conditions were already brutal.

That comes with the caveat that most revolutions happen against failed states. Those pretty much don't get the chance to be violent.

I appreciate that info

Yes we should just calmly ignore private insurance death panels, propped up by politicians, killing treatable people at scale rather than put the fear in a few thousand rich people physics didn't see fit to spare from eventual biological death anyway (since they love to trot out that argument).

To say nothing of the processed food and automobile industries.

You really need to read up on your history.

What's your alternative? The present situation is intollerable and even a bad solution is better than no solution.

The present situation is very tolerable, actually.

Return? We never had a reign of terror. There have been hundreds of peaceful revolutions.

Cowards like you would have a us a British colony to this day