• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    The point you’re trying to make is true, but your example doesn’t support it. By the time of the French Revolution, rich private citizens were already wealthier than the aristocracy, and those guys got even richer during the revolution after having bought former church or emigre land for pennies on the dollar. The French Revolution was a disaster on the wealth redistribution/“eat the rich” front.

    • shutz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Practice makes perfect! If you don’t succeed, try, try again!

    • FackCurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah… They didn’t kill the king because he was rich. They killed him because he was believed to be a traitor to the nation and to the revolution.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        And because they just didn’t like him. Murder as a method of social transformation (basically ideology eugenics) was one of the constants of radical leftwing politics during the French Revolution, so killing was just the “natural” way of getting rid of a monarch you don’t want in your republic. That’s where the whole “no man can reign innocently” thing comes from; the pro-execution wing (aka the Mountain) tended to think of Louis XVI as categorically deserving of death, with what he actually did being mostly secondary. I mean, these are the guys who would run France during the Reign of Terror.