Greta Tankberg countdown: countdown

Edit: 170 comments doggirl-gloom

  • TheDoctor [they/them]
    ·
    4 days ago

    there haven't been any successful revolutions without some connections to those in power

    Gonna need some examples of what you’re talking about here

    • EllenKelly [comrade/them]
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sankara was appointed Minister of Information in Saye Zerbo's military government in September 1981.

      After a coup (7 November 1982) brought to power Major-Doctor Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo, Sankara became Prime Minister in January 1983. But he was dismissed a few months later, on 17 May.

      A coup d'état organized by Blaise Compaoré made Sankara President on 4 August 1983 at the age of 33

      See? There are many examples!

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        4 days ago

        Also important to note that it was a revolution that was tossed out the window in like five years because the guy who organized the first revolution wanted a new one.

        • EllenKelly [comrade/them]
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeah I shouldnt take for granted that people know this, and the cia likely had a lot to do with it

    • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
      ·
      4 days ago

      That's now how that works. Please show me some examples of successful revolutions that had 0 ties to those in power.

      • enkifish [any]
        ·
        4 days ago

        Can't get more obvious than the Haitian revolution

      • Sleve_McDichael [he/him]
        ·
        4 days ago

        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

        • FortifiedAttack [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Examples wouldn't suffice since he's making a claim of non-existence. Proving the contrary is, however, very easy.

      • TheDoctor [they/them]
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

      • iByteABit [comrade/them]
        ·
        4 days ago

        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?

      • Belly_Beanis [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        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.

        Edit: brainfart

        • newacctidk [none/use name]
          ·
          4 days ago

          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

      • m532 [she/her]
        ·
        4 days ago

        As evidently in your other comment, your "in power" there meant "in the government":

        All revolutions

      • REgon [they/them]
        ·
        4 days ago

        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 reddit-logo