S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
Not necessarily a revolution. A redistribution of wealth, as I said. Sometimes it's done willingly to appease the people and prevent revolution. Sometimes it's a violent uprising. Sometimes it's something different or a mixture. But always, when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, the system will collapse or change.
I could direct you to a good book to read on this subject but I assume you're not interested.
Capitalism has legitimized wage slavery for too long and the right have gotten too bold and greedy about it. There's not even any pretense anymore. Their day will come.
And once again your thesis is insanely misguided.
Persian Empire fell due to HEAVY TAXATION, not income inequity
Macedonian Empire defeated by Rome, no revolt
Roman Empire - no large economically based revolutions
Qin and Han Dynasties - no large economically based revolutions
The list literally goes on and on.
All with huge income inequities.
So what data might ye be pulling from? The Socialists wish-list history book?
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.