But it's a distinctly lower-class way of doing things.
That's not a problem in itself, but then the upper-class "riders" of the lower-class sheep have a bit of a problem: How to control the herd once the shepherd's crook is broken?
The French Revolution, much beloved by all for its tranquility and peacefulness, had the occasional problem, to be sure. Nothing much, I guess.
The Russian Revolution had the same sort of problem. Lenin was sure his way was best and many of his followers agreed. Then, when all the capital that would ensure all the proletariat would be wealthy and fed ran out, he was forced to open some of the worst prison camps to raise revenue, he was forced to turn to class enemies to try to right the economy. And in the end it was Stalin and his corpse pile that saved the day. Of course, there was the famine, worsened in order to make sure that the power-base of politicians who lived in the cities--the proletariat--were fed. Let the farmers starve.
China. Vietnam. Cambodia. All the "let's have the uneducated and vulgar set up a well-functioning civilization" tended to produce a demagogue, right or left, that purged society principally of the vulgar and put the uneducated back in their places.
There are those who sincerely like to romanticize such revolutions. Very few end well. Most end very badly. But there's a certain kind of highly-educated ass who thinks that he's (or she's) so gifted as to be able to control such things. They're often shocked when they realize they're not omnipotent and omniscient, just narcissistic and plump with hubris.
= new reply since forum marked as read
