Replies

Please, revolutions, particularly violent upheaval ones are the results of the MASSES not the pretty boys rising up.

Nope. They're usually the result of bored angst-filled pretty boys managing to convince the masses to follow.

Ho, Fidel, Che, Carlos, Osama, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx were all relatively middle class or above. Off the top of my head I can't think of any revolution led by poor boys.

Even our's. Even Toussaint L’Ouverture was a house slave rather than a free one.

THere is a difference between leading and fighting... The WU and their ilk wackos actually thought they were going to be the Army.

Its amusing. As to our revolution, most of the poeple leading and doing the fighting were not pretty boys.

The 60s activists were bay and large ignorant dupes of communist plants... trying to stir up upheaval in the US to undermine it. Unfortunately for their case, the american middle class worker lives a pretty good life... so they could find no buyers willing to rally to there cause other than frankly idiotic students.

THe Socialists and COmmunists were much more of a real threat to this nation in terms of political change during the great depression than the 60s. The only difference in the 60s is the TV networks and news media went gaga over these twits.

However in numbers it was the 30s where Communism and Socialism was at its peak in american politics, not the 60s.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any revolution led by poor boys.

Zapata and Villa come pretty close; so does Nicaragua's Sandino or Aguinaldo in the Phillipines of the early XX Century. Cuba's Castro was an attorney and El Che Guevera a physician, so poor examples, but Ho Chi Minh could be considered either a professional student, usually a fairly impoverished class, or a professional revolutionary.