> The shame is that this underclass does not really see how he is harming them and how his politics benefit their old enemies, the economic elite that’s turning into oligarchs.

I'd bet you that at least some are aware and just don't care. You crap on people long enough and they'll want to burn it all down out of spite. I suspect the eventual endgame here might be class warfare. Keep an eye out for more of these oligarch bunkers that are popping up.

> And (even though I don't support him in any way), would say the election of Trump is in part due to the constant wins of the white collar work force.

Definitely. He tapped the anger and resentment of an underclass. The shame is that this underclass does not really see how he is harming them and how his politics benefit their old ennemies, the economic elite that’s turning into oligarchs.

> Most of the examples you gave of revolutions led to greater democracy and greater socialism, which benefits the blue collar, but ironically, in this case, the blue collar elected a autocratic conservative.

True. But examples of this also abound pre- or during WWII, from all the fascist regimes in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, and copycats such as Vichy.

Upheaval and chaos can lead to either progress or ruin.

It does not help when part of the military sides with the revolution. Which happened to some extent in just about all of them. It’s never just normal people against the army. Soldiers also have families suffering just like the others. They also see what happens to them when they leave the military and become part of the underclass again. There is a spectrum between not following orders efficiently to just ignoring orders and then open mutiny.

Maybe. But a modern revolution also doesn’t need physical violence.

People in power only have power in so far as others believe and enforce it. The emperor has no clothes.

The gear generally requires an industrial base to keep it functioning. Given what was in SmarterEverDay's recent video about a barbecue cleaner, where so much of it ended up being imported despite their efforts (including chain mail!), I think in the event of another actual civil war, the USA would struggle to self-maintain any weapons more advanced than what you had in what is now "the" Civil War, and would be dependent on the whims of whichever foreign power wanted to support whichever sub-group.

If they want to try their hand and unleash the first American genocide in history, that may be the cost for people to wake up. too many cameras and live uploading about to bury hundreds, maybe thousands of citizens being shot down in cold blood.

The goalposts somewhat shifted, here. The original point was

> It surprises me that the monied elite seem to have so little awareness of what happens when they keep winning.

What happened is that the Russian elite ended up dead or penniless in exile. What happened after that is not really relevant to the lot of the blind elite of the ancien régime.

> just took land and gave it to the new nobelity (the state).

This is unsubstantiated by historical evidence. No new class of "hereditary bureaucrats" emerged to replace the nobility; there was remarkably high movement between workers and officials, and even up to the very end of the Soviet Union, high officials were former day workers who had worked their way up the ranks.

The period after the initial French Revolutions includes a period with an Emperor Napoleon and also a period where King Charles is restored to power.

It's like a century of struggle before that whole situation resolved.

Nicolae Ceaușescu comes to mind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#Death

EDIT: One could argue whether the United Healthcare CEO assassination meets the criteria, too.

They're the ones trying to bring back feudalism. If they want feudalism, things are going to get... well feudal. The lesson I've learned in the past decade is that people have not changed, at all. People will act as medieval as their circumstances allow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Derg_era_(1974%E2%80%... comes to mind.

So, even if you weren't factually incorrect as well as smug, what's your actual point?

Sure but there is some sort of grayscale.

Basically: assholes ruin things for everyone.

The high (moral) road doesn't preclude self-defence, it precludes sadism and zero-sum thinking.

Norway s sovereign fund seems like one instance.

Well weapons wouldn't have helped them either.

Switzerland.

Life isn't a sci-fi movie.

Yes. Things you mentioned are unrelated to how he made his money.

It depends how you define "exploit". How is Jensen Huang "exploiting" others? He started a GPU company, hires a lot of people, pays some of them very well, pays others not that well. I don't think you can say he is "exploiting" them though. He made lives of hundreds of thousands of people much better. If anything I think he should be celebrated and I am very happy he is a billionaire.

How is Roger Federer exploiting others? He played a competitive game, won a lot of tournaments, accepted a lot of sponsorship money. He is now a billionaire. Did he need to give up ethics and morals to get there? What kind of blame is that really?