Brilliant, I suppose that’s why famines are so often accompanied by redistribution of wealth, once the rich have been killed so the poor can eat. Inequality plummets after famines, what with all of those dead elites. /s
Here’s Wikipedia on the Irish potato famine:
The period of the potato blight in Ireland from 1845 to 1851 was full of political confrontation.[84] A more radical Young Ireland group seceded from the Repeal movement in July 1846, and attempted an armed rebellion in 1848. It was unsuccessful.
Peasant uprisings almost always (or just always???) end in failure, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Furthermore, the strata most likely to experience anything resembling actual starvation was the peasantry, which was largely indifferent to the prospect of revolution, and would end up as a primary support base for the counterrevolutionaries in the years to come.
What? No. The Russian peasantry was having the time of their lives during WWI (well, the ones not conscripted into the war anyway). It’s a long story, but because of inflation, strained supply chains and government failures meant that while the food was there, it just wasn’t getting to the cities. Also do note that the Russian peasantry, while not as revolutionary as the urban proletariat, were absolutely not indifferent to the prospect of revolution. These were the people breaking into, ransacking and burning down their local nobles’ manors. They were also electing these guys.
Insofar as they caused economic distress by increasing food prices. Insofar as actual starvation is concerned, no.
Those are literally the same thing. Economic distress is just an expression of the human desire not to starve.
There’s a reason why the Communist Manifesto, itself written during the Revolutions of 48, mentions the lack of revolutionary potential of the peasantry, who would’ve been the most food insecure of the classes.
I don’t see why peasants would be any more affected by lack of food than the urban proletariat, but that could be just my ignorance. Also Marx’s reasons for making that conclusion were based on peasants’ relationship with private property and religion, and not about how they’re somehow more at leace with rhe prospect of starving to death.
Here’s Wikipedia on the Irish potato famine:
Peasant uprisings almost always (or just always???) end in failure, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
What? No. The Russian peasantry was having the time of their lives during WWI (well, the ones not conscripted into the war anyway). It’s a long story, but because of inflation, strained supply chains and government failures meant that while the food was there, it just wasn’t getting to the cities. Also do note that the Russian peasantry, while not as revolutionary as the urban proletariat, were absolutely not indifferent to the prospect of revolution. These were the people breaking into, ransacking and burning down their local nobles’ manors. They were also electing these guys.
Those are literally the same thing. Economic distress is just an expression of the human desire not to starve.
I don’t see why peasants would be any more affected by lack of food than the urban proletariat, but that could be just my ignorance. Also Marx’s reasons for making that conclusion were based on peasants’ relationship with private property and religion, and not about how they’re somehow more at leace with rhe prospect of starving to death.