Because historically the revolutionary forces (the one toppling the bourgeoisie) are extremely shitty governors (just continuing mass murdering & plundering which kinda makes sense if you think how & what they have been through).

Historically this is false 👍

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

No, I meant the immediate people involved in the revolution, those often don't fair well & don't last long (eg people in a party, not necessarily main headline names). Iirc Russia changed almost everyone in charge in the 20s & 30s to a more stable structure afterwards.

In such system changes the country often goes through another (lesser) system revolution a few years after the first one (when the focus is to just keep shit running) & it's better that people involved change at that point too.

Like what happened with Robespierre (~Jacobins), the early two or three years under Lenin, and I think Slovakia or Poland when they transitionv away from communism they forbid running for office to anyone that held any official power under the previous regime (the same people that formally facilitated the end of communism since it as that kind of revolution).

What you showed is what happened after after that, so the point of revolution. And I couldn't agree more with that. My point was not in that. It's that you need admins and regular politicians to run any system smoothly, and the few 1000s of people revolutioning arent usually the best at tirelessly debating a monetary policy or what road laws to use.

(Oh, the "plundering" part - yes, perhaps the wrong word to use, I meant that fairly literally, irl taking things, not doing it in an organised legal manner which is how "the 1% gets to exist" – and you can se that clearly in the Russia chart too, 90s capitalism was the framework for that, so "paper" not raiding rich houses)