[kkarakk]

i think it holds true that violent uprisings are "allowed" to happen by elites.

they may mutate out of control once they happen and change targets but it takes a LOT of "people in power" looking the other way/tacitly supporting them to happen in the first place.

[tsimionescu]

I think that does vary a little bit. There are some where it is very much like this, others that are more spontaneous. And it is almost always the case that at the very least neighboruing elites have to look the other way, as otherwise they can usually easily quash revolts.

And of course a lot of violent takeovers are 100% directly done by the elites, such as military coups or outside conquests.

[exe34]

Which elites would you say looked the other way during the French Revolution?

[mcmoor]

I heard that ones who raise to the top of French Republic is certainly not the poorest, more like middle class at most. They are not elites though, but the quote I've heard is that revolutions are middle and upper classes exchanging so it still fits.

[tsimionescu]

At the very least, France's neighboring kingdoms decided to let this play out.

[exe34]

This whole concept of elites giving their permission for revolutions just keeps getting vaguer and broader. It seems to explain any and everything. It's starting to sound like string theory.