[bryanrasmussen]

>Approach #1 is much safer. Yet, here we are.

I do not believe Approach #1 has ever been attempted without quite a bit of blood leading up to its attempt, and I think it has only been attempted a few times even so, approach #2 - oppression, with resulting bloodiness - seems to be the norm.

[bhjfjkfgj]

I believe making corporations actually pay high taxes is an example of this. IIRC that did occur in the 50's and 60's in America.....

[sireat]

One could argue that Solon the Lawgiver did #1 2600 years ago - abolishing debt slavery, supposedly abolishing most debts, freeing some public lands, coming up with council of Four Hundred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon

Of course Oligarchs still took power afterwards from time to time - The Eupatridae (Aristocratic Families), then tyranny by Peisistratos.

[ozim]

1989 Poland government change from Communist regime to Democratic government.

https://www.nybooks.com/online/2009/12/09/1989-poland-was-fi...

[bryanrasmussen]

Regime change when an occupying power leaves is a different scenario from changing underlying power structure of society where the controlling powers are in the society.

One reason for that is that when an occupying power leaves regime change must happen.

[ozim]

After soviets left there was high risk of basically civil war.

That happened for example in Romania in 1989, somehow it did not happen in Poland.

[Fluorescence]

I don't think the Romanian Revolution counts as a civil war. Over the space of a week or so, it was: protests/riots, violent crackdown leading to military defection/coup.

Look at Syria for how a similar pattern of events did lead to civil war. Ceaușescu just didn't represent a section of the country with an interest in fighting for his regime. The risk of instability when an authoritarian passes is if they have been holding together a country with significant ethnic/sectarian/political divisions like Yugoslavia.