>bro, the king, like, he's good, god chose him, it's like, his corrupt ministers whispering in his ear who are the problem maaaaaaaaaan. let's fuck up his corrupt ministers and bring him our grievances directly. then he'll see that we're on his side and he'll totally purge his corrupt government and abolish serfdom and all these punitive taxes on the peasantry.
<finally gets to meet his precious king
<gets beheaded
false conciousness is a bitch, innit? you see a similar mindset with the russian peasantry leading up to bloody sunday, when they brought nicholas that petition, or even MAGA retards in the USA who think if you elect an "outsider" (billionaire) you can "fight corruption" and "run the government like a business"
Why do people see the Monarch as their dad? In ancient Chinese peasant revolts they would very often invoke the name of the Emperor, the loss of the mandate of heaven was the nuclear option.
>>2552419You would put down a revolt seeking to destroy your government all the same.
If a mob of lolbert protesters came and called to stop the commissars, demanded to stop centralism, and overall began assassinating and killing your deputies and ministers, etc.
>>2552475It was the symbolic order through which they understood the world as such
>>2552419This is fundamentally no different from people who think that "billionaires are destroying our democracy" and "the government is corrupt" and "we need to get a socialist in the government".
>>2552475>they would very often invoke the name of the Emperornot really. matter of fact, many of the schools of thought that were popular among common people denounced the figure of the emperor and even the idea of government and class society. the school of tillers and such
>>2552419>trying to understand discourse separated from the contextand you call yourself marxist? the reason why they said stuff like that is because in feudal societies the people often fought against the local warlord or authority rather than the king or central government. it was a way of saying "we don't want to escalate this to a national revolt, our problem is with the local guy and you don't need to intervene because we won't go outside this county or province"
Wat Tyler's Rebellion and Bloody Sunday – two instances of unlawful assembly.
They still had occasion to reckon with the King – because the King was a force to be reckoned with, he still had the monopoly on force, but they challenged this.
If the nobles had gathered their peers, however much they made a pretense of loving the King, and conspired against and to subject the King, they'd also be executed (if they didn't succeed overpowering the King, like King John and Magna Carta). As the case was for Simon de Montfort among the barons and nobility in revolting, the same struggle with Thomas Becket and the Church.
In the English Civil Wars, they also still tried to negotiate with King Charles I all the way while basically being at war with him.
Hobbes Leviathan on Unlawful Assembly
>Concourse of people, is an Irregular System, the lawfulness, or unlawfulness, whereof depends on the occasion, and on the number of them that are assembled. If the occasion be lawful, and manifest, the Concourse is lawful; as the usual meeting of men at Church, or at the public show, in usual numbers: for if the numbers be extraordinarily great, the occasion is not evident; and consequently he that cannot render a particular and good account of his being amongst them, is to be judged conscious of an unlawful, and tumultuous design. It may be lawful for a thousand men, to join in a Petition to be delivered to a Judge, or Magistrate; yet if a thousand men come to present it, it is a tumultuous Assembly; because there needs be one or two for that purpose. But in such cases as these, it is not a set number that makes the Assembly Unlawful, but such a number, as the present Officers are not able to suppress, and bring to Justice.
>When an unusual number of men, assemble against a man whom they accuse; the Assembly is an Unlawful tumult; because they may deliver their accusation to the Magistrate by a few, or by one man. Such was the case of St. Paul at Ephesus; where Demetrius, and a great number of other men, brought two of Pauls companions before the Magistrate, saying with one Voice, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians;" which was their way of demanding Justice against them for teaching the people such doctrine, as was against their Religion, and Trade. The occasion here, considering the Laws of that People, was just; yet was their Assembly Judged Unlawful, and the Magistrate reprehended them for it, in these words, (Acts 19. 40) "If Demetrius and the other work-men can accuse any man of any thing, there be Pleas, and Deputies, let them accuse one another. And if you have any other thing to demand, your case may be judged in an Assembly Lawfully called. For we are in danger to be accused for this day's sedition, because, there is no cause by which any man can render any reason of this Concourse of People." Where he calls an Assembly whereof men can give no just account a Sedition and such as they could not answer for. And this is all I shall say concerning Systems, and Assemblies of People, which may be compared (as I said) to the Similar parts of a mans Body; such as be Lawful, to the Muscles; such as are Unlawful, to Wens, Biles, and Apostemes, gendered by the unnatural conflux of evil humours.
>>2552419There is such a thing as a popular tyrant in history yes. In fact it occurs quite often.
The key to victory is when the very top and the bottom successfully align to crush the endlessly warring/scheming middles.
If one can admit that a strong central leader is needed, then the cult of personality can finally ascend to a cult of function and leadership can be held to account. But libbrained muhnomasters leftoids aren't ready for that conversation…
>>2552737For Marxists, if you want to buy into a popular tyrant, it should probably be one of your own (a openly professed communist).
>>2552671silence royaloid, back to your containment thread
>>2552687i'd say wat tyler, john ball, and jack straw were quite a bit better than succdems, actually, since they actually carried out an unfinished revolution and their main mistake was to only do revolutionary violence to the ministers and clergy and not to the royal house itself, which they superstitiously viewed as infallible and on their side. all the more tragic was the fact that they targeted but failed to kill john of gaunt, who was the progenitor of the house of tudors. so they almost wiped out the entire tudor line before they ever became English monarchs, as well.
>>2552705>and you call yourself marxist? the reason why they said stuff like that is because in feudal societies the people often fought against the local warlord or authority rather than the king or central government. it was a way of saying "we don't want to escalate this to a national revolt, our problem is with the local guy and you don't need to intervene because we won't go outside this county or province"Except they did totally escalate to a national scale and demanded to see the king directly and were basically purging everyone they could. Read
Summer of Blood by Dan Jones to understand the sheer scale of what happened, how ahead of their time they were, and how badly they dropped the ball. They weren't just taking out a local lord or two.
>>2552836>Except they did totally escalateand? you don't telegraph your punches. you say you won't escalate, hoping that they will believe it and maybe not immediately crush you with the national army. think for a second, baby brain, do you also think the bolsheviks were social democrats?
>>2552869>it was a way of saying "we don't want to escalate this to a national revolt,<they did escalate though >And? [strawman and moving the goalpost]yawn
>>2552873>they said X but did Y? how can this be!?baby brain
>>2552877you cannot read and are angry about nothing.