That&#x27;s a terrible argument. If you&#x27;re in a position of power over a hostile population you should preemptively destroy their capacity to harm you. There&#x27;s a reason the French revolution happened during an economic contraction after a long period of growth. Same deal in Russia with its revolution. The revolution is always lead by people who see themselves as being on the verge of losing something they had a tenuous grasp of.<p>People who are hungry and suffering don&#x27;t revolt. They starve. The ambitious gentry and clerisy who see themselves sliding down the social ladder attempt to revolt and are usually crushed. Anyone who is hungry and suffering is incapable of organising enough to be a threat to any military or paramilitary organisation.<p>Are there any successful slave revolts besides Haiti, ever?