“Anger can lead to violence” is a non-argument. It means nothing. It’s the illusion of a substantive statement that flattens out the specific historical context of the examples used to back it up. It’s the cheesy fortune cookie wisdom that Yoda gives in Star Wars “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.” It has all the depth of pseudo-profound dialogue in sci-fi movie for children,

Your whole style is shotgun argumentation, and if I don’t “answer all your points” then I’m “dodging.” So I’ll speak to one absurd point you made.

You mentioned the Bolsheviks and the Kerensky Government. The Russian people wanted peace, land and bread. The Bolsheviks offered the people peace, land and bread. By contrast Kerensky sent poorly equipped shoeless peasants into the meat grinder instead of seeking a diplomatic solution, i.e. the one that the Bolsheviks ultimately achieved: a separate peace without annexations or indemnities.

Kerensky could have avoided the October Revolution if he were smart. He could have met the people’s demands, and then the Bolsheviks wouldn’t have a bunch of pissed off, starving people ripe for mobilization. You wanna talk about violence and anger? What about the 65,000 who died in the Kerensky offensive? Do you think Kerensky wasn’t above brutal violence? He would have been happy if Kornilov had merely massacred the Petrograd Soviet instead of attempting a coup.

Very little of this is actually applicable to our present situation, but if there’s a lesson to be learned heree, it’s this: Meet the basic needs of people and there won’t be revolution.

If you want a revolution, then keep on pursuing incremental change while people are suffering. Keep putting band-aids on gaping wounds until the anger reaches its boiling point.