While I have spent far less time on the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, their path was similar to the French. Later, Castro and Che followed the inequality = change = "only I can accomplish what we need" dictator model established by leftist revolutionaries throughout history. Kevin Williamson has an article on just this subject in National Review.
That is why I look at the current rhetoric from the left with a jaundiced eye. The
The problem comes when we try to define "need". Who gets to decide? If we went all French Revolution extreme and guillotined the economic "nobles" in the National Mall we might eliminate the One Percenters only to elevate another crop of heads to be harvested as the new One Percent. As long as someone has more than you or me, they are the economic enemy. Where does it stop?
In Revolutionary France that meant you resorted to wearing the filthy rags as the poorest street dweller so as not too appear unequal. In Soviet Russia the newly politically powerful (not all pigs are equal) just covered their hypocrisy by building their Dachas out of town and creating special stores for the elites where there was no need to stand in line for bread and toilet paper with the now "equal" masses. You know, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as The Who so aptly described things.
So for those Lefty types touting their enthusiasm for equality and anti-wealth positions I suggest you at least adopt the policies of the original egalitarians, the Levelers. Practice what you preach. Renounce your Government salary. If the median wage in this country is $50,000 annually, you should refuse any income beyond that. There is no earthly reason why a politician should earn three times the average Joe. After all, HE is paying your salary.
Instead, just like most leftists when it comes to money, it is all about someone else's bank account.