revolting against the rich
But a guillotine is not a weapon of war. It's not even something that the powerless can use against the powerful. Quite the opposite, actually.
Which makes the guillotine is a terrible symbol for a revolution. Not only is the symbolism ahistorical, but the actual history directly contradicts the supposed symbolism. The modern people who invoke the guillotine as a symbol of revolution are making the exact same mistake that the French Revolutionaries made.
So why not use a symbol from a successful example? Why use a symbol from an example we should avoid repeating at almost any cost? I think it's because most people see the guillotine as a symbol for retribution against the ruling class.
Being stubborn about using the original meaning of things isn’t helpful, it’s ignorant of the current meaning.
OK. In this context, what does the guillotine symbolize if not the mass execution of political opponents?
If eating an apple fits the definition of violence, then it's a poor definition.
That's an interesting angle. I had thought the OP was talking about billionaires and oligarchs, a few thousand people tops. But you're talking about an entire political bloc consisting of tens of millions of people.
But as a symbol it current represents the working class revolting against the rich.
Only to those who are ignorant of its history. And you know what they say about people who are ignorant of history.
The problem that I'm getting at is that it works both ways, not that it never works.
The cycle will escalate until it is broken. How long it runs before it gets broken might be a useful part in defining "successful revolution": the successful ones break the cycle of violence as early as possible.
I would count killing and eating an animal as a non-violent, physically forceful act, all else being equal. I realize that puts me at odds with many vegetarians and vegans, but in the context of violence against other human beings I'm not sure what you're getting at.
No, that would be a most uncharitable interpretation of what I've been saying (and rather a loaded question.)
Not all acts of violence use physical force; not all uses of physical force are acts of violence.
I don't feel like you're putting in the same effort I am in having a sincere discussion.