Does the common citizen actually care about the political system

>>1580251
Honest answer, not really. Average people are completely utilitarian, most people would prefer having a full belly and living in a safe home over political freedoms and all those other spooks.

When it doesn't appear to be working, yes.

Contrary to popular belief, the French Revolution didn't go down because a bunch of pretentious cloistered academics wrote a bunch of letters to each other until the common folk felt inspired to put their ideas into action. France's economy had been mangled by a war with England, and much more crucially, the cost of food in Paris was through the roof.

I think most people do care about the political process, but are discouraged by the fact the media's so obscurantist that no one ever knows what's going on

But I guess at the end of the day, it's the individual's responsibility to find out the news

>>1580283
The French revolution should really be called Parisian revolution.

>>1580317
Then why did the rest of the country follow?

And should the rise of Napoopan some years later be considered a failure of republicanism and the masses' preference for strong leaders?

>>1580251
No, never will. Proof: The common citizen lived for long period under any political system imaginable.

Everyone is lumpenproletariat, Marx had pink glasses.

>>1580325
The rest of the country didn't give a flying fuck for the most parts until they went to war with the European monarchies. Fun fact, like a few months into the revolution in Paris most of the peasants in the countryside didn't even know it's happening.

>>1580327
Marx said that things would get worse before there was a revolution. How is any of this contradictory?

>>1580251
He only cares about how and when will someone provide for his needs. We all do.

>>1580337

>July 14th, 1789.
>"Nothing."
>t. Louis XVI

File: Diogenes_looking_for_a_man_-_attributed_to_JHW_Tischbein.jpg (31KB, 632x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 632x480px

>>1580311
>I think most people do care about the political process,

You are projecting. Go out on the street, you won't won't find a single good person. You can't care about society as a whole without caring about the people around you first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiS5_oGHzKI

I would say people care about politics, and about other people less than they ever cared before in history. The only "politics" people care for are gibmedats.

>>1580325
>And should the rise of Napoopan some years later be considered a failure of republicanism and the masses' preference for strong leaders?

My personal view is that people want order, and then liberty, in that order. Much as we romanticize the struggle against totalitarianism and oppression in general, when we're stripped of all the 'repressive' trappings of society we covet safety much more than freedom. The republic was in a fairly horrible spot when Napoopan made his big play, and the stability and order that seemed to follow him made him popular.

tl;dr Hobbes wasn't totally right, but he was right about a lot of things.

>>1580251

Depends on what they own. Homeowners/property owners have a direct, real interest in how their local province/district/etc are run as they literally own a chunk of it. Same is true (though less so) for car owners and gun owners. But for the most part, as long as people are left alone but are given enough of a safety net (emergency services, medicare, social security) then they mostly don't care.

>>1580377

freedom and security are not mutually exclusive, this is a major mistake many people make. What most want is freedom in security; or rather they want to live in a safe society where they don't have to worry about daily survival and can focus on being free.

>>1580251
>common citizen
implying you're not one of the 99%

>>1580251
>50% of citizens are women
Im gonna say no

>>1580325
Most of the country didn't. Many peasants rose up in royalist uprisings.

>>1580325
>failure of republicanism

Who cares when meritocracy won?