This is one of those weird cold war american things that has not aged very well. Why would a philosopher be a good source for this instead of an anthropologist, an economist, a statistician, or a student of comparative revolutions? Is that really how it should go down?
You put your philosopher making unprovable assertions against theirs and just say "well it's true I don't know very much about the redshirts and redeemers or the guatemalan civil war as such, but I do have the eternal wisdom of the philosophers."
You can in fact, read the work of a variety of scholars on the comparative study of revolutionary movements in a variety of languages and ideological bents. And what we can see is that anyone that says "it always" while being unable to even identify the majority of countries on a globe is speaking in bad faith, or else genuinely has never given their own thoughts the most cursory and basic inspection.
Everyone has the right to their own metaphysics, but it's not clear what you expect speaking ex cathedra to accomplish.
> Why would a philosopher be a good source for this instead of an anthropologist, an economist, a statistician, or a student of comparative revolutions?
(Not commenting on the actual claim above you.) Philosophers often make popular sources for supporting evidence because you can find a philosopher that supports most any position. Your question is exactly the one that should be asked as there are usually more objective sources.
You put your philosopher making unprovable assertions against theirs and just say "well it's true I don't know very much about the redshirts and redeemers or the guatemalan civil war as such, but I do have the eternal wisdom of the philosophers."
You can in fact, read the work of a variety of scholars on the comparative study of revolutionary movements in a variety of languages and ideological bents. And what we can see is that anyone that says "it always" while being unable to even identify the majority of countries on a globe is speaking in bad faith, or else genuinely has never given their own thoughts the most cursory and basic inspection.
Everyone has the right to their own metaphysics, but it's not clear what you expect speaking ex cathedra to accomplish.