If your argument is basically assuming "[these people] managed the situation so stupidly they triggered a social collapse" then it is an excellent strategy to try doing things differently. The aim should be to make things better, not worse with different people in charge.
So do the poor not have any resources, or do they have sufficient resources to bully the rich? Because if they have enough resources to cause other people problems they should maybe consider trying to use those resources to better themselves instead.
They don't have much, but they have more than enough to get much better results if they behaved in a sensible and organised fashion. If nothing else, a lot of poor people live in democracies and have the numbers to ram policy through if they have enough neurons to separate good ideas from bad [0]. I suppose it depends on what you want to call poor, but if they've got the numbers, time and energy to wreck things then they've certainly got the numbers to effect positive change.
I'd agree most people probably aren't up to the challenge; but searching for a better way is a much better strategy than being all "we're going for a replay of la Terreur!".
[0] The political process is pretty devastating evidence that they don't, it appears the best effort in a well educated place like the US was either Trump or the US Democrats. Hard to tell which attempt is more pathetic. Most voters have nearly no idea abut complex issues like creating prosperity.
The US political system works like the ruling classes want it to work, no more and no less. The poor are simply performing some choreography.