To make an omelet, you have to break eggs
Where does the phrase, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs", originate?
Some have attributed it to Robespierre, others to Napolean.
In French it reads, "On ne fuit pas d'omelette sans casser des oeufs".
It has also been attributed to Lenin, but the Russian version "Iyes rubyat, shchepki letyat" translates as, "To chop down a forest splinters will fly".
So just where does this phrase come from? Google I'm afraid wasn't a great deal of help.
There's no problem that can't be ignored if we really put our minds to it. (From an Internet forum)
I have no idea if Lenin ever said: "To make an omelet, you have to break eggs". If (POTUS №40) Ronald Reagan says he said it, maybe he didn't. But let's assume he did. Lenin famously did like cats, so he can't be all good, can he?
Let's also look at a minor variant of the cliche: A ham and cheese omelet. And let's look at both omelets from some different perspectives (cf.: Duck-rabbit, right).
First, and this applies to both flavor variants of omelets: The chicken's perspective. The chicken has a lifetime appointment, so long as she can produce eggs (like United States of America Supreme Court Justice Amy
Commie Coney Barrett?). The omelet eater is well advised to feed his or her or other's chickens well, and, if he or she or other is in it for the long run, to see that each chicken has a good rooster, too. This sounds to me like a pretty good deal for a chicken. Chickens should survive the Communist Revolution, yes? Per Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, rabbits were safe in The Gulag, because
bullets were too valuable to be wasted on rabbits.
Now, let me turn to that ham and cheese omelet. Cows make out good here, too, since they only have to contribute their milk ("That's no sweat off my --do udders have sweat glands?", says Elsie). The problematic case is the ham, i.e.: the hog, who does not just make a contribution, but contributes his whole self → on the meat packing factory carcass disassembly line. Making ham and cheese omelets is bad news for pigs. It is, obviously, bad news for eggs, too (but do eggs know what's happening to them, especially if they are not fertilized? Again, maybe ask ACB?).
Yes, the problem is definitely the eggs, which, reversing the mataphor to reality, are "the people". But do not the people get broken by the conservatives when not by the revolutionaries? If the skeeters don\'t get them then the gators will, I don't want to be a broken egg. And in real life Humpety Dumpety does not fall off the wall because The Secret Service props him up. If eggs really did have feelings, then we'd just have to stop eating eggs. Translate: The Party should stop eating workers, be it the U.S.A. Reaganomic Deregulationist so-called Republican Party or the U.S.S.R. Stalinist so-called Communist Party or whatever Party. All parties should be fun. (Duh!)
The moral of this story: Be a chicken or a cow (or a rooster or a bull), not a boar (a sow may at least get a gig making piglets). If you are a chicken in The Soviet Union, might the worst that could happen to you be that you wind up in the Experimental Design Bureau, commonly known as a sharashka (in the Gulag)? Wouldn't you rather be designing TU-95's or Mig-21's than any other available lifestyle choice?
As for forced labor camps, "Did I hear you say: 'wage-$laves', Ronnie (or are you Nancy? I apologize; I can't see or hear very well...."). Did you know that in order to make big profits off cheap mass market meat, you have to subject animal carcass disassembly line workers to lifelong speedup repetitive toil that chronically risks severing their arms, (PO/FLOTUS №45) Ronnie and Nancy?