1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
I looked at a list of the people who took over immediately after the French revolution, and it looks very much like a bunch of aristocrats used a mob to take over.
It certainly wasn't handed over to the likes of you and me.
You can see this being emulated right now by people like Trump. "The people won't stand for it", "there'll be civil war", etc. If Jan 6th was more than a rabble of trailer trash dumbfucks, they might even have been talking about it the same way by now...
it looks very much like a bunch of aristocrats used a mob to take over.
Not unusual for educated professionals to form the intellectual and financial backbone of a revolution, because... they are the ones with money and education.
But there was an enormous gulf between the mid level bureaucrats of the French Revolution and the senior aristocrats they deposed. That is, in large part, because the French aristocracy was married into all the other European royal families, while the insurrectionists were not.
If some junior office workers at Exxon executed the board and the C-level staff with the help of the blue collar roughnecks, that would be an enormous change in the governance of the company. Imagine how Wall Street would respond. Not unlike how France's neighbors responded to their revolution, I'm sure.
Oh they'd respond exactly the same.
it looks very much like a bunch of aristocrats used a mob to take over.
Mostly bourgeois actually, aristocrats were very much profiting of the system. Bourgeois are the ones who had enough money to get education and rethink the political system to end the aristocrats' birth privileges. How would an illiterate peasant be able to rethink the political system beyond tax reduction?
Bourgeois inspired by the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau.
And Diderot and Montesquieu.
Literally why I think killing someone's family in movies is dumb. You Literally left that dude with nothing but hate. Kind of annoying trope that people get broken instead of full vengeance mode. Very rare you see a character like in Foundation that goes "do it and lose your leverage".
One of the most salient things I think I hace ever learned is that the US revolution against British rule was instigated by less than 1000 people of a population of over 2.5 million people, and it didn't have the support of more than 45% of the population at any point in the war. (https://www.nps.gov/teachers/classrooms/loyalists-in-american-revolution.htm)
Most people did not want the inconvenience then and proportionally 0 of them had any say in it starting.
I’m willing, now let’s do it.
Yeah. Once a couple people raise their hands, more will follow.
From what I've learned revolutions are often accompanied by circumstances where people are desperate due to lack of basic necessities, especially food.
The French revolution was preceded by a serious food shortage. Remember that "let them eat cake" comment? One of the key events, the Women's March which displaced the king and queen from Versailles, was specifically motivated by demands for food.
The European People's Spring saw lots of revolutions across Europe in 1848-1849 including in France, Italy, Bavaria, Austria, Hungary. That was about the same time as a continent-wide grain shortage on top of an economic crisis.
The Russian revolution of 1917 came at a time when a combination of WW1, bad leadership, and an extra cold winter led to food shortages, and fuel shortages so people were starving and freezing at the same time.
For the Russian revolution you've also got that whole World War 1 thing where the rulers were expecting the freezing starving people to repeatedly bayonet charge machine gun positions with zeal and elan for years on end.
I think there was crazy inflation in some countries during the Arab Spring, too. Which also makes it hard to get food.
And this is why we will not beat climate change. That would mean giving up a LOT. People don't want it, so politicians won't campaign on it and thus we are doomed.
This is a fundamental belief of most conservatives I know. "If I don't do it, everyone else will and I'll be the loser who didn't."
Most people I know are doing something to help. Maybe not radically changing their lives but they seem to be doing their best.
I don't see these people that are not willing to change anything. Maybe I'm not in the right country?
If you wish to eat the rich, you must be willing to risk dying to do so. Until then, you are just whinging and the rich know it.
On The Nature Of Mass Movementa, by (I think) Eric Hoffer. One of the things he claims is that mass movements are generally made up of the dispossessed and dissatisfied who want better conditions but are not quite suffering enough that their entire focus is on acquiring food. People have to feel as if they could improve their circumstances by revolting, but not be actively starving.
The problem is: what does it mean to do that? Right now, we don't have an organized revolution or movement. There needs to be a specific call to action. If you want people to "give up the comforts" of their lives, they need to know what doing that will accomplish, what the specific goal of the movement is, and how "giving up the comforts" will help to achieve it.
What you might actually be asking is for people to risk their jobs by going on general strike, their homes by not paying rent, etc. This is really more than "the comforts of their lives", it is their ability to survive and feed their families.
The other problem is, any cause that only requires people to "give up the comforts of their lives" likely won't be highly impactful. For instance, general strike and protest might help the climate crisis, but giving up plastic straws and driving less or whatever really won't make much of a dent compared to the massive impacts of global capitalism.
We don't need to give up comforts, we need governments to stop multi-billionairs from hording wealth and driving the economy stale
We do need to give up comforts in that we'll face jail time, we'll lose our current housing, we'll have to greatly decrease our standard of living, etc... if we're to truly bring the revolution the comic is alluding to it's going to hurt a lot.
As another comment put it "we're just whinging" and those in power know it.
I don't like it any more than the next good person, but all throughout history the only thing that brings true change is bloodshed. "We" as workers/non-owners have literally never in history had necessary changes happen that take money/power from the owning class without bloodshed.
THEY make it so. When you remove the power from the ballot box the ammo box is the only place left to go.
They had a wealthy enclave of British aristocracy who realized they had enough money to militarily fight the British on land, and eventually the crown would get tired of bleeding, and cut and run. Then they would be the only and direct masters of the colonies.
“Two things only the people anxiously desire — bread and circuses.”
You sonofabitch I want a revolution to IMPROVE my situation, not to make it worse
raises hand
They were just drunk with promises from Washington to be able to get more booze.
The government in 1700 didn't have as strong of a grasp on the military as it does now. And the police kind of didn't exist in this time. The biggest inventions of the 20th century are mass surveillance, repression, and propaganda. An armed force being able to go from one side of the country to the other in a few hours is also a strength for government stability.
"Are you, Mr. Speaker Guy?"
