6 ms·

Ask HN: How likely is a US revolution?

Many countries have undergone revolutions or schisms in the past century: Arab Spring countries, Soviet Union, Cuba, China/Taiwan, Korea, Yemen, etc. Recently there have been major catalysis for social unrest, including: increasing economic inequality, novel technological shifts (automation, social media disinformation and censorship), and climate change affecting industries and migration. What are your thoughts on the likelihood that the US will experience a massive upheaval and what precautions can be taken?

badRNG 6y ago
Democracies have a built-in pressure valve to allow unrest to disperse, that is voting. Instead of feeling the need to resort to violence to have political agency, people vote. Dislike growing inequality? You probably voted for Sanders. Want a return to the pre-Trump days? You likely voted for Biden. Dislike the quarantine measures? There are lawmakers who represent your perspective. Once a critical mass of disaffected people is reached, they wind up having their candidates win elections, which subsequently disperses that pressure. While the most passionate people are still wearing campaign badges for their favorite representative, the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable.
- byoung2 6y ago
  the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable A successful revolution maybe, but an attempt, possible and even probable.
  - badRNG 6y ago
    The condition I placed on that is while people wear campaign buttons. The US has major elections every two years, that's almost certainly not enough time for a critical mass of disenfranchised voters to start something like that. They key word being voters. This is contingent on people having ongoing faith in the electoral process. People will tell you they don't trust electoralism, but they still vote and campaign for Trump or Bernie or whoever they trust to represent their interests. Trump and Bernie seem to be a part of this paradigm shift to politicians who serve as a sort of brand that people identify with. When people's whole political identity is wrapped around the "brand" of a public official, it certainly seems less likely now than ever that a "revolution" would occur. The conditions that would give rise to a revolution would likely see more across the board distrust of the democratic process fundamentally. Election interference might have some effect, but I'm extremely skeptical that a revolution will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
- cmurf 6y ago
  Voting is the mechanism for blame. It's why so few Americans vote. Non-voters are blamed less than those who do. They're not even ridiculed. That makes it increasingly voluntarily not a democracy. Central to democracies is the losers accept the loss if an election. I mean the reality of it, they can still be mad. But if the losers claim delusional conspiracies, and reject the reality of the loss, they can completely dismember democracy through civil disobedience.
- blackrock 6y ago
  It appears that the voting process has failed. The electoral college was supposed to prevent someone like Trump from getting elected, but even that failed to do its job. After the Civil War, Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. And the prevalence of social media, has not helped the cause. Instead, it appears to be the spark that is lighting the fire, leading to a pile of dynamite. At this point, the country is just too large, and too diverse. The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. Maybe it’s time to consider, that they should go their own way. The problem is the nukes. What should we do about the nukes?
  - asguy 6y ago
    > The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. I think "the Deep South" is a red herring: drive one county inland, and you're likely to see a drastic change. Even in California.
  - captainredbeard 6y ago
    > Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. What would you suggest, a pogrom? The Union devastated the South, going well beyond battle related damage. Hooker destroyed vital infrastructure and brutalized the people. To suggest further destruction and persecution is inhumane and barbaric.
    - blackrock 6y ago
      No, nobody is suggesting a pogrom. But, they could have been prevented from resuming power, and attaining future positions of influence. Otherwise the Civil War was a sacrifice made for nothing. Lincoln should have made a law to oversee the southern states, and put in Federal leadership, that was loyal to the Union cause. And he should have instituted the law for 100 years, in order to wipe out any future separatist activities from the Confederates. But honestly, who knows. The Civil War was a long time ago, and it’s doubtful that even this idea could have succeeded. Which leads us to where we are now. It’s too late to do anything like that anymore. The divisions are now too deep. We need a new solution.
- n4r9 6y ago
  Just having a voting system doesn't feel like it's enough. And there are many different styles of voting, some which seek to reflect a broad range of view points and others which seek to give strong executive power to the majority. The Democracy Index measures several factors such as trust in public institutions, governmental checks and balances, and having a culture which respects democratic principles. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
byoung2 6y ago
I think we are 50-50 we will have widespread riots before the end of the year. People were already primed for revolution with Black Lives Matter, #meToo, Occupy movements, etc. With the recent rise in hate groups, we were already on a path toward what happened in 1992 with the Los Angeles Riots [1]. I think the lockdowns due to COVID-19 and the related effect on the economy, we might be accelerating the pace. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
- badRNG 6y ago
  While there are genuine issues that BLM and Occupy have organized around, the movements certainly appear largely rudderless. I don't say this to dismiss their position, however if you ask 50 protesters what it would take to bring about the change they would like to see, and you will get 50 different and often contradictory answers. Historically, successful revolutions were organized around a larger structure, a party usually. If these groups of alienated and disaffected people had such organization, they'd almost certainly use it to gain electoral wins, not wage war against the government. Absent such organization, it doesn't seem likely anything other than riots or protests will be accomplished.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Historically, successful revolutions were organized around a larger structure, a party usually. French revolution was massive confusing clusterfck of fighting parties. The same goes for Russian revolution where there were like five armies fighting against each other. The fall of soviet union was also not about single larger opponent party building power.
anigbrowl 6y ago
A revolution is highly unlikely, but I give the odds of some irreversible structural change (eg fragmentation) within the next 10 years >50%.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  Fragmentation in what way?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    A regional breakup/Balkanization.
probinso 6y ago
check out "it could happen here"
keiferski 6y ago
Almost all of the examples you listed occurred following a war, an intervention/support by foreign powers, or an unsustainable system collapsing. For the US, the first two are extremely unlikely to happen, while the third is still essentially harmless if the US is the global hegemonic power and if Americans in general continue to desire national unity. While people are critical of aspects of America, most still believe in the fundamental idea and structure of the country (unlike say, the constituent USSR states.) I don’t see any of these things changing anytime soon, so no, I would say there will not be a revolution in the next 20 years. There may be massive democratic change, but this is expected. The media and Reddit specifically is not reality and I’d be skeptical of basing your analysis on such sources.
- floppiplopp 6y ago
  I'd agree there won't be a revolution as we've seen in other countries in the past decade or so. But I wouldn't put away some points so lightly. We're seeing signs of foreign interference in US politics that fit the Russian playbook, e.g. the domain registrations of those presidentially retweeted reopen-campaigns came at least partly from outside the US. Also there is an increasing divide internally, especially between rural and urban America.
- gshdg 6y ago
  The US’ status as global hegemonic power has been eroding lately.
danieltillett 6y ago
Massive upheaval yes, revolution no. I would say there is a reasonable chance that the USA dollar will lose reserve currency status in the next 10 years. When/if this happens then everything will change - for an historical parallel look at Great Britain before and after the Great War.
- keiferski 6y ago
  What will replace it as the reserve currency? The other options are not particularly strong. In fact, the COVID situation has only made the dollar stronger (as a reserve currency). https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/why-the-us-dollar-is-still-considered-such-a-safe-currency.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/why-the-us-dollar-is-still-c...
  - danieltillett 6y ago
    If I knew this I wouldn’t be posting in HN :) China is the obvious answer, but I have this feeling that some sort of synthetic currency (not bitcoin) will be created to fill the void.
    - keiferski 6y ago
      Unlikely that the yuan will be the reserve currency unless China makes major reforms. They seem to be headed in the opposite direction, so I don't think this is likely in the near future. Long-term (50-100 years) it definitely could be, though, assuming China democratizes at some point.
    - gshdg 6y ago
      I’d guess the Euro in the short term and the Yuan in the longer term.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> Many countries have undergone revolutions or schisms in the past century: Arab Spring countries, Soviet Union, Cuba, China/Taiwan, Korea, Yemen, etc. The US is nothing like those countries. As a matter of fact, all the "schisms" in the countries you listed are due to the US. > Recently there have been major catalysis for social unrest, including: increasing economic inequality, novel technological shifts (automation, social media disinformation and censorship), and climate change affecting industries and migration. Most of the population is in the eastern hemisphere ( 6 billion people ). Whatever problems occur with climate change, migration, etc they are going to have to deal with it, not the US or the western hemisphere. As for social media, most of it is under US control so not much to worry about there. It's europe, india, china, middle east, etc who have to worry about social media destabilizing their countries. And I suspect, it will be the US spearheading the destabilization. > What are your thoughts on the likelihood that the US will experience a massive upheaval and what precautions can be taken? Pretty much zero. The Arab Spring countries, Soviet Union, Cuba, China/Taiwan, Korea, Yemen, etc. all experienced upheavals because of major foreign interference by a much stronger nation - aka the US. We are the ones that put pressure on the soviet union until it cracked. We are the cause of the isolation and suffering in cuba. The china/taiwan conflict is entirely a US creation. Same with korea. Even yemen is a result of our interference via saudi arabia. We have no equal to even challenge us, let alone destabilize us to the point of revolution. There is a reason why during times of trouble, the world - including china - buys dollars/us treasuries/etc. In other words, we create schisms around the world, we don't suffer from it.
iateanapple 6y ago
A US revolution is an almost certainty over the coming decades - the American identity has never been weaker. The peoples are so different region to region - and are often politically hostile to one another - what keeps everyone together? The real question is how violent will the revolution be? I hope there is peaceful secession.
- rocketpastsix 6y ago
  While you are right about the divergence of identities over the various regions, I think as long as most Americans still have internet, access to running (clean) water, and easily accessibly food a true blood spilling revolution is far away.
- zzzcpan 6y ago
  If nothing keeps everyone together, how can there be a revolution, how can they put the differences aside and unite against the government and political elites? On the contrary, pushing people against each other is how people are kept from revolting. Plus throwing everyone in prison for the smallest things (especially those likely to unite against the government), making people very afraid of the police, controlling narratives in mass media and media platforms, etc. I'd say US is one of the few countries where power is not just really well protected, but that protection is future proof. Look how all the new ways of spreading information, new media platforms ended up in the hands of few big domestic corporations who are obviously big supporters of the system they exists in and are very cozy with the government, with spreading propaganda, with censorship of pretty much whatever the government asks to the point of censoring literally all views on certain subjects if they do not parrot official government propaganda.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > how can they put the differences aside and unite against the government and political elites? I doubt we will see a revolution of the people vs the elites. More likely a group of elites at the state level will want their state to leave the union.
sideshowb 6y ago
With politics so tribal and voters so easily influenced by adtech, one might argue that the revolution has already quietly happened.
kgin 6y ago
The appetite for revolution is wildly overblown by reporting and the internet. And people are underestimating the commitment it takes to have a true revolution. On the right, even the angriest keyboard commando uncle still wants To be home before dark. On the left, there hasn’t even been the commitment to even stage a single 1-day general strike. The truth is we’re still angry as a hobby. Most people are angry about aesthetic concerns, about the way the country should feel or look. That’s not revolution material.
Rerarom 6y ago
I think the state has enough disparate forces that are both reactionary and armed so that no revolution can succeed.
giantg2 6y ago
You might have civil disobedience, maybe even on a mass scale with some politicians or states joining in or condoning it. I don't think there will be an actual revolution.
catsdanxe 6y ago
Very unlikely. The constant outrage from reporters and verified twitter accounts does not reflect the majority. The average American doesn't really care about the issues you listed. They may virtue signal and say "oh it horrible that tech platforms are censoring people" but they won't stop using those platforms. With unemployment benefits that pay more than working, the unemployed aren't going to be upset when they can't find work. The average American is content with letting the government and corporations fuck them in the ass while they are told and believe that they have freedom.
- slovette 6y ago
  I love this and I agree completely with the added caveat that “freedom” be replaced with “comfort”.
matt_s 6y ago
Nope. Most of what you see in social media and mainstream media is intended to spark discussions, get eyeballs/likes/follows and go 'viral' (in the digital sense). Most people that disagree with the politics of people in office can vote them out. None of the countries you listed, to my knowledge, are places where every citizen has that capability. There have been massive differences in the US since foreigners came here (i.e. non Native Americans). They all brought their own cultural, religious and other beliefs with them. You should check out the book American Nations by Colin Woodard [0] it goes into detail about how these different areas formed and who settled those areas pretty much dictates present day politics. These aren't new concepts either - political parties use these to decide where to campaign for decades now. A map that represents the areas in question. [1] 0 - https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cul... 1 - https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states-2015-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united... Edit: answered the question.
phekunde 6y ago
A country where people give excuse such as "second amendment" on the topic of gun control when kids get slaughtered in schools I don't think US citizens have the ability to think of a revolution. Revolutions require amalgam of intelligentsia and people with courage. The elites in US(and some other countries) have successfully dumbed down the general populous and rendered them ineffective of revolutions. The people in US will be sold more guns and underground bunkers to hide and kill intruders than to join a revolution.

badRNG 6y ago

Democracies have a built-in pressure valve to allow unrest to disperse, that is voting. Instead of feeling the need to resort to violence to have political agency, people vote. Dislike growing inequality? You probably voted for Sanders. Want a return to the pre-Trump days? You likely voted for Biden. Dislike the quarantine measures? There are lawmakers who represent your perspective. Once a critical mass of disaffected people is reached, they wind up having their candidates win elections, which subsequently disperses that pressure. While the most passionate people are still wearing campaign badges for their favorite representative, the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable.

byoung2 6y ago
the chances of "revolution" seems unimaginable A successful revolution maybe, but an attempt, possible and even probable.
- badRNG 6y ago
  The condition I placed on that is while people wear campaign buttons. The US has major elections every two years, that's almost certainly not enough time for a critical mass of disenfranchised voters to start something like that. They key word being voters. This is contingent on people having ongoing faith in the electoral process. People will tell you they don't trust electoralism, but they still vote and campaign for Trump or Bernie or whoever they trust to represent their interests. Trump and Bernie seem to be a part of this paradigm shift to politicians who serve as a sort of brand that people identify with. When people's whole political identity is wrapped around the "brand" of a public official, it certainly seems less likely now than ever that a "revolution" would occur. The conditions that would give rise to a revolution would likely see more across the board distrust of the democratic process fundamentally. Election interference might have some effect, but I'm extremely skeptical that a revolution will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
cmurf 6y ago
Voting is the mechanism for blame. It's why so few Americans vote. Non-voters are blamed less than those who do. They're not even ridiculed. That makes it increasingly voluntarily not a democracy. Central to democracies is the losers accept the loss if an election. I mean the reality of it, they can still be mad. But if the losers claim delusional conspiracies, and reject the reality of the loss, they can completely dismember democracy through civil disobedience.
blackrock 6y ago
It appears that the voting process has failed. The electoral college was supposed to prevent someone like Trump from getting elected, but even that failed to do its job. After the Civil War, Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. And the prevalence of social media, has not helped the cause. Instead, it appears to be the spark that is lighting the fire, leading to a pile of dynamite. At this point, the country is just too large, and too diverse. The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. Maybe it’s time to consider, that they should go their own way. The problem is the nukes. What should we do about the nukes?
- asguy 6y ago
  > The political outlook of the west coast, is far too different from that of the Deep South. I think "the Deep South" is a red herring: drive one county inland, and you're likely to see a drastic change. Even in California.
- captainredbeard 6y ago
  > Lincoln and the Union did not eliminate the Confederates, and allowed them to continue to exist as a scourge on society. They have been slowly dividing the country, and it appears they have finally succeeded. What would you suggest, a pogrom? The Union devastated the South, going well beyond battle related damage. Hooker destroyed vital infrastructure and brutalized the people. To suggest further destruction and persecution is inhumane and barbaric.
  - blackrock 6y ago
    No, nobody is suggesting a pogrom. But, they could have been prevented from resuming power, and attaining future positions of influence. Otherwise the Civil War was a sacrifice made for nothing. Lincoln should have made a law to oversee the southern states, and put in Federal leadership, that was loyal to the Union cause. And he should have instituted the law for 100 years, in order to wipe out any future separatist activities from the Confederates. But honestly, who knows. The Civil War was a long time ago, and it’s doubtful that even this idea could have succeeded. Which leads us to where we are now. It’s too late to do anything like that anymore. The divisions are now too deep. We need a new solution.
n4r9 6y ago
Just having a voting system doesn't feel like it's enough. And there are many different styles of voting, some which seek to reflect a broad range of view points and others which seek to give strong executive power to the majority. The Democracy Index measures several factors such as trust in public institutions, governmental checks and balances, and having a culture which respects democratic principles. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

byoung2 6y ago

I think we are 50-50 we will have widespread riots before the end of the year. People were already primed for revolution with Black Lives Matter, #meToo, Occupy movements, etc. With the recent rise in hate groups, we were already on a path toward what happened in 1992 with the Los Angeles Riots [1]. I think the lockdowns due to COVID-19 and the related effect on the economy, we might be accelerating the pace. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

badRNG 6y ago
While there are genuine issues that BLM and Occupy have organized around, the movements certainly appear largely rudderless. I don't say this to dismiss their position, however if you ask 50 protesters what it would take to bring about the change they would like to see, and you will get 50 different and often contradictory answers. Historically, successful revolutions were organized around a larger structure, a party usually. If these groups of alienated and disaffected people had such organization, they'd almost certainly use it to gain electoral wins, not wage war against the government. Absent such organization, it doesn't seem likely anything other than riots or protests will be accomplished.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Historically, successful revolutions were organized around a larger structure, a party usually. French revolution was massive confusing clusterfck of fighting parties. The same goes for Russian revolution where there were like five armies fighting against each other. The fall of soviet union was also not about single larger opponent party building power.

anigbrowl 6y ago

A revolution is highly unlikely, but I give the odds of some irreversible structural change (eg fragmentation) within the next 10 years >50%.

Trasmatta 6y ago
Fragmentation in what way?
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  A regional breakup/Balkanization.

probinso 6y ago

check out "it could happen here"

keiferski 6y ago

Almost all of the examples you listed occurred following a war, an intervention/support by foreign powers, or an unsustainable system collapsing. For the US, the first two are extremely unlikely to happen, while the third is still essentially harmless if the US is the global hegemonic power and if Americans in general continue to desire national unity. While people are critical of aspects of America, most still believe in the fundamental idea and structure of the country (unlike say, the constituent USSR states.) I don’t see any of these things changing anytime soon, so no, I would say there will not be a revolution in the next 20 years. There may be massive democratic change, but this is expected. The media and Reddit specifically is not reality and I’d be skeptical of basing your analysis on such sources.

floppiplopp 6y ago
I'd agree there won't be a revolution as we've seen in other countries in the past decade or so. But I wouldn't put away some points so lightly. We're seeing signs of foreign interference in US politics that fit the Russian playbook, e.g. the domain registrations of those presidentially retweeted reopen-campaigns came at least partly from outside the US. Also there is an increasing divide internally, especially between rural and urban America.
gshdg 6y ago
The US’ status as global hegemonic power has been eroding lately.

danieltillett 6y ago

Massive upheaval yes, revolution no. I would say there is a reasonable chance that the USA dollar will lose reserve currency status in the next 10 years. When/if this happens then everything will change - for an historical parallel look at Great Britain before and after the Great War.

keiferski 6y ago
What will replace it as the reserve currency? The other options are not particularly strong. In fact, the COVID situation has only made the dollar stronger (as a reserve currency). https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/why-the-us-dollar-is-still-considered-such-a-safe-currency.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/why-the-us-dollar-is-still-c...
- danieltillett 6y ago
  If I knew this I wouldn’t be posting in HN :) China is the obvious answer, but I have this feeling that some sort of synthetic currency (not bitcoin) will be created to fill the void.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    Unlikely that the yuan will be the reserve currency unless China makes major reforms. They seem to be headed in the opposite direction, so I don't think this is likely in the near future. Long-term (50-100 years) it definitely could be, though, assuming China democratizes at some point.
  - gshdg 6y ago
    I’d guess the Euro in the short term and the Yuan in the longer term.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

> Many countries have undergone revolutions or schisms in the past century: Arab Spring countries, Soviet Union, Cuba, China/Taiwan, Korea, Yemen, etc. The US is nothing like those countries. As a matter of fact, all the "schisms" in the countries you listed are due to the US. > Recently there have been major catalysis for social unrest, including: increasing economic inequality, novel technological shifts (automation, social media disinformation and censorship), and climate change affecting industries and migration. Most of the population is in the eastern hemisphere ( 6 billion people ). Whatever problems occur with climate change, migration, etc they are going to have to deal with it, not the US or the western hemisphere. As for social media, most of it is under US control so not much to worry about there. It's europe, india, china, middle east, etc who have to worry about social media destabilizing their countries. And I suspect, it will be the US spearheading the destabilization. > What are your thoughts on the likelihood that the US will experience a massive upheaval and what precautions can be taken? Pretty much zero. The Arab Spring countries, Soviet Union, Cuba, China/Taiwan, Korea, Yemen, etc. all experienced upheavals because of major foreign interference by a much stronger nation - aka the US. We are the ones that put pressure on the soviet union until it cracked. We are the cause of the isolation and suffering in cuba. The china/taiwan conflict is entirely a US creation. Same with korea. Even yemen is a result of our interference via saudi arabia. We have no equal to even challenge us, let alone destabilize us to the point of revolution. There is a reason why during times of trouble, the world - including china - buys dollars/us treasuries/etc. In other words, we create schisms around the world, we don't suffer from it.

iateanapple 6y ago

A US revolution is an almost certainty over the coming decades - the American identity has never been weaker. The peoples are so different region to region - and are often politically hostile to one another - what keeps everyone together? The real question is how violent will the revolution be? I hope there is peaceful secession.

rocketpastsix 6y ago
While you are right about the divergence of identities over the various regions, I think as long as most Americans still have internet, access to running (clean) water, and easily accessibly food a true blood spilling revolution is far away.
zzzcpan 6y ago
If nothing keeps everyone together, how can there be a revolution, how can they put the differences aside and unite against the government and political elites? On the contrary, pushing people against each other is how people are kept from revolting. Plus throwing everyone in prison for the smallest things (especially those likely to unite against the government), making people very afraid of the police, controlling narratives in mass media and media platforms, etc. I'd say US is one of the few countries where power is not just really well protected, but that protection is future proof. Look how all the new ways of spreading information, new media platforms ended up in the hands of few big domestic corporations who are obviously big supporters of the system they exists in and are very cozy with the government, with spreading propaganda, with censorship of pretty much whatever the government asks to the point of censoring literally all views on certain subjects if they do not parrot official government propaganda.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > how can they put the differences aside and unite against the government and political elites? I doubt we will see a revolution of the people vs the elites. More likely a group of elites at the state level will want their state to leave the union.

sideshowb 6y ago

With politics so tribal and voters so easily influenced by adtech, one might argue that the revolution has already quietly happened.

kgin 6y ago

The appetite for revolution is wildly overblown by reporting and the internet. And people are underestimating the commitment it takes to have a true revolution. On the right, even the angriest keyboard commando uncle still wants To be home before dark. On the left, there hasn’t even been the commitment to even stage a single 1-day general strike. The truth is we’re still angry as a hobby. Most people are angry about aesthetic concerns, about the way the country should feel or look. That’s not revolution material.

Rerarom 6y ago

I think the state has enough disparate forces that are both reactionary and armed so that no revolution can succeed.

giantg2 6y ago

You might have civil disobedience, maybe even on a mass scale with some politicians or states joining in or condoning it. I don't think there will be an actual revolution.

catsdanxe 6y ago

Very unlikely. The constant outrage from reporters and verified twitter accounts does not reflect the majority. The average American doesn't really care about the issues you listed. They may virtue signal and say "oh it horrible that tech platforms are censoring people" but they won't stop using those platforms. With unemployment benefits that pay more than working, the unemployed aren't going to be upset when they can't find work. The average American is content with letting the government and corporations fuck them in the ass while they are told and believe that they have freedom.

slovette 6y ago
I love this and I agree completely with the added caveat that “freedom” be replaced with “comfort”.

matt_s 6y ago

Nope. Most of what you see in social media and mainstream media is intended to spark discussions, get eyeballs/likes/follows and go 'viral' (in the digital sense). Most people that disagree with the politics of people in office can vote them out. None of the countries you listed, to my knowledge, are places where every citizen has that capability. There have been massive differences in the US since foreigners came here (i.e. non Native Americans). They all brought their own cultural, religious and other beliefs with them. You should check out the book American Nations by Colin Woodard [0] it goes into detail about how these different areas formed and who settled those areas pretty much dictates present day politics. These aren't new concepts either - political parties use these to decide where to campaign for decades now. A map that represents the areas in question. [1] 0 - https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cul... 1 - https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states-2015-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united... Edit: answered the question.

phekunde 6y ago

A country where people give excuse such as "second amendment" on the topic of gun control when kids get slaughtered in schools I don't think US citizens have the ability to think of a revolution. Revolutions require amalgam of intelligentsia and people with courage. The elites in US(and some other countries) have successfully dumbed down the general populous and rendered them ineffective of revolutions. The people in US will be sold more guns and underground bunkers to hide and kill intruders than to join a revolution.