4 ms·

That's a matter of scale: all revolts you've cited was made by few and often repressed even with exterior help. A hunger revolt is at nearly-country scale, no o

by kkfx 5y ago

That's a matter of scale: all revolts you've cited was made by few and often repressed even with exterior help. A hunger revolt is at nearly-country scale, no one can stop it. And China have already an extreme food issue because to develop industries they have to sacrifice food production and there are not much fertile lands around so they need to mass import foods from distant places, so general hunger unrest are very likely in the near future, not only in China of course, in the west we are not much in better shape for most countries, but certainly China will suffer much. About sympathies consider that all armies in the world so fare are made of Citizens not drone, so they are humans against humans, a dictatorship can't count much about army loyalty under certain conditions, and that's one of the reason all governments that can push so much toward drones and isolated cohort of people, to avoid having a "social society".

zdragnar 5y ago
The ones I mentioned most certainly were not small scale. The taiping rebellion alone eventually had hundreds of thousands of troops by time time it essentially turned into a civil war. As for hunger, the last mass famine in China was during the Great Leap Forward. Let's also not forget the effects of the Cultural Revolution. I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which governments and populace form an "us versus them" mentality- it is rarely so simple as government on one side, populace on the other. At the end of the day, no matter who wins, someone still has to be in charge, and no large group of people will readily agree on exactly who or how.
- kkfx 5y ago
  Most are relatively small in number of active population revolting, while when hunger bite all have very little to loose so while perhaps not united they all unrest. As you rightly say society is complex, so we can't just simplify to us vs the enemy, not matter what, but humans needs are not that complex and human psychology is still essentially the same in millennia. The ancient "panem et circense" is still valid, just to cite one famous governing model still used today. The social ignorance and complexity is used by those who rule to grab and stay in power, but again with not really different principles than 1000 years ago, just means/tech/scale is changed. Any dictatorship to remain in power need to satisfy enough his subjects and/or find enough justifications for those who aren't satisfied, that's why most dictatorship grow fast, giving back an apparent good/fast evolution then when resources start to be scarce they push toward war/blame opponent etc and again that's might last or not but in the end they fall. A new society rise on the ruins of the precedent. We are probably around one of those changes were wars can't work anymore alone. At those points populations rise, no matter how much united, they rise ad a big destructive force no one can resist.

by kkfx 5y ago

zdragnar 5y ago

The ones I mentioned most certainly were not small scale. The taiping rebellion alone eventually had hundreds of thousands of troops by time time it essentially turned into a civil war. As for hunger, the last mass famine in China was during the Great Leap Forward. Let's also not forget the effects of the Cultural Revolution. I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which governments and populace form an "us versus them" mentality- it is rarely so simple as government on one side, populace on the other. At the end of the day, no matter who wins, someone still has to be in charge, and no large group of people will readily agree on exactly who or how.

kkfx 5y ago
Most are relatively small in number of active population revolting, while when hunger bite all have very little to loose so while perhaps not united they all unrest. As you rightly say society is complex, so we can't just simplify to us vs the enemy, not matter what, but humans needs are not that complex and human psychology is still essentially the same in millennia. The ancient "panem et circense" is still valid, just to cite one famous governing model still used today. The social ignorance and complexity is used by those who rule to grab and stay in power, but again with not really different principles than 1000 years ago, just means/tech/scale is changed. Any dictatorship to remain in power need to satisfy enough his subjects and/or find enough justifications for those who aren't satisfied, that's why most dictatorship grow fast, giving back an apparent good/fast evolution then when resources start to be scarce they push toward war/blame opponent etc and again that's might last or not but in the end they fall. A new society rise on the ruins of the precedent. We are probably around one of those changes were wars can't work anymore alone. At those points populations rise, no matter how much united, they rise ad a big destructive force no one can resist.