6 ms·
You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls. The American Revolution was rare in that it didn't nee
by yardie 8mo ago
You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls. The American Revolution was rare in that it didn't need to happen. The Founders were just being giant assholes (j/k). While the French Revolution just a few decades later was more status quo. A lot of starvation and poverty just pushed the population over the edge.
- t-3 8mo agoThe American and French revolutions originated in the middle classes. The poor are often indifferent to politics because they're focused on survival. The middle classes, who own things they don't want to lose and have free time to aspire for more, are the ones who start revolutions. The poor only came in after being whipped up by the interested parties, and don't necessarily join the revolutionary side.
- thephyber 8mo agoThree critical differences the American Revolution had: (1) the middle class had some extremely well educated people, (2) the communication technology among the colonies was pretty fast whereas the comms between the colonies and the British rule across the Atlantic was slow, and (3) the empire tried to clamp down on the colonies ability to export to any market other than the mother country, killing lots of profit which previously made those markets strong.
- throwaway85825 8mo ago(4) the British navy was busy raiding the carribean for prize money and abandoned the army in america. I recommend the book "The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution and the Fate of the Empire"
- Kuinox 8mo ago> The American and French revolutions originated in the middle classes. I don't know about the american revolution, but that's wrong for the french revolution. I'll link to french wikipédia pages since they are far better on the subject. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tats_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9raux_de_1789 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tats_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9raux_... Here we can see the first National Assembly was half nobility and clergy. The third estate was the other half. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiers_%C3%A9tat https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiers_%C3%A9tat > Par ailleurs, les députés du tiers état aux états généraux représentaient essentiellement la bourgeoisie[2]. Which indicate that the majority of the third estate representative were bourgeois.
- t-3 8mo ago> Which indicate that the majority of the third estate representative were bourgeois. The bourgeois are the middle class.
- Kuinox 8mo agoWere the middle class, but what people think of middle class today, doesn't apply to what it was back then. > The bourgeoisie are a class of business owners, merchants and wealthy people, in general, which emerged in the Late Middle Ages, originally as a " middle class" between the peasantry and aristocracy. They are traditionally contrasted with the proletariat by their wealth, political power, and education, as well as their access to and control of cultural, social, and financial capital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie Today the meaning of bourgeoisie, still applies to "business owners, merchants and wealthy people", but is now seen as upper class.
- t-3 8mo agoYes, the proletariat has been brainwashed and convinced that they're the middle class, while the middle classes have become the new aristocracy. The disappearance of hereditary nobility and rise of liberalism (which brings along separation of church and state, which removes the power of the clergy) made the old distinctions less useful, so we have the modern lower (proletariat), middle (skilled workers), and upper (bourgeois) classes.
- jacquesm 8mo ago> You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls. These are no longer impossibles.
- Waterluvian 8mo agoBoy is he trying on the latter. Quite impressive just how resilient it seems to be.
- jacquesm 8mo agoYes, tbh I would not have thought that you could take a sledgehammer to the economy as if you're say Elon Musk buying a communications platform and yet, here we are, 1 year in and we're still hanging on. But I wouldn't bet on another three of these.
- dpc050505 8mo agoIt will pop just in time to put the blame on the liberal that wants to slightly tax the rich and improve the quality of life of working people.
- edoceo 8mo agoIt's like when management does something stupid and then engineering works overtime to keeps the system working. Of course management learns nothing and all outside observers don't even notice something went wrong.
- jacquesm 8mo agoThere is a limit to how much engineers working overtime can do to offset management stupidity and when you reach the limit the bottom falls out. Of course then everybody blames the engineers...
- autoexec 8mo agoIt's being heavily supported a bubble. We'll see how resilient it is when that pops. As it is, the average person's finances and future prospects are getting worse all the time regardless of whatever the stock market is doing.
- thewebguyd 8mo ago> until food runs low and the economy stalls. Well one of those is already on the fast tracking to happening (economy stalling). Unfortunately, I don't have much faith that people will turn against the administration during any kind of major depression/food scarcity. I foresee people turning against each other for survival instead.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ryandrake 8mo agoI would have believed that before 2020, but after COVID, I fully believe that if the food ran out, half the country would say it's a fake hoax. People would be on their death beds actually starving, and deny it was happening with their last breath.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- hirako2000 8mo agoCould also say that over half the population finding such ridiculous mandates justifiable: lockdowns and demands that employers enforce vaccination compliance for all employees, ordoned non democratically by a senile; in a country with constitutional rights likely meant we would not see activists engaging in vandalism anytime soon.
- UltraSane 8mo ago[flagged]
- jibal 8mo ago[flagged]
- hirako2000 8mo agoI was probably one of "you". My comment is simply calling out the liberticide episode we attended rather quietly.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- johnnyanmac 8mo agoAfter 2025, I don't think y'all get to say it's libertcide to wear a mask, sorry.
- 8mo ago
- mikestorrent 8mo ago> The American Revolution was rare in that it didn't need to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion Interestingly y'all Americans pay much more tax now than you did to England back in the day. Turns out King George was right, and it was just about changing who the tax was paid to.
- nathan_compton 8mo agoNot really a secret. The slogan was "No taxation without representation" not "no taxation." The degree to which legislation in the US is bought by big companies and rarely reflects democratic desires we may be in another "no taxation without representation" era.
- autoexec 8mo agoEven if the needs of the American people weren't being ignored over the wishes of corporations and the ultra-wealthy in terms of numbers alone we have less representation than ever before because the number of people who are supposed to represent us hasn't kept up with the growing population.
- throwaway85825 8mo agoAmerica ended in 1861 when the era of political bargains transitioned to the era of the government and the subjects.
- fuzzfactor 8mo agowith 20/20 hindsight it would have been a whole lot better to throw a Constitutional Convention rather than have a civil war. It had already intentionally been forgotten how well that worked the first time.
- throwaway85825 8mo ago
- wutwutwat 8mo ago"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy." - Alfred Henry Lewis