memes

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.

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.

I’m willing, now let’s do it.

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.

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.

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.

We don't need to give up comforts, we need governments to stop multi-billionairs from hording wealth and driving the economy stale

“Two things only the people anxiously desire — bread and circuses.”

Wow. It's not like the state is quite good at repression. /s

Posting this on International Day of Solidarity with Long Term Anarchist Prisoners is quite tonedeaf, too.

raises hand

They were just drunk with promises from Washington to be able to get more booze.

You sonofabitch I want a revolution to IMPROVE my situation, not to make it worse

"Are you, Mr. Speaker Guy?"