Would Something as radical as the American revolution be possible today?
- Thread starter xnipx
- Start date
I'm skeptical of the idea. State power is too strong nowadays. Not just numbers-wise, but logistics wise. The state can track us, listen to us, etc. if they so wish and have a pack of AR-15-wielding goons sent anywhere pretty quickly.
However, I am sure many like me were skeptical of the idea before any revolution in the past, so I hope I am wrong.
However, I am sure many like me were skeptical of the idea before any revolution in the past, so I hope I am wrong.
I believe you’re thinking civil war not the revolution. The answer is highly unlike unless current administration ramps it up twofold
It wouldn't be a revolution, it would be a straight up civil war, the military would have some sort of division along party lines and this country would be devastated by the conflict. I also this its possible we see the USA fall into civil war within the next few decades as the core building blocks of the country collapse, healthcare, infrastructure and economy.
The American Revolution wasn't a popular revolt, it was a revolt by the ruling class that managed wide popular support. So it could, but you probably wouldn't be that happy about where things landed. Same with the Civil War - there have been true popular revolts in American history but they've all been stamped out with great prejudice.
The thing that stopped the British from completely annihilating the American colonists wasn't a lack of means, it was a lack of will and the support of international allies. They already "threatened to nuke" us by virtue of being one of the most powerful nations on the planet.
The thing that stopped the British from completely annihilating the American colonists wasn't a lack of means, it was a lack of will and the support of international allies. They already "threatened to nuke" us by virtue of being one of the most powerful nations on the planet.
American revolution was an independence movement. it wasn't that radical, relatively speaking
overthrowing your own somewhat legitimately elected government is very different
overthrowing your own somewhat legitimately elected government is very different
This is a good point. Additionally, aren't most well-known revolutions of recent history creations of a privileged class that often used the lower classes as meatshields?
OP
OP
Somewhat legitimately? They stole the election and keep telling congress to kiss their ass every chance they get whenever they get caught doing something illegal. We STILL don’t have trumps tax returns.
Yeah, tanks, drones and top-notch military hardware really makes things a lot more one-sided than both sides having muskets and bayonets.
That said, if the Founders hadn't kicked off their little secession party back then, you'd probably still be an independent nation these days. Just like Canada. Heck, you'd probably have Canada's political system instead of the dysfunctional clusterfuck the Founders came up with.
That said, if the Founders hadn't kicked off their little secession party back then, you'd probably still be an independent nation these days. Just like Canada. Heck, you'd probably have Canada's political system instead of the dysfunctional clusterfuck the Founders came up with.
It’s a completely different time now. The fighting field was generally even enough back then. Organized guns and fists vs disorganized guns and fists.
Nowadays it’d guns and fists and explosions vs tanks and aircraft and drones. The only way the government doesn’t win out is if literally every citizen in the military were to de-enlist.
Nowadays it’d guns and fists and explosions vs tanks and aircraft and drones. The only way the government doesn’t win out is if literally every citizen in the military were to de-enlist.
This right here. Replace "American" with "French" Revolution, OP.
colonial rule by imperial monarchy and representative rule (albeit with poorly weighted geographic divisions) aren't in the same league
trump & the GOP are ruling with a slight minority, but colonialism was way worse and way different
The Revolution was a product of its time. With modern technology the concept of fighting off a global empire, even with help from someone like France is pretty much impossible on a scale large enough to matter. The fact that we were still dealing with unrefined firearms, artillery, and ships that took vast amounts of time to cross the Atlantic made it a totally reasonable possibility back in the day.
In addition to what some other posters are saying about being completely outmatched I think most people today are either too comfortable, too worn down, or would be too nervous about giving up some of the modern conveniences they're used to for a real revolution to be feasible in America. For one example if you have a steady job then going to fight in a revolution would make you lose your job. So you have people who hate the system, hate the government, but largely are doing okay enough that they'd rather stay on their current path than put so much at risk.
People who talk about the possibility of a new civil war vastly underestimate just how many people in this country don't care about the positions either side are taking, most people just want to live their lives and provide for themselves and their families and wouldn't be willing to "fight" for one side or the other. A new age civil war just isn't realistic, you are just not going to see most average suburbanites take up arms.
I am certain that while what you're saying is true, the "big middle" you're talking about: the people who only care about their day to day and tune out politics, they were always there. They were there during 1776 and only wanted to go about paying taxes to British and going about their daily lives. The big middle was always also there in 1864. They went about their daily lives and did not particularly care for the abolitionist movement or the Southern Slavery Economy. It's only when Civil War erupted they became politicized because their able bodied men were conscripted by Union or Confederates. And trust me they are here today and they will be there in the future. You can't fault them too much either. The revolutionaries are the ones at forefront who cause change to happen. The revolutionaries are always a minority - an entire nation cannot be made up of revolutionaries.
In a first-world nation? Not a chance.
The gap between the government and a "well-armed militia" is light years apart, today. It wouldn't be a fight, it would be a snuffing.
The gap between the government and a "well-armed militia" is light years apart, today. It wouldn't be a fight, it would be a snuffing.
The american military is overwhelningly conservative, this "revolution" would not go the way you want. The bad faith arguments conservatives spew about needing assault rifles to protect themselves from a tyranical government is typical projection mixed with a bit of trolling because it's the poor and brown people that need to be protected.
Not to mention that the miltiary wouldn't be necessary to crush a huge revolt like this, american's cant just hunt their own food, if they were to cut power to SF or NYC then those people are screwed.
Not to mention that the miltiary wouldn't be necessary to crush a huge revolt like this, american's cant just hunt their own food, if they were to cut power to SF or NYC then those people are screwed.
OP
OP
I may be ignorant and misinformed but most republicans I talk to dislike trump. He’s not even a GOOD republicans president aside from the tax bill. He’s the tea party leader through and through. I think if he pisses off enough world leaders people would be willing to put party aside to purge the tea party from existence.
Half voted for trump and many more simply don't care and I imagine even the vast majority of the left won't put their life on the line to take part in a revolution.
No.
Just as nonsensical an idea as it was when the tea party were talking about it under Obama. There is no will for it and it's impossible to win against our government. They have drones lol.
Just as nonsensical an idea as it was when the tea party were talking about it under Obama. There is no will for it and it's impossible to win against our government. They have drones lol.
I guarantee those republicans you talk to will happily vote for him in 2020. He has done enough to warrant his party completely abandoning him ten times over and yet his approval among republicans was in the 90s last I checked.
the American Revolution was not a revolution of the people, it was a Revolution of Rich Elite who wanted to cut Great Britain loose so THEY could be the new Kings
I hold that the revolution only worked because we were a colony and didn't need to destroy the existing structure of England to get what we wanted
Yeah as has been said, we can't have a revolutionary war because we're not a colony. There's nothing theoretically stopping another civil war, it's just very unlikely. As much conflict as there is today, there is no single issue that was as important, economically tied to a region, and divisive as slavery was in the 19th century.
The technological disparity between government and rebels is enough to ensure we will never have a violent political overthrow of any of the top developed nations ever again.
Yeah, forget about it, the State has waaaaay to much tech.
You need the military full stop to support the cause, or else it's lost from the start.
Also this.
The American, Haitian, and South American revolutions were radical insomuch as they were started by members of the elite, and somewhat supported by the trade/merchant class, to detach from their governing countries in Europe.
They were seen by people at the time as cutting ties with a distant government, rather than internal revolt against a domestic ruler, so what you’re thinking about and what they actually were are two different things.
It’s why calling it the “War for Independence” is far better than calling it the “Revolution”.
They were seen by people at the time as cutting ties with a distant government, rather than internal revolt against a domestic ruler, so what you’re thinking about and what they actually were are two different things.
It’s why calling it the “War for Independence” is far better than calling it the “Revolution”.
Nukes are off the table as long as other countrys hold theirs. As far as rebels fighting a superior force, yes its doable, especially if the superior force wont take a "glass them all" approach to fighting. However if America was still under British rule then chances are high heavier weapon restrictions would be in place from the get go making things more difficult. If not then the NFA goes out the window and all hell breaks loose. The US population has access to a LOT of shit, more than most realize.
Fight back?
Most people don't even vote.
This is easy to blame on the Republicans but as we go down this is going to fall on the American people, as it should.
If we can't even win elections when the choice on some things is incredibly obvious (i.e. climate change) then its the people who are to blame and I don't see how force can make things better.
You need to throw some books at these assholes not bullets.
Most people don't even vote.
This is easy to blame on the Republicans but as we go down this is going to fall on the American people, as it should.
If we can't even win elections when the choice on some things is incredibly obvious (i.e. climate change) then its the people who are to blame and I don't see how force can make things better.
You need to throw some books at these assholes not bullets.
Nah. If most people won’t even start major protests there’s no way that we’d ever have enough support to actually do any damage. The majority of Americans are too complacent. We’re trained from a young age to be obedient little doggies. And we’re so used to getting fucked that we’ll just keep on taking it.
The military being overwhelmingly powerful isn't really as meaningful a factor as people are saying, given that militaries throughout history have always had the ability to crush popular uprisings very easily
What matters more is the institutional willingness to use the military, and whether or not the military would be willing to fully comply and not otherwise just refuse or even outright disintegrate
What matters more is the institutional willingness to use the military, and whether or not the military would be willing to fully comply and not otherwise just refuse or even outright disintegrate
I'd sooner expect a revolution in China or Russia, and let's be honest, that ain't happening because people have an understandable aversion to dying and the cost of no violent revolt is not dying in the vast majority of cases. A very large percentage of the population would have to be given a choice between death in the short term via whatever the government's doing/not doing and a possiblity of life if they risk their lives in a revolution.
The American Revolution wasn't even all that radical, at least in terms of the actual actions of rebellion. The colonies were already operating largely autonomously and the populace was pretty used to armed conflict as a fact of life. The political implications were radical, but the act of rebelling did not require them to sacrifice all that much, especially since it was clear that the status quo was unsustainable
I think a US civil war is possible under certain harsh criteria. If the US drops into another economic depression, the wealth disparity becomes significantly worse, and automation takes over most jobs, then that's a suitable recipe for mass uprising. I don't necessarily believe it would have to turn into a full-blown bloody civil war. If the majority of the US population went to the streets with millions in numbers across America, demanding for the government to cease operation, and a new system taking its place (hopefully a social democracy if saner minds prevail), then the US government would have no choice but to honor that. If they're insane enough to gun down citizens, or worse, using drones or heaven forbid, nuclear weapons, the United States of America as a country is over. Civil war is inevitable then.