Is revolution by the poor even possible anymore?

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

I don't propose to here debate the merit, justifiability, or cause of a revolution by the poor (or if you prefer, the unrich). However, a historian once said:

“In progressive societies the concentration[of wealth] may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.”
― Will Durant, The Lessons of History

I note particularly the phrase "strength of number". Enough French peasants can overwhelm the muskets of the 18th century French powers. Enough poor Russians can overtake the forces of the Tzar. That is, indeed, the strength of the poor in times of extreme economic disparity: there are many of them.

But how would a mob of ragged poor stand up to airborne gunships? Modern armor? Advanced sonic crowd dispersion?

And once the wealthy can comfortably be assured of their ability to kill the poor en masse in the event of revolution, why should they offer any concession for the second option, "legislation redistributing wealth"?

I observe the wealthy to be increasingly comfortable in their belief that all the poor are poor because they deserve it. The stock market is at a record high, the wealthy are increasingly wealthy, and yet basic social services are slashed, with calls for yet more reductions.

If you believe the answer is revolution, I believe they will kill the poor in large numbers and consider it an overdo culling.

Revolution by the poor, right or wrong, is no longer even possible.

What do you think?

[Greed and Death]

If we lessened the restrictions on automatic weapons and artillery perhaps the poor could afford to mount a proper revolt.

[Hathradic States]

No. The central governments have too much power now.

[Zavea]

violent revolution has never been a stable and lasting answer to any sort of oppression.

of course, in a democratic society, violence isn't necessary to achieve political goals. the voting populace could accomplish all of their goals using the ballot.

[Greed and Death]

violent revolution has never been a stable and lasting answer to any sort of oppression.

of course, in a democratic society, violence isn't necessary to achieve political goals. the voting populace could accomplish all of their goals using the ballot.

Unless democracy is twisted into a farce.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

If we lessened the restrictions on automatic weapons and artillery perhaps the poor could afford to mount a proper revolt.

It is my understanding that the poor are considered too lazy to load the magazines of automatic weapons and too uneducated to properly calculate the inclinations of artillery.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

No. The central governments have too much power now.

I concur, but would invite you to elaborate on specifics if you'd care to.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

violent revolution has never been a stable and lasting answer to any sort of oppression.

of course, in a democratic society, violence isn't necessary to achieve political goals. the voting populace could accomplish all of their goals using the ballot.

And if the wealthy use their power to corrupt and outright buy the government, turning participatory government into theater at best and fraud at worst?

[Hathradic States]

No. The central governments have too much power now.

I concur, but would invite you to elaborate on specifics if you'd care to.

In the civilized world, the state is all consuming right now. They are involved in anything, and they don't like revolts.

[Bojikami]

Yes.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

I concur, but would invite you to elaborate on specifics if you'd care to.

In the civilized world, the state is all consuming right now. They are involved in anything, and they don't like revolts.

So that I'm understanding you, which countries would you consider to be outside the civilized world?

By what mechanisms would the state prevent or counter a revolt?

[Zavea]

violent revolution has never been a stable and lasting answer to any sort of oppression.

of course, in a democratic society, violence isn't necessary to achieve political goals. the voting populace could accomplish all of their goals using the ballot.

Unless democracy is twisted into a farce.

when i think about it, issues like political corruption and other anti-democratic actions are things which can still be solved using legitimate means. the tools to change the laws are still in the hands of voters, and if they aren't, then they can push for such tools.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

Yes.

Are there reasons you think it would be feasible?

What factors do you think would allow a popular revolt to prevail?

[Mkuki]

Probably not.

[Olivaero]

"the poor" (and by this I assume you mean the working class) is easily the largest segment of society. If they truly wanted change to a socialist system they could vote it in. What the upper class and large parts of the upper middle class has done is destroy class consciousness to ensure this never happens. They have instead deployed the false class consciousness that you might see on fox news. They have persuaded the poor that to vote against their interest is in fact in their interest. And thus they do not need to suppress the poor because they are never going to revolt because they believe the right wing rich are acting in their interest.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

when i think about it, issues like political corruption and other anti-democratic actions are things which can still be solved using legitimate means. the tools to change the laws are still in the hands of voters, and if they aren't, then they can push for such tools.

And if the rich say no? If they can afford the media expenditure to convince enough people to spike legal reform?

Then what?

[Themiclesia]

Completely possible. There's no reason to believe that the poor couldn't arm themselves! The poor stormed the Bastille and all the ammunition within, which became a major stepping stone for them. If the poor could control a few factories for production of weapons, I see no reason why the poor couldn't start a revolution.

And nor does a revolution need to be violent. A revolution can be peaceful. No king will like to rule by an iron fist, because history has proven that no such government ever lasts. It creates unhappiness on the part of the subjects, and mental tension on the part of the king.

Of course, no violent revolution is ever good.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

"the poor" (and by this I assume you mean the working class) is easily the largest segment of society. If they truly wanted change to a socialist system they could vote it in. What the upper class and large parts of the upper middle class has done is destroy class consciousness to ensure this never happens. They have instead deployed the false class consciousness that you might see on fox news. They have persuaded the poor that to vote against their interest is in fact in their interest. And thus they do not need to suppress the poor because they are never going to revolt because they believe the right wing rich are acting in their interest.

I cannot effectively deny that the dynamic you are describing has been and continues to occur.

I've seen the wealthy convince many of the poor and middle class that the threat of "homos and evolutionists" must be fought against, thus turning large portions of the working class against their own interests.

But what if the gulf between the rich and poor grew to the point where that wasn't enough anymore?

[Zavea]

when i think about it, issues like political corruption and other anti-democratic actions are things which can still be solved using legitimate means. the tools to change the laws are still in the hands of voters, and if they aren't, then they can push for such tools.

And if the rich say no? If they can afford the media expenditure to convince enough people to spike legal reform?

Then what?

you've approached this topic with too much cynicism. like olivaero said, there is no law of physics which dictates that "the rich" have an invincible grip on the country's politics. their real power is using their influence to make people vote against their own best interest.

there is nothing stopping the voting populace of a country like the US from just booting out their corporate shill representatives and pushing for the limitation of political expenditure. such changes just haven't happened very dramatically or frequently because it took so long for people to get on board and actually make those changes.

[Spreewerke]

violent revolution has never been a stable and lasting answer to any sort of oppression.

I forgot that the British totes just packed up and sailed out after we said we didn't feel like being under their rule anymore.

[Hathradic States]

In the civilized world, the state is all consuming right now. They are involved in anything, and they don't like revolts.

So that I'm understanding you, which countries would you consider to be outside the civilized world?

By what mechanisms would the state prevent or counter a revolt?

Somalia, anybody not in the G20.

[Mussoliniopoli]

No. The central governments have too much power now.

My thoughts as well. Revolution is probably old hat at this point and not likely feasible.

[Especially Dirty Hippies]

Completely possible. There's no reason to believe that the poor couldn't arm themselves! The poor stormed the Bastille and all the ammunition within, which became a major stepping stone for them. If the poor could control a few factories for production of weapons, I see no reason why the poor couldn't start a revolution.

I mentioned the French revolution in the OP, but had hoped to contrast the force-multiplier of technology of that time to the present. I'm sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear on that.

And nor does a revolution need to be violent. A revolution can be peaceful. No king will like to rule by an iron fist, because history has proven that no such government ever lasts. It creates unhappiness on the part of the subjects, and mental tension on the part of the king.

Of course, no violent revolution is ever good.

But suppose the present "kings" grow increasingly unconcerned with the sufferings of the poor? What tension should they suffer if they can simply slaughter the poor (at least those who were unwilling to just starve to death)?

[Mkuki]

when i think about it, issues like political corruption and other anti-democratic actions are things which can still be solved using legitimate means. the tools to change the laws are still in the hands of voters, and if they aren't, then they can push for such tools.

And if the rich say no? If they can afford the media expenditure to convince enough people to spike legal reform?

Then what?

Then, most likely, nothing. If the poor rise up against the national governments in countries like the United States or China they'll most likely be crushed if they don't have wide-ranging support. Revolt isn't as simple as it used to be. You can't just pick up a weapon and raid forts.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Although it may be physically possible for the rich to put down a revolution using modern weapons, I think if the poor were stubborn enough, the rich (and more importantly the soldiers) would eventually get sick of the slaughter and make some concessions to restore peace. Gandhi demonstrated nicely that a revolution can succeed without overwhelming its opponents by force.

Additionally, CEOs are unlikely to be the ones personally flying attack helicopters or driving tanks into battle to put down a rebellion. The soldiers who are sent to do this sort of thing are usually NOT rich and are likely to empathize with the poor. The power of the rich is limited by what the soldiers are willing to do before getting fed up and changing sides. Also, the revolutionaries can break into military bases (maybe with the help of sympathetic soldiers) and steal high-tech weapons for their own use.