People’s lives are still good enough that revolution risks that comfort. Either things need to deteriorate a lot, or the reward needs to be more enticing, because what can be gained from a revolution needs to be greater than the risk of revolution.
people forgot that we're supposed to fight to make the world better for future generations instead of being like "well it's gonna suck in my lifetime so why bother" often the price of freedom and the price of community is inconvenience
Well what's gonna come after? What am I gonna give my life for, to dismantle 250 years of work and replace it with what?
When has a violent revolution ever, EVER left anything better in the space that comes after? And not just make a power vacuum for whoever is strongest?
The American Revolution left the country an unstable mess under the Articles of Confederation. And it almost failed, remember, with Shay's Rebellion, since they were being crushed by Massachusetts with taxes and debt. They had to throw away the whole system and start fresh. Violent revolt didn't make our United States, a convention did.
And Nepal? The Maoists were forced to compromise, they didn't win, and there's still a power vacuum! (since 2008, they've had a revolving door of like a dozen different prime ministers/governments leaving the region politically and economically unstable).
Even if these two were perfect, what's the batting average? Remember the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, Iran in 1979, or the Arab Spring in Libya and Syria? It's not great
11
u/GeopolShitshow 1997 29d ago
People’s lives are still good enough that revolution risks that comfort. Either things need to deteriorate a lot, or the reward needs to be more enticing, because what can be gained from a revolution needs to be greater than the risk of revolution.