Variables

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

This might be too literal for people's tastes, but I'm trying to suss out the relevant variables to the calculation of cost benefit analysis for fomenting revolution. Right now I'm on the cost side.

Military/Police/Secret Police
For each: the base level of violence (how willing soldiers and police are to be violent in their day-to-day activities); how well armed they are; how many people they have in comparison to the populace; how loyal they are likely to be to the regime in the face of revolution.

Domestic Spying/Information Control
Will the internet be hijacked or shut down? Will your people be identified and captured/tortured/killed as a result of spying campaigns? Will support systems for the revolution be identified and attacked?

Utilities/Services
How volatile are the utilities already? Is a system for rolling blackouts or other kill switches already in place? How likely is a general strike? Does your country import a significant portion of its food? Will the hospitals be attacked if they accept demonstrators?

Rogue Elements
Can you rule the uprising with an iron fist? How likely is it that one or more demonstrators will turn violent at any given event? 



okay, sleepy, more later.

[Cain]

Ahem.

[minuspace]

Fixed:
"From forms of development of the forces of production these relations turn into their fetters."

[Slippils]

Ahem.

Serious? If something's longer than 2 pages, it's not worth to read, by definition. 

[Reginald Ret]

Ahem.

Serious? If something's longer than 2 pages, it's not worth to read, by definition. 

This is what mandatory reading in school gets you.
Kids these days don't want to read.
It is a sad thing to live your life out of spite.
You don't know what you are missing.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One man's ignorance is another man's profit

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You also have to factor in the "what's left to lose for me" thing with respect to the general population.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ahem.

Serious? If something's longer than 2 pages, it's not worth to read, by definition. 

Thank you, Voice of the 21st Century.

[LMNO]

Wait, so the equation is

"Worth to read" ≤ "two pages"

?

[Slippils]

Ahem.

Serious? If something's longer than 2 pages, it's not worth to read, by definition. 

This is what mandatory reading in school gets you.
Kids these days don't want to read.
It is a sad thing to live your life out of spite.
You don't know what you are missing.

Oh, noes. Don't take it too seriously, I was just joking.
I love reading myself, and was being a cynical cunt who forgot sarcasm doesn't show through internet too well... Sorry 'bout that.

[von]

This might be too literal for people's tastes, but I'm trying to suss out the relevant variables to the calculation of cost benefit analysis for fomenting revolution. Right now I'm on the cost side.

Military/Police/Secret Police
For each: the base level of violence (how willing soldiers and police are to be violent in their day-to-day activities); how well armed they are; how many people they have in comparison to the populace; how loyal they are likely to be to the regime in the face of revolution.

Domestic Spying/Information Control
Will the internet be hijacked or shut down? Will your people be identified and captured/tortured/killed as a result of spying campaigns? Will support systems for the revolution be identified and attacked?

Utilities/Services
How volatile are the utilities already? Is a system for rolling blackouts or other kill switches already in place? How likely is a general strike? Does your country import a significant portion of its food? Will the hospitals be attacked if they accept demonstrators?

Rogue Elements
Can you rule the uprising with an iron fist? How likely is it that one or more demonstrators will turn violent at any given event? 



okay, sleepy, more later.

Barring that I haven't read cain's "ahem" yet, here's my 2 cents on the whole ordeal:

Revolutions will, on the short term, ALWAYS fall on the costly side of a cost-benefit analysis, mainly because a revolution is a form of warfare which doesn't actually capture resources in a hard, quantifiable way. I.e., if I for some hokey reason started "the second american revolution" or something, by winning, it's not like I would receive the economic stimulus of capturing canada's oil fields (as my war would be a domestic one -- I would be "conquering" resources my nation already had), nor would I really gain the benefits of the "evil government's" misappropirated resources, because they would ostensibly be spent in quelling the revolution. I.e. all of the wealth I could spread to the "common man" after the revolution would have been spend by the deposed government on bullets used to execute partisans.

So it's always a no-profit outlook.

So what /are/ the relevant variables in predicting, not whether a revolution is profitable, but rather whether one will be capable of mustering enough support to even get one kicked off or not?

6 months ago, under the theories presented by militiafucks who think they know a thing or two about (being) revolting, I would have said "food and infrastructure -- when these go, people will revolt". However, upon studying what /actually/ happens when food/infrastructure go down, it doesn't actually tend to be "revolution", but moreso hobbled groups of individuals fortifying their positions and just trying to stay alive until shit crawls back down from being insane. Basically, any "warfare" would be hungry people fighting over food -- to hell with taking control of government.

After trawling through the volumes of rants and raves against neoreaction, though, I think I see a more rational variable for predicting whether revolution is viable or not: perceived legitimacy of government coupled with the ease of changing regimes.

You tend to see revolutions in situations where:

>the people generally don't see the government as working to their benefit
>the people have no method outside of conflict to depose the current government.

For example, right now, a lot of people strongly dislike the obama regime in the united states. Before him, a lot of people strongly disliked the bush regime. In BOTH cases, you had people left and right (turn of phrase, not politcal left-right) talking up a storm about revolting, revolutin' and all sorts of other shit, however, in neither case did anyone muster a fighting force and go try to take washington. Why?

Basically, because they DID, although they channeled their revolutionary spark through the more-bloodless system of voting, rather than taking up rifles and bombs. The "revolutionaries" under bush made their revolutionary push when they ousted bush's party via election -- and the "revolutionaries" under obama will have the same when they next elect a republican to office.

Compare this to Czarist russia, where the people couldn't vote -- they felt the czar wasn't working to their favour, so they "voted" for communism, albeit not with ballots, but rather bullets and bombs. Again in 1776 America, which was unable to vote for what they wanted, so they instead turned to violence. And again with south africa, which waged bombing campaigns and riots with the state until the state buckled. Yet again and again when the black people of america waged economic warfare in order to force industry and government to grant them rights.

So there's the pattern, and your relevant variable as to what causes revolution/allows a revolution to be fomented within the mind of the public -- deny the people the ability to feel that they can oust the current regime peacefully, and they'll "vote" explosively. Note that I said "feel", too. It doesn't matter if they are legitimately replacing "one devil with another" -- as long as they /feel/ that they are replacing satan with a saint, they'll be inclined to take that route, because as I said before, violent revolution is always unprofitable, and everyone knows this.

Likewise, however, if you can stir a grand propaganda movement that can cause the majority of a population to feel that EVEN THROUGH VOTING they aren't ousting their political adversary, you /might/ get the chance to foment a revolution, however, there would be obsticles to this, as
>the state has a more powerful propaganda arm than you
>you still have to convince the populace that they should take a material loss, even when they have the recourse of the ballot


tl;dr as long as the populace has the illusion of choice in government, you won't get a revolution that's any bigger than some pissed off college students doing a controlled sit-in on wallstreet.


sorry if I was a bit long winded, incoherent, or generally off the mark from the discussion. just my 2 cents, afterall...

[minuspace]

That is why the cost of security is tantamount to the benefits provided by totalitarian regimes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You tend to see revolutions in situations where:

>the people generally don't see the government as working to their benefit
>the people have no method outside of conflict to depose the current government.

Revolutions have happened as you describe them precisely twice in modern history (Haiti and Russia).  Usually, they do NOT occur when these conditions are met.  In fact, most revolutions happen when the upper class decides that they have to occur.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That is why the cost of security is tantamount to the benefits provided by totalitarian regimes.

Um.  Please do not make the Queen of England cry.

[Odibex Grallspice]

Why not? Queen's tears cure syphilis!