First please list off the characteristics of the United States’ size that makes it immune to the forces that brought about other nonviolent revolutions. I’ll wait.
There are some that gained independence so that’s fair you’re right.
The soviet union singing revolution ones were probably the most comparable I’d guess as far as size goes. But half of the soviet union starving at the time, which makes for an easier revolution when your government is incompetent and already being dissolved slowly inside of itself.
Same with Britain during ghandi, they were in the middle of WW2 and forced the Indian people into it and thats what made the calls for independence even stronger and being in the middle of a world war they were just tired of dealing with it.
So sure, if you’re government is already in the middle of giving up hunger strikes and singing national anthems together can get the job done.
Resisting US government control as it stands right now is more akin to Rome or Myanmar with how it will play out.
Also as far as size goes: more size = more people but also equals more cops, more mitary, more federal agents, etc.
Britain didn’t have an entire portion of the country full of forces who lived there ready to jump when Ghandi was doing hunger strikes. But boy oh boy, the USA sure the fuck does and doesn’t care if it would kill every single last one of us.
On the subject of starving, we’re of course not there yet (at the same scale). But have you seen what’s going on in this country with affordability under this regime? Things on that front aren’t really going in a favorable direction…
But I think your broader point is that there were often “mitigating” factors coincident with any nonviolent revolution in history then helped nudge it along, and with that I would agree. The question for us is whether any such factors (maybe ones specific to our country instead of specific to these past revolutions) are either present here now or about to be present here.
I will pick on your point about more size equaling more cops, etc. The U.S. is one of the biggest countries by area, but it ranks below South Korea, Iran, and Lithuania for police officers per capita. In fact, I’d argue that because of its size, there just aren’t enough police to patrol the entire area of the country.
Now on the subject of military and federal agents, it’s a different story of course. But that’s where we get back to strengths and weaknesses. I’m advocating that we don’t mount an armed revolution in part because the U.S. government is so incredibly armed to the teeth. That’s their strength. But when people are boycotting businesses or refusing to work or engaging in work slowdowns or any number of other non-violent tactics… How does a giant military do anything against that—without losing any scraps of support it still has? We are taking their strength, and making it useless against us.
First please list off the characteristics of the United States’ size that makes it immune to the forces that brought about other nonviolent revolutions. I’ll wait.
There are some that gained independence so that’s fair you’re right.
The soviet union singing revolution ones were probably the most comparable I’d guess as far as size goes. But half of the soviet union starving at the time, which makes for an easier revolution when your government is incompetent and already being dissolved slowly inside of itself.
Same with Britain during ghandi, they were in the middle of WW2 and forced the Indian people into it and thats what made the calls for independence even stronger and being in the middle of a world war they were just tired of dealing with it.
So sure, if you’re government is already in the middle of giving up hunger strikes and singing national anthems together can get the job done.
Resisting US government control as it stands right now is more akin to Rome or Myanmar with how it will play out.
Also as far as size goes: more size = more people but also equals more cops, more mitary, more federal agents, etc.
Britain didn’t have an entire portion of the country full of forces who lived there ready to jump when Ghandi was doing hunger strikes. But boy oh boy, the USA sure the fuck does and doesn’t care if it would kill every single last one of us.
On the subject of starving, we’re of course not there yet (at the same scale). But have you seen what’s going on in this country with affordability under this regime? Things on that front aren’t really going in a favorable direction…
But I think your broader point is that there were often “mitigating” factors coincident with any nonviolent revolution in history then helped nudge it along, and with that I would agree. The question for us is whether any such factors (maybe ones specific to our country instead of specific to these past revolutions) are either present here now or about to be present here.
I will pick on your point about more size equaling more cops, etc. The U.S. is one of the biggest countries by area, but it ranks below South Korea, Iran, and Lithuania for police officers per capita. In fact, I’d argue that because of its size, there just aren’t enough police to patrol the entire area of the country.
Now on the subject of military and federal agents, it’s a different story of course. But that’s where we get back to strengths and weaknesses. I’m advocating that we don’t mount an armed revolution in part because the U.S. government is so incredibly armed to the teeth. That’s their strength. But when people are boycotting businesses or refusing to work or engaging in work slowdowns or any number of other non-violent tactics… How does a giant military do anything against that—without losing any scraps of support it still has? We are taking their strength, and making it useless against us.