(untitled)

ever since the advancement of technology, technologies that either help or are surveilliance tools, one has to wonder if a political revolution even is possible nowadays. goverments now have large databases storing a fuarrrkton of information about everybody, they can pinpoint where you are thanks to cellular towers, they can basically access your camera, microphone, your activities whether be it on your phone or computer. obviously humans won't be able to surveil you 24/7 but thanks the advancements in AI if you are deemed a threat against the status quo in some way or another, they can just casually pull up and or add more information to your profile, just like that. not to mention crowd control technologies that would help in dispersing protests have come long way and have proven themselves in scenarios, am not saying these things to make one paranoid at all but rather ask, can it be possible to even have a revolution in the modern era? considering how much goverments have not only put us under their eye but also how we are conditioned from our first years of school to obey and listen and still are being conditioned as we speak just like the frog in boiling water. could you imagine the reactions of our ancestors?

>can it be possible to even have a revolution in the modern era? of course. like 1000 years before all it takes is a willing man with enough money.

>>95221 This trajectory hasn't changed in at least 2000 years, probably 5000+ years. It's not a thing "revolutions" can overcome, a revolution after all is just another turn of the same wheel... Individuals can overcome it, on an individual level.

Revolutions are born from two aspects, one aspect involves the "rebellion" organizing and the other is the "authority" failing. An authority that fails in keeping its population satisfied and distracted will eventually fail or has already failed in its security apparatus. Surveillance only does so much if there's too much junk data and the watchmen grow numb. >could you imagine the reactions of our ancestors? I have a hard time believing the generations that regularly beat their children and mindlessly followed religion would have a problem "conditioning", only with whoever administers it.

>>95237 are you butthurt that your parents slapped your ass and believed in God? Religion might be faulty, yet people of old time were far more mature than western man babies like you who need the govs to provide them with diapers on a daily basis.

Has revolution ever been possible? People love stories of uprisings of "freedom fighters", but those groups are inevitably funded and supported by rulers of other nations or virtually legitimate contenders to the throne. It's always been kings fighting kings & would be kings fighting kings. There isn't "revolution" or change now days because the entire world is effectively ruled by the same oligarchs, a chaotic schizoid one world government in the hands of many epstein likes.

>>95241 >it's always been kings fighting kings except, some kings are made by their victories. consider china, if a capitalist country were to have a successful communist revolution, it would be suspected of being a chinese puppet state. once, china was considered a russian puppet. how the tables have turned. that's not even getting into historiography. history is written by the victors, and the history books of our liberal democracy especially are focused on the succession of leadership and individuals who surpassed the rest. this is known as the "great man" theory of history, but it is not the only way to think about history. you could also view it in terms of social classes overcoming one another, states doing so, or the unfolding of machinic, social, and/or ecological processes. to name a few. i think that most have a combination of different historical theories that tell them how things came to be. it might not be the most organized, but the explanations for things tend to come from a wide enough variety of sources and historians that some historical events would be popularly seen as the product of powerful individuals, while others are a result of states, councils, mobs, many more things. i think this mixed framework approach can be pretty helpful, but its sometimes good to identify and focus on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular way of understanding.

>>95242 official history omits anything juicy that would create real understanding that goes against interests. What you get with education is just propaganda meant to instill a desired world view in you. Its even evident in present happening. Media doesnt report anything that would give the public wrong ideas like nepal recently lynching their goverment officials. >>95241 the problem with revolutions is they often foreign state funded because thats how you get the resources to win. But that also means the new government whores the country out to their sponsor as the price for support.

>>95221 >crowd control I am not familiar with protests as technique for regime change. How does it compare to just boycotting labor/consumption? Is it supposed to demonstrate the popularity of a belief? If you had a platform more trustworthy than the electoral system, would that be as effective?

It is still possible, if it's sponsored by a foreign government. They deploy troll farms to influence public opinion on the internet. Algorithms curate what people see on an individual basis. They indoctrinate a generation and wait for them to reach adulthood. That's how they stage political coups in 21st century. Slow, but effective, with plausible deniability to boot. If you have been paying attention, every truly sovereign nation either has very restrictive internet firewalls or operate their own large influence campaigns on the internet.

>>95221 All this about how they could identify revolutionaries ahead of time, what about the mechanism of revolution? Here's an approach you could pursue. We can imagine a world where revolution is impossible because a dominating military power with global reach is entirely self-sufficient, automated, and controlled by one man. There is no revolution because there aren't even any subordinates to betray him, the only hope is his abdication. You can also imagine if the global dictator need to hire a programmer, e.g. to fix a few y2k-type bugs in the global domination operating system. That programmer would not have effective capability to rebel, because the global dictator could place a 500 billion dollar bug bounty on any altered code and execute him if he suspected any malice. The programmer is not rare enough and not critical enough to have leverage. How far away are we from this vision? The united states can also kill tons of people across the globe if they want to, if they dare. They can pick people off the streets without documenting it and ship them off, security in papers or persons be damned. People will protest, but a protest here or there does not actually physically force them to stop killing people. Even a general strike wouldn't have the required leverage. Who do they actually have to keep pleased and supportive of their actions? I would argue, valuable personnel who are hard to replace on short notice. The USA has 1300k active military personnel. Around 80% are support personnel, I think this applies to active numbers? So these 1M active support personnel, how many are actual indispensable professionals? Maintenance technicians? Logistics guys? IT guys? Maybe aviation techs or radar technicians. If we apply the 80:20 rule it isn't hard to imagine a couple thousand particularly competent, conscientious techs being responsible for 41% of support productivity. When those people are true to ideals (and probably orderliness) not found in the incompetent government, then you can try to sway them. That's who you need to convince. That's who you need to identify. That's who you need to offer a crowdfunded stipend in exchange for a patriotically political strike.

The reason that being identified matters is due to retaliation by large numbers of the enemy against you as a lone individual. The enemy can divide and conquer. What if they can't? What if everyone acted at once and did more damage than the enemy could recover from? What if we had a flash revolution? What if a date was picked years in advance and hyped broadly so that when the day comes, there were simultaneous widespread random acts of violence against anyone with more power than a walmart manager? Attacks against infrastructure and manufacturing? Warehouses? Distribution? Imagine one day of absolute mayhem. Everyone is aware of the date, and sees the fires and madness and is emboldened to amplify. Who cares if their cameras are recording when they are being dragged into the street and cut apart? What if you could just wave at the cameras as you strolled along shooting stragglers with your buds? The police can't arrest you later if they all died. It's an interesting hypothetical.

>>95253 protest as in any or all demonstrations, whether be it violent or not. the word rebellion could be a better use

Yes. Revolution through mass apathy, and mass apathy leads to mass death especially amongst the youth. A regime can only last as long as there are human bodies. It has happened before just not to such a large severe extent. The rulers of the world are stupid and flawed. They never accounted for humans giving up.

>>95255 if a state is fully autonomous in relation to its populace and can afford to ignore an indefinite general strike completely then we are not talking about a state anymore. it's the singularity.

>>95287 I believe that's called evolutionary change as opposed to revolutionary. I also love the idea because it makes my hikki lifestyle feel like the best thing ever. Although I think such changes are limited and very slow.

>>95296 Yes, but we are not there yet. The first two examples were given to highlight the last point of leverage we will have before the machine sheds the human facade like a snake skin.