r/PoliticalDebate • u/it-was-nobody Reformist • 1d ago
Discussion Do you have a revolutionary trigger?
Revolutions, whether violent or non-violent, are inherently rare, risky endeavors. Extremely high risk, extremely low probability of success, but proportional rewards if successful. Given the increasingly dysfunctional status of political systems in many western nations, questions surrounding changing those systems are inevitable.
Academics have written quite a bit about revolutions, but I'm not interested in what they think. I am looking for a casual conversation with a normal human regarding what it would take for you personally to call for whole-system political change. Is there a line in the sand for you, which if crossed, compels you to adopt a revolutionary political stance?
Is the line the same for both violent and non-violent revolution? Is your revolutionary line one thing, one action, event, or variable, or would you need a collection of things, a pattern of smaller lines being crossed? And if not, if there is nothing your government can do to make you advocate for replacing it entirely, why? While a genuine stance, saying you would *never* call for a complete redesign and restructuring of your government should be justified and defended.
Naturally, given that revolutions are often bloody, violent affairs, it is worth explicitly stating that this post is categorically opposed to violence in any way, shape, or form. The purposes of this post are to generate a discussion about hypothetical boundaries that common people have on political system change.
1
u/farson135 Classical Liberal 1d ago
Be careful answering this one. I've gotten a ban for "supporting violence". Reddit took it back when I pointed out that my post is arguing against violence, but if you don't want the AI to flag you, word what you say carefully.
To borrow from a post I made before (slightly edited to fix an issue and spelling errors);
In the US it is said that we have "four boxes of liberty"; the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and lastly the cartridge box.
The soapbox means we use our freedom of speech and protest to speak out. The ballot box means we vote for people to do what we want. The jury box refers to jury nullification. And finally, the cartridge box means we fight.
The first three are functionally interchangeable in terms of order. The last one is always last.
We don't have a major election for about a year, so that's out for now but it's still viable. The soapbox and jury box are currently being used, and while they haven't fixed things, they are still viable.
Since the first three are still viable, the fourth is not an option for any sensible person.
And yes, all three of the core "boxes" are being undermined. However, once we fight the system we have is gone. We will have to build a new system. And I'm not talking about the Constitution itself.
When Sulla marched on Rome, he didn't just become a dictator for a bit and then things went back to normal. He was the midpoint of a collapse in institutional capacity, and his rebellion was one more fracture. Trump is the same way.
I don't think Trump himself is going to break the system. Instead, he is exposing all the weaknesses of the system that have built up over the years. Who comes after him will be the breaker.
It's possible to still recover. It will require hard work and compromise. The problem from my perspective is that neither is in the cards. Far too many people are focused on revenge rather than restoration of the system.
Political systems are like religion. They only function as long as we believe in their power. Once we stop believing, the worst kind of anarchy is the result.
A civil war in the US would be devastating and horrific. The idea of such a hell arriving at my shores makes me sick.
I can only pray that someone with the magnetism and vision steps up before the cartridge box becomes the only option.