Revolution in America - could this actually happen?

I’m talking about a real revolution - people organizing and taking up arms against their government, not a pseudo revolution “at the ballot box”. I’m also not talking about another country getting involved in any way to fuel the fire.

I’m referring to a resistance by US citizens, who are organized into a fighting unit to take over Washington, replace the form of government into whatever they thought was the way to go, take the wealth of the country’s rich and redistribute it as the leaders see fit, etc.

I say no way. A true revolution in the US is simply not possible, and hasn’t been since the government was able to reign in the labor unrest of the late 1800’s and early 20th century.

Thoughts?

It could happen anywhere. I’d say the chances of it happening in a modern western country are remarkably slim, though. For all our griping, most of us aren’t *that *unhappy - at least compared to a lot of other places.

If the standard of living for most Americans continues to decline as it has during the twenty first century political chaos may ensue. It will not be a left wing revolution, however. It will be more like the Spanish Civil War, with the right winning. The right is racially homogeneous, and well armed. Rich whites have plenty of money. They will spend a lot of it to keep the rest.

It is possible that the red and blue states will divide. The original eleven confederate states may be joined with several mid western, south western, and mountain states.

In any case the results will be bad. :eek::frowning:

This won’t happen, of course, or at least not along those lines. The devide of today is not “North and South”. The devide today is “Big City” vs. “Everything else”.

There is a ton of money in the liberal upper echelons as well. The myth that anyone wealthy is automatically a rich white conservative can be easily dispelled by anyone with a few minutes to kill.

Look at electoral results, and you will see rural areas are red, and cities are blue… the bigger the city, the bigger the blue imprint. The only exceptions I have found to that are cities with strongly conservative overall environments, and cities that are built up upon military presence. Higher population densities tend to skew blue for reasons that are FAR to complex to get into here.

To address the OP: I think it’s possible, it’s always possible, anywhere, but HIGHLY unlikely. Things would have to get a LOT worse here.

That being said, I could see some groups trying to “spark the revolution”, and killing a lot of folks in the process. See: The Weather Underground, Charles Manson, et al.

It can’t happen here.

Didn’t we do this in a thread just a few months ago?

Armed revolt requires a tyranical government that does not respond to the grievances of the people along with an inciting event, usually the death of a legitimate protestor during a Draconian respsonse by the government.

The US government is not tyranical–the people can and do express their opinions at the ballot box and real change ensues after these votes. Maybe not the change you want, but change nonetheless.

And what do we have to overthrow anyway? We are the most wealthy people in the world–even the poor have food, shoes, cars & TVs (the Quadruphate of Happiness?). The wealthy elites that actually run this country through political contributions have no reason to upset the status quo that they built.

Revolution is going to require surpassing a tipping point.

Libya has 6.5million people, Egypt is a little over 80million, but the US is over 320million.

And your revolutionary group needs some form of cohesive message. The Tea Party started off with a simple message, their number grew, and then they lost their message.

It’s much easier when you have two distinct cultural segments. Sunni vs Shitte, Tutsi vs Hutu, pro-government vs anti, landowners vs peasants.

But just in case you should probably stock up on ammo.

the difference between revolution today and revolution in the past is that nowadays when you sign up as a rebel, you sign your own death sentence which is sort of “postponed until further notice”. Maybe you die in a week, maybe in two years, but there is just no escaping it. Doesn’t matter who is going to win in the end - you still die regardless.

So the question of whether you can have a revolution in America depends on “can you make millions of people so unhappy so as to say, forget the illusory hopes of liberty and just give me an assault rifle and a burial shroud?” A million dollar question, I guess.

If you’re talking about a revolution rather than a coup, you need a mass movement. And mass movement revolutions are difficult to get going in a democracy - any movement with enough people to form a revolution is usually big enough to be a strong voting bloc. Why overthrow the government when you can get what you want through voting?

The likeliest scenario for a violent uprising in a country like the United States would be if a regional majority felt its interests not being recognized by the national majority. But that would be more of a secessionist movement than a revolution.

As long as there is democracy; no. If the government became tyrannical and neglected to address the natural rights of its citizens, then yes, if there were some kind of block to voting. In fact, Americans are rather spoiled when it comes to some rights. It’s possible, but a lot would have to be put into place first.

Why the hell would rich whites want a rebellion?

We can call it the Polo Revolution. Or Gucci, but Gucci might be a little too ethnic.

To change the National Anthem to a Kenny G song. Insure more crop subsidies for arugula. Finally make a Department of Culture to be run by Jimmy Buffet. You know, finally get some action on the important issues that I care about.

I don’t think a successful armed insurrection is likely but I believe acts of violence otherwise known as domestic terrorism are in our future if things continue as they are.

And make Wes Anderson secretary of state.

I think he’s imagining that the whites will be massacring the revolting browns and blacks to preserve the status quo.

Maybe an ECONOMIC Revolution would be more REAL than a violent revolt.

There has to be some kind of economy after the revolution even if it is successful.

Why not revolt at the most important level in the first place? Why hasn’t the economics profession suggested that accounting be mandatory in the schools? We have had college kids committing suicide over credit card debt. But most kids get 4 years of English Lit in high school but no one suggests accounting.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/10/pf/credit_cards_college/?postversion=2008071413

http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-11714,00.html

If double-entry accounting is 700 YEARS OLD how can it be as difficult as most people try to make it out to be?

http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/pacioli.htm

The first book is 500 years old but some sources trace its use back a lot farther than that.

Wasn’t accounting one of the first uses corporations put computers to in the 50s and 60s. But now dumb consumers are supposed to use them for Twitter and Angry Birds.

psik

By whom? LWs? RWs? Religious nuts?

:confused: I don’t see how wider education in accounting practices would make a revolution, economic or otherwise.

I do not think so. But I see some parallels with the Spanish Civil War in that there won’t be just two factions but dozens of factions, if God forbid, one happens,.