Kind of? He expressed a popular opinion about healthcare providers in a very…direct way, but if he was trying to start a revolution (and I don’t think he was) he didn’t really succeed. Sure there was a short term boost as companies tried to ‘play nice’, but without the infrastructure in place to sustain it, the pressure soon waned.
Starting a revolution is going to be 95% building support networks and logistics, and 5% finding the right person or group to act as an initial focus and light the metaphorical match.
Yeah I don’t think there is a clear prescription for what a revolution looks like. I’d argue historically is mostly a matter of enough discontent building up and the a flash point.
Maybe Luigi was trying to be that flashpoint? Maybe not? Maybe they underestimated the degree of discontent? Maybe the pacifying effect of social media was too strong?
I’d argue that the people sitting on their hands are doing most of what you are arguing in your second paragraph. Sitting on their hands being unwilling to rip off a bandaid until conditions are almost fully manifest.
But realistically, that’s just not at all how popular revolts work. They are often unplanned, poorly administered, and a bit of a shit show while most of the details are getting figured out on the fly.
I think the sentiment you are expressing is part of why a popular revolution hasn’t manifest in the US. People are trained to expect things to be far more figured out than the actually can or need to be, before it’s time to act.
Realistically, some times you just gotta shit with the ass you got and figure out what to do about it later.
“Shit with the ass you’ve got.”
Got a new favorite phrase.
I’d argue historically is mostly a matter of enough discontent building up and the a flash point.
Unfortunately the vast majority of attempted revolutions fail, and when they do the result is often worse than if it hadn’t been attempted in the first place, with retribution coming down on the revolutionaries and anyone associated with them. These failures are usually down to poir or non-existant planning, as after the excitement of the initial surge there is no coherent plan to maintain it.
Any attempt at an armed revolt in the USA would, I am certain, be crushed with excessive force, and would delight the administration as an excuse to crush any dissent even harder. Worst, a thurd of the population would probably stand up and applaud the crushing.
I think that the only revolution that could reasonably be expected to lead to positive changes in the USA would be a massive, countrywide, coordinated, strike. That’s not going to happen without a lot of prior planning, building the support networks that would keep the strikers fed and housed for the duration, identifying the key industries and times to disrupt, working to win “hearts and minds” of those who maybe aren’t feeling the problems now, or whose world view makes this sort of action hard to imagine and making sure that people and supplies will be where they’re needed. Note that calling it a strike doesn’t mean it will be any easier that an armed uprising, but whilst the US government can bring overwhelming force to bear, the scales are much more evenly balanced when it comes to withdrawing labour. There will certainly be hardship for all involved, but good organisation and solidarity can mitigate the worst of that.
Starting a revolution is going to be 95% building support networks and logistics
Start conversation groups with like-minded individuals. Encourage them to start conversation groups with like-minded individuals. Network.
I think you can start a revolution with just a single bullet. Just have to hit the right target. Not some guy with a tiny face, you need the guy whose redacted the most from the files. His followers will be the ones to start the revolution, but they will lose. Or worst case they have nobody to replace him and get the same number of votes, so the Republican party will start a period of infighting and it’s gonna be so funny.
One bullet removes one person. If you have the rest of the prerequisites in place, then yes, that might be the proverbial match that sets it all off.
you need the guy whose redacted the most from the files. His followers will be the ones to start the revolution, but they will lose
Why would they do that? They’ll just declare martial law and carry on.
Or worst case they have nobody to replace him and get the same number of votes, so the Republican party will start a period of infighting and it’s gonna be so funny.
Whilst I am sure that a vacancy at the top of the hierarchy would cause immediate infighting amongst the Republican party, I’m not sure the result would be a significant change in the short term, as the people who are guideing policy and pushing for fascism would still have their power. Breaking that is going to take a lot more work.
“When trump dies” is just the liberal rapture. Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Of course Vance is weird and uncharismatic to us, but Trump talks like a moron and his supporters eat it up.
That handsome guy has some very bushy eyebrows. Completely unlike literally the only part we can see in the security footage of the man who shot Brian Thompson.
One upset dude that had no real plan, just wanted revenge. So far his only long term impact is inspiring memes, the CEO got replaced and there’s hardly a difference - singular actions are not an actual threat to the system.
The people who start it will be a group of borderline delusionally optimistic people who take action without knowing that anything will come of it. That’s how it goes, it seems impossible until it happens, and then looking back it seems inevitable.
Hey look, that’s us. 😀
