So what exactly causes revolutions to happen exactly? Most

You can't just group revolutions together, Anon. What happened in England is different from what happened in France; what happened in America is different from what happened in Russia.

Zizek said they happen not when things are bad but when things go from bad to slightly better and I'm inclined to agree.

>>2596961
Got any examples of this?

>>2596964
Not off the top of my head no. It sounded about right and I regurgitated it plz don't hold it against me anon ~_~

>>2596617
>Most People are pretty aphetic if their freedoms are taking away and forced to live in police states. Happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and North Korea and people didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Russiand, Germans, and Koreans are natural slaves

English aren't
note how in WWII everyone in Europe was taken except England (Russia probably would've allowed it too if not for the nazi's wanting genocide).

>>2596617
Basically after the Seven Years War (or as call it in America, the "French and Indian War), the British did two things that really pissed us off.

1) They raised taxes on us despite the fact we had no representation in Parliament. If the Bongs had given each colony a parliamentary representative, I doubt people would have cared as much.

2) They didn't let us settle west of the Proclamation Line. Basically, we couldn't go into Appalachia. In the American mind, the point of the French and Indian War was to have access to Appalachia.

I think the state of the economy also has a big influence in revolutions. In order for one to take place people have to be uncomfortable.

>>2596617
>Most People are pretty aphetic if their freedoms are taking away and forced to live in police states.
>didn't seem to have a problem with it
>Nazi Germany
had to put opposition activists in concentration camps, several assassination attempts by the military
>Soviet Russia
terrible civil war for several years, decades of unrest and dissidents
>North Korea
Korean war, several coup attempts

True revolutions are driven by a desire for land reform. They are fought by desperate and hungry people with little organization, and typically defeated in detail by the state, if the state can survive the initial crisis.

Successful revolutions are almost always one faction of elites wresting power from another, and then framing it as a popular revolt.


The basic problem that all societies develop is that having power makes it easier to get power. If there is no response against this, you get the French Revolution or the Soviet Union.

To a large extent revolutions happen when the collective wealth and influence of an organized group that seeks to usurp power becomes greater than that of the existing elites.

The most well known revolutions (America, France, Russia), were pretty much just a plot by the rich to turn their de-facto power (money) into de-jure power (political leadership).

>>2599650
>France

Nope. France was a comprehensive revolution; it was later co-opted by new elites.

It started as the Terror, where peasants were actually more effective at transmitting news about the revolution than the elites.

>>2599712
The "new elites" were the old burghers. It's naive to think they just opportunistically "co-opted" the revolution later and not that they were conspiring/agitating/funding it from the beginning.

>>2599730

Yes. But the Revolution was not started by them, or by spooky groups like Masons. They wisely took advantage of it. But they didn't even incite it.

French Revolution is an exception. For almost every other revolution that happened, I'm with you. What I've read about the FR makes me believe it's not true of that one.