Why do revolutions happen? What is the tipping point that turns

>>2680241
>is there a pattern we can make from human history to discern how they occur, what determines their success?
That's clever but I'm not gonna help your regime.

>>2680241
When people start not having shit to eat and an ideologue convinces them that ìf the government is toppe shit will change a revolution starts.

>>2680323
*toppled

>>2680323
No one was starving in the 13 colonies

>>2680463

That was a war of independence not a revolution.
I also tought OP wanted a Communist revolution.

>>2680241

It's always a minority of the population,

And they always have big money behind them pulling the string.

French revo, America revo, Arab Spring, etc.

>>2680323
Not to mention efforts to demonstrate that the government can be toppled or at least reformed in the first place

>>2680241
Rich benefactors pay for them.

"revolution" is just a historiographical term to events that we judge to have been revolutionary OR theyre just named revolutions and the event gets stuck named as one

there's no way to predict it, only to describe it

>>2680467

the American Revolution was a revolution you numbnut because it demonstrated the viability of a liberal democratic republic, probably a more of a revolution than the French revolution

>>2680529
>liberal democratic republic
Only rich white land owning men can vote.

Gee, never saw that before.

Reminder that the British abolished slavery first, and that's why the white Americans revolted.

>>2680529
The people who fought the US independence war were not fighting for democracy or a change in the social order. They already had those things. They were fighting to not have to pay taxes to Britain. The revolution in statesmanship came in with the enlightenment philosophers after all the fighting was done and people had gone home.

>>2680529
It is called revolution only in the US.
Here in europea we call a spade a spade and an independence war an independence war.

The fact that the winning side later decided to create a Republic is still very important but they did not create a republic in the same state there was before, they created an entirely new state seceding from British rule.

>>2680546
This guy gets it.

>>2680241
Someone builds enough power to sway public will and steal the foundation elements from the current ruler/s.

>Be rich
>Dislike current ruler
>Build a legal, small resistance
>Sway the loyalties of government officials, law enforcement, military ect.
>Stage a coup
>Declare yourself the rightful ruler as the embodiment of the people's collective will
>The side with the most key figures in government, LE and military usually wins

>>2680541
dumb presentist argument

liberal democratic by eighteenth century standards - it was absolutely the facilitator against perceived despotism in europe from becoming entrenched, by making constitutional pluralism popular again globally

>>2680546

given that the declaration of independence in 1776 is plagiarized from Locke and Francis Hutcheson, that was quite a dumb comment to make

taking the American Revolution to be a simple matter of 'omg theyre taking away our taxes lol' misses the political impact of texts like Common Sense by Paine and Novanglus by Adams which rarely deal with financial affairs, and instead examine colonial america and its relationship with britain under extended jurisprudiential, moral philosophical and social theoretical analysis. If it was just about taxes, then why were they so preoccupied with the illegitimacy of monarchy?

It's true they were trying to revert back to an America pre-1763, but they chose perhaps the most revolutionary way to do it

Besides, the difference between the American Revolution and the War of Independence is not a semantic problem; one cemented the viability of modern republicanism in political thought, and the other was a military campaign

>>2680241
Hunger.
90% of the time its hunger.