Is revolution, as we historically know it, now impossible?

As long as people have food, water, shelter and live a life of relative comfort and ease, there will be no revolutions against modern first-world governments.

Guerrilla warfare
Civil Disobedience
Sub-machine guns is plenty to take out the government
Win over friends/family in the military/national guard/police to your side

Revolution will never be impossible. Leaders are either forced to kill their own people or acquiesce. If they are forced to kill their own people, then the revolution has already become successful.

P.S. Gun control of any form is both unconstitutional, anti-American and adversarial to liberty.

What hunger was there in the American revolution?

Not true. Revolutions most often are not mass movements of the people. Five men wrote the US Constitution.

Americans are always hungry. That's why they're all fat; they don't know when to stop.

nah, revolution still happens, hell Ukraine fell to a revolution just 2 years ago.

there's also Egypt, Tunisia, East Timor, South Sudan, plenty of nations have switched governments or claimed independence through a revolutionary war/movement.

Reason why they don't happen much in the Western World is because society was changed through revolution. the Ideas of the French Revolution and the revolutions of 1848 brought about major reform for European nations to address the concerns of their populace, which over time resulted in the comfortable lifestyles where bread/shelter/other necessities are relatively easy to come by.

Every government knows by now that if you can't feed/shelter the people, the chances for revolution skyrocket, so any nation that is capable will make damn sure that there is food on people's tables at the end of the day.

What about that revolution in the Ukraine that happened just a few years back? It was very popular at the time as I remember it.

>Is revolution even possible in the modern state?
Revoltuion is never possible, or conversely it's always going on somewhere. They immediately collapse into "civil wars" or sporadic unrest inside a strange ideological regime

The American revolution was mostly a reaction by the Colonials to the expansion of Parliamentary authority. It only acquired a Republican bent when the Colonials (who argued that their charters were issued by the crown and not Parliament) realized that King George was not going to intervene on their behalf.
The Constitution was not envisioned during the Revolutionary War, nor in the time immediately before the Convention of 1787.

My point was that the revolution was not of the many but of the few and those few were not hungry.

Not really a revolution, the DDR literally allowed people to leave

"Ground Up" successful revolutions are a meme.

Almost all successful revolutions in history involved almost every member of society. This includes portions of the fucking army. LE ARMED CITIZEN OVERTHROWING TYRANNY is plain romanticism.

kek

Who says the entire military would remain loyal to the government over the people?

Generally though fully formed armed revolutions are a pretty bad idea when not absolutely necessary, because its sure to get worse before it gets better.

>Is revolution even possible in the modern state?

yes. just look at ukraine. the president might have a few snipers on a roof somewhere picking off the first few dissidents but eventually the soldiers would come to the conclusion that they'd rather defect than slaughter the entire populace of their own country (and even if they did slaughter the whole populace they'd have no people to govern over)

but if you're talking about the average working man displacing all politicians and the rich industrial leaders, well that has never happened and is never going to happen. from a governance standpoint, a revolution is like throwing a rock in a pond; all the surrounding water is immediately going to rush to it's place. to govern you need those politicans and industrial leaders so when opposing any modern government we'd first need to think up a system that would work better in it's place

>calling it a revolution
Ease up on the burgers there, one might think you're actually hungry.

>military men wont shoot their own civilians
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocidehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

Not hunger, but an upperclass who realized that they could make more money if they weren't subject to mercantilism.

>Win over friends/family in the military/national guard/police to your side
In a world where "3%ers" wear "thin blue line" t-shirts and anti-police protesters beg for more government intervention, that just won't happen.

It's dumb to treat one case or the other as universal, when sometimes militaries side with the government, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they're split in two.

The biggest barrier to revolution in a modern country in this day and age is not a disparity in firepower. Firstly, you're very unlikely to see revolution where people have a good enough quality of life; they have too much to lose.

But the other barrier is the ability of the state to control and influence information, and gather intelligence. It has never been easier to intercept information; our whole lives revolve around networked devices. And there's nothing to stop antagonists from crushing their neck while weightlifting, shooting themselves, getting hit by a car, or dying some other kind of unfortunate and tragic accidental death if they get uppity.

>Is revolution even possible in the modern state? Previously, great powers (France, Russia, Germany) could fall to revolution, but it seems impossible with the current armament gap between the general population and modern military technology.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>Veeky Forums is so ignorant they do not know about events happening in the world currently.

kys.

The biggest barrier is that most of the states that matter provide good enough public services that a revolution isn't in the public's interest.

Shithole countries still have them all the time.

White people are too cowardly and squeamish to wage an effective guerrilla war because they've been taught that "terrorism" is the most unforgivable sin. Even when they start starving, they'll eat grass like North Koreans before trying to overthrow the state. Americans included.

Actually policies like the Stamp Act, the "Intolerable Acts" and prohibiting westward expansion were all most harmful to the American lower classes. The American Revolution was very cross-class which is one of the reasons why it is one of the rare revolutions in history that did not immediately fall to guillotines and civil wars.

>tfw Venezuela is close to a "revolution" if the current president doesnt leave.
like 1st user said "When the people are starving, anything can happen".

>Turkshit anything
>Modern

You DO realize that in any revolution,military forces are going to split into factions, right?

The US armed forces are particularly bad about this, the vast majority of military personnel i've met firmly hate every aspect of government that isn't the military, and openly support the idea of revolution and civilians being armed for this purpose.

This is the same world that has the oathkeepers, user.