Historically what makes a revolution happen?

Not a monarchist elite.

No, just an intellectual and landowning elite.

Steps to a successful revolution:

1. Own guns.
2. Have a lot of muscular, high testosterone males who enjoy hunting and sports on your side.
3. Have the military on your side.
4. Have the police on your side.
5. Don't destroy your working class and trade unions by shipping all the jobs overseas and illegally importing millions of unskilled workers from Mexico.
6. Don't have half of the country hate your fucking guts and want to kill you by constantly shitting on them for decades for being white, male, straight, Christian, rural, conservative, working class, or uneducated.

Follow these steps and your revolution is sure to succeed! Good luck!

Who had no desire to create little fiefdoms, raise troops and conspire to become King.

When the people get fed up with the corruption.

See you on the battlefield faggot

>American revolution
>Individualist ubermensch

>French revolution
>Not individualist ubermensch

The French revolution is what saw the ascension of the most Ubermensch Ubermensch to ever walk the face of the Earth. Little colonial oligarchs are peanuts compared to the greatness that was the Emperor.

The majority of a population feeling like the government dosent represent them.

I look forward to staying home eating tendies and watching all of you stormfags and commushits kill each other.

normalfags will never learn

>stormfags
>commushits
>normalfags
You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means.

Young Napoleon was certainly a decent candidate for overman, however he sowed so many spooks to control his subordinates he started to get high on his own supply.

Also, getting back to the main point, he was kind of the antithesis of a revolution intended to end monarchy.

I would have much rather lived in America than France during this era.

Widespread starvation and absence of economic opportunity

Hunger

Fascists and communists aren't normalfags

Normalfags are center-leftists who only care about legalizing gay-marriage and marijuana, enriching colored people at the expense of whites, moderation/apathy on religion, and being absolved of their student debt.

Kek

Are meme communists the vanguard party of the 21st century?

trump demonstrates the power of memes, they may well be

This frightens me because memes are basically spooks

That's actually a lot

Wow

putting "historically" in front of a politics post doesn't make it Veeky Forums related

The idea is to intimidate the bourgeoisie

Interesting. There's literature on this?

Inauthentic rustling of the masses under a false cause.

I went to school from a railway station that was far more crowded at rush hour.

ascending social groups fighting for political power

Blame Democrats, not leftists, for those problems

We want a path away from bourgeois identity politics and Neoliberalism

This.
Also often aided by a lower class of people that have nothing left to lose and hope the new ascendance of the new group will help them.

This but the current highest power also has to have completely lost the support of the lowest classes.

Otherwise its just the rich fighting over second place.

>tankie
>Leninist
>stalinist
>anarcho-commie
>Marxist Leninist Marxism
Don't act like you guys don't take part in little petty bullshit labels either.

(Surpised I haven't you guys promote Capitalist-Communism.)

*cringe*.

>nappy
>died after failing to get his meme empire back
>the FF
>all died in the same nation they created, most of them peacefully

Not this joke of a "revolution" that is for sure.

>intimidate the bourgeoisie

They are the bourgeoisie.

>Ubermensch
>Spooks
The ubermensch isn't about being despooked. Indeed the Ubermensch is supposed to have some spooks by design.

>I would have much rather lived in America than France during this era.
The Ubermensch isn't supposed to make life as easy as possible either.

>Also, getting back to the main point, he was kind of the antithesis of a revolution intended to end monarchy.
Naturally. This is what makes him so great, he was equal parts revolutionary and counter-revolutionary. He was a resurrection of ancient character as well as being the great annihilator of the old monarchies of Europe.

>Went down swinging
>Implying this doesn't just make him an even bigger ubermensch.

Well an even bigger-er Ubermensch would have actually succeeded.

The revolution wasnt about ending the monarchy, but about ending absolutism and rampant hunger in the major urban areas along with a nouveau riche cadre of people who wanted a say in affairs that had long been dominated by the noblesse.

Had it not for the splergy Montagnards the Revolution wouldve looked much different. They were basically Stalinists avant la lettre.

The vote to execute the King had a marginal majority, with people being very much in favour of reforming the crown - with Lafayette almost succeeding early on.

Napoleon flip flopped on many ideological standpoints - having been a Jacobin sympathyzer early on - but was allergic to one thing; indecision. He even wrote down that with the Storming of the Tuileries, Louis shouldve just gunned down the rabble instead of appearing weak and giving in.

Nappy had a lot of flaws, but continued the trend of French centralization and preserved Republican ideals - combined with finding the one type of government that allowed him to stop further coalitions against the state.

Tl;dr the early revolution wasnt about necking the royal house and napoleon dindunuffin he a good boy

Yeah but such a big Ubermesnch hasn't been willed into existence yet.

I'm all for protests, but I have a feeling that these current ones are just a bunch of scared people venting their base emotions. When it comes time to oppose actual policies, they won't be around to help.

Non meme-tier answer:

Lincoln said it best, A House Divided cannot stand.

Generally (although there can be any number of specific occurrences or ideological underpinnings involved) a revolution occurs when a Nation or State (or Nation State) has two ideological movements that compete in opposite directions and attract the support of almost all persons in the Nation or State. Generally, a violent revolution occurs because one of the ideological movements becomes powerful enough to seize majority control of governance and the other ideological movement feels threatened in their existence enough to launch a violent counter-revolution. Thus both "sides" in a violent revolution can be seen to be revolutionary in sense, what is clear is that one ideological movement will completely crush the other (while often absorbing new ideas or creating new ideas) in order to create a new National or State identity based on the ideological movement as well as some of those new ideas and developments.

A non-violent Revolution occurs when the same conditions are in place but the one of the opposing ideologies ceases to exist either through irrelevancy or some other factor, so that the remaining ideological movement is able to reform society and governance along new ideological lines.

I also want to be very clear, a proper revolution (as opposed to a Civil Conflict or Rebellion) is a struggle between two ideas of what life and society should be, not a struggle for control of the government. Revolutions completely and utterly change the social, economic, governmental, scientific, academic, etc, fabric of the Nation or State they effect.

yeah sure, you fucking traitor to the working class

There are no leaders to the anti-Trump protests. If one shows himself to us then we might have a problem. I doubt it though.

Everyone knows what you need for a successful revolution.
>durr u need 2 b better than the other guyz
OP is asking how they start.

Starvation, historically the common people will only risk their lives in rioting once they are literally faced with starvation.

Muh dialectics

Muh ironic Shitposting

>Interesting. There's literature on this?

Yeah some professor looked a few hundred successful and unsuccessful revolutions and found found violent revolutions succeed ~25% of the time and non violent ones ~55% of the time. Every revolution that got at least 3.5% of the population involved in sustained protests succeeded, though many succeeded with less.

Book is called Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict but ive not read it.

>*cringe*.
cringe

You're attacking two different groups, man

Communists don't support the capitalist policies that lead to immigration and outsourcing

When a significant percentage of the populace believes that another method of organization is more beneficial to them than the dominant one. That or the application of lots of outside money.

Building on what said:

Open borders and free trade are right-wing global capitalist ideas. The legacy of NAFTA is one of the reasons why the working class hates the Clintons so much

Normies are even bigger then your definition user, you just labeled many college bound normies

Is communism actually on the rise?

The people have to be in actual physical danger before they consider rising up.

Getting bashed over the head by riot cops on a regular basis, actual concentration camps being built, or Mike Pence invading homosexual's homes and hooking 30,000 volts to their nipples is a general quantifier for this.

Right now though, these people are being whipped into a frenzy. It's delusion that's driving them. The only reason this worked in Ukraine was because Russia was literally next door and there was the promise of EU gibs on the horizon.

I think the socialist craze in the western world is reaching its peak about now. It's only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back.

I'm legit scared for our country. Tea partiers and now Trump have already undermined so many of the institutions that underpin our republic - media, elections, faith in democracy, faith in science, faith in our political parties, faith in the educated 'elite', constitutional separation of powers (congress would not even hear Supreme Court nominations as was clearly their fucking job) . Not sayin some of those institutions did not leave themselves open to attack, these institutions are not perfect and have not always worked 100% well....but each is really important to our democracy and there is very little faith in them any more.
Its very clear that Trump is not afraid to attack balls to the wall, when anyone opposes him. And his very savvy style resonates with so many, its been remarkably effective. But whats next? What will happen when Congress opposes Trump? However red our Congress is, it certainly is not on the same page as Trump on a number of issues. What happens when the Supreme Court rules against Trump? Will he attempt to tear down faith in those institutions as well? And will the rabid Trumpanzees continue to support him if he does?
With the track record that charismatic, populist narcissists have throughout history, its clear the US is in its most dangerous moment since 1860. I can't blame these people for registering their dissatisfaction with Murrica choosing this man to lead us when history has so many examples of leaders like this man being a horribly destructive force.

It's only four years, bro. There's very little he can accomplish during that time due to how slow our government moves.

He has already been incredibly destructive as far as I can tell. The nation is really bitterly divided, not that all of that is on him, but he played some pretty shitty politics to get his white nationalist plurality.
And all those institutions he has shit all over. People have so little faith left in media that we cant even agree on which version of the facts is legitimate, let alone have a real debate. Its fucking scary man. Shit could go downhill very fucking fast because faith is eroded in the things that hold our society together. And very few people seem to care.

How is this /his related and not /pol/?

The nation has already been pretty divided, and Obama has done nothing but fan the flames. And it's good that people are losing faith in the media. Maybe then they'll start being a bit less biased. I say let the faith erode away. There needs to be some goddamn change in this country, and Trump is the key to that. Keep in mind that America is still a very young country. Nations like France, England, Italy, Germany, China, etc. have gone through countless changes and revolutions. Maybe this is America's first big sweeping change.

From a historical perspective, when folks start burning down institutions for political gain, the results are usually horribly destructive. All of those countries you mentioned have had horrible periods of destruction that they have imposed on themselves...I think we are heading down that direction.

It's just a part of humanity, my dude. Shit's gonna happen whether we like it or not, but life will still go on.

Tell that to the Swiss.

What about the Swiss? They still have their own country, don't they?

Yeah, they're not keeping this aloof allowance towards the possibility of violent revolution in mind. They want to stay as stable as possible for as long as possible. We should have sentiments like them, not this careless "Fuck it, China has already had revolutions and shit, right?" attitude. It's moronic.

Fair point, but you have to keep in mind that America was founded on the basis of revolution and war. It's inevitable.

interesting piece, putting some current events in a historical perspective...scary shit
newsweek.com/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-brext-trump-483671

>apologizing to the scum

>implying Trump isn't the biggest ((((Identity politician))) ever

>no states and no borders TRUE NEVER TESTED COMMUNISM is against immigration and outsourcing.

>Open borders
>inherently right wing
plenty of anarchists wish to abolish borders all together, which many would interpret as open borders
I can certainly see how open borders can be right-wing, but it's a bit of a blanket statement

The people protesting are way to weak to start a revolution. They can't even hamdle being made fun of, they would absolutely break down mentally if they were in a war.There's no safe space for a soldier.

Not being a weak triggered faggot is one thing.

>Actual revolutions like the American revolution