Revolutions needed 2% of the population to fight. Voters are 50% and you need a majority, so in total 25% of the population.
That made revolutions easier historically because you just needed guns and food for those 2%.
Now look at Ukraine, are guns and food enough?
You have to convince the population anyway or there will be a counter revolution. So I think if something is worth changing, it should be changed by voters.
That said, let me ask again, why do you prefer revolutions?
It is the voters fault.
Voters are responsible for politics.
Even if they are manipulated, it's still their fault. Like drunk driving.
You are empirically incorrect, studies show the US is an oligarchy. Bribery is literally legal in the US as long as the right procedures are followed.
Yes. As long as you don't believe in Santa Claus, who is there to make a change?
I would maybe research historical examples where land reform has worked instead of continuing to pester me.
Give me a hint. Are there reforms without staging a revolution? How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?
You're the one who doesn't believe in the masses.
I don't believe in revolutions, that's a difference.
Let me ask again:
How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?
Like, that they historically exist and have resulted in massive gains for the working class, or what?
Do you think not believing voting can affect change is the same as thinking the masses aren't capable of affecting change?
Revolutions needed 2% of the population to fight. Voters are 50% and you need a majority, so in total 25% of the population.
That made revolutions easier historically because you just needed guns and food for those 2%.
Now look at Ukraine, are guns and food enough?
You have to convince the population anyway or there will be a counter revolution. So I think if something is worth changing, it should be changed by voters.
That said, let me ask again, why do you prefer revolutions?