LogFAQs > #961532008

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's very difficult to actually define. The dictionary definition is 'a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system'. So if, say, the 'National Divorce' scenario played out it wouldn't count as a 'revolution' since it was peaceful. Conversely if an outside military came in, destroyed the country and social order, and instituted a new form of government in it's place it would meet the dictionary definition... at least technically. So even though the first would be groups of people separating from the government to change both their government and social order it wouldn't be a revolution. Conversely if an outside force changed such a thing by force it would count... which doesn't sit right with me.

I feel like the defining line for a revolution comes when people reach a point where they are both willing to kill, and willing to die, for the cause on a wide enough scale to hold an impact. As much as people deride the Jan 6 rioters I wager the vast majority of them were unwilling to kill and certainly unwilling to die/risk it all for their goal. Even with the CHAZ it was more a bunch of college students throwing a tantrum and being allowed to get away with it due to a weak mayor and a failure of policing. The CHAZ people would likely have crumbled away in an instant if they had been presented with the choice of either standing by their cause and risking losing it all if they failed or forsaking the cause in return for being able to resume their lives as normal civilians. So when that line gets crossed, when people become both willing to kill and willing to die for the cause, that's when you have a true revolution on hand.

That's just my 2 cents though and my attempt to define something that's rather nebulous in my eyes.