Who provides shelter to a million people converging on a city?
Do you know what winters in the US are like? How do you keep those people warm enough to continue protesting in 10° (-12°C) weather? You can’t just say “people will have to figure that out for themselves”, people will literally freeze to death if you do that.
A cold winter was instrumental in defeating the Nazis in Russia, wasn’t it? Everyday civilians are not trained soldiers, are not accustomed to spending long periods in freezing cold, and for the most part don’t own the proper equipment that would even make such a thing possible.
Are you going to equip them? Feed them?
These things don’t just come together overnight or without a huge amount of planning and logistics. The fact that you think it’s as easy as “driving to the capitol and staying there” just goes to show how little you’ve actually thought about this.
Edit - just for context, there are roughly 115,000 hotel rooms in the DC Metro Area. Even with illegal double occupancy, that’s 800,000 people living on the streets, underequipped, in winter.
Ironically, logistical questions become much easier to answer if We the People are willing to rebel instead of merely protest.
Revolutions are essentially all or nothing; anyone who picks up weapons should be prepared to appropriate the food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. needed to keep it going. Essential goods and services can then be distributed by the revolutionaries themselves (e.g., food/clothing drives, car pools, communal daycare, skills training, weapon’s training, etc). Not only does this mutual aid allow us to fulfill our own needs: it allows us to build solid networks of trust. Lastly, the revolutionaries must stay on the offensive to keep the state on the back foot. The moment they are put on the defensive, the state will capitalize on its overwhelming advantages (organizational, logistical, informational) and the revolutionaries will be ruined.
On the other, you’re the only person in this entire discussion framing things in terms of open revolt. Collective action is NOT that, and presupposing the necessity of armed conflict could needlessly get innocents killed.
I’d much rather show up for a protest and have to deal with tear gas than show up expecting to assault the city and give them an excuse to meet us with tanks instead.
Edit - not to mention that a wave of people stripping the country bare of supplies and equipment as they move towards the capitol is going to do absolute wonders for the public perception of any rebellion. You’ll have Mr and Mrs Public screaming for it to be put down, hard.
I don’t mean to reduce collective action to open revolt; rather, the former is insufficient. Historically, unions, strikes, civil disobedience, and violence were all employed in order to win concessions from the ruling class. Civil rights and workers rights were won in blood. But these concession were clearly temporary because we are not addressing the root of the problem.
armed conflict could needlessly get innocents killed.
The perpetual violence of the state–both domestically (e.g., against protestors) and abroad (e.g., Venezuela, Palestine) – and the violence of our institutions (e.g. healthcare, prisons) already result in countless preventable deaths. Innocents are quietly dying every day and will continue to do so until we address the problem.
Have you ever been shelled? Or fired upon by a member of an enemy army who’s trying his level best to kill you?
I have. It’s not an experience I’m anxious to repeat. I think you’re drastically under-estimating the average person’s aversion to physical violence and the lengths the vast majority of people will go through to avoid ever being in proximity to it.
Successful rebellions start with demonstrations and build. The escalation of protest and response is necessary to build the kind of commitment a sustainable campaign of violence will require. You can’t just conjure a willingness to run into gunfire for people who haven’t been trained to do so, and thinking that you can just jump past the slow brewing of rage you need in the general population is idealist at best and naive at worst.
You’re making two points here that I’d like to distinguish: 1) Difficulty, 2) Progression. The two points are connected, and I can see how your lived experience is relevant here.
As regards difficulty (#1), this has always been true for every conflict with the state, even for mere civil disobedience. No one wants to face dogs, or fire hoses, or firing squads, or artillery shells. Most people just want to take care of their family (myself included!). But the fact that resistance will not be easy does not make it any less necessary. The ruling class’ quest for infinite profits, which started with imperialism (of land, labor, and resources) abroad, has been steadily coming for the workers at home. Every administration we see the powers of the president growing, every decade it is harder for workers to get by. Now the situation is so dire that the rulers are no longer attempting to hide their disdain for the Constitution and international law. (We are openly throwing brown people in the backs of vans and kidnapping foreign leaders.) If we do not resist, the rulers will consolidate their power under a fascist regime.
Progression (#2) brings up a practical question concerning time frame. And here I concede your point that the difficulty of resistance requires groundwork. (This is why veterans are so helpful to the groups that are now making preparations.) Note, however, that we do not have the luxury of time. The ruling class is watching how we react and is working against us. The people must be willing to escalate in favor of their demands and must do so quickly. If we are not willing to escalate, then peaceful protests will continue to be ignored (e.g., The Woman’s March); If the people do not escalate quickly enough, then we will either lose steam (e.g., Roe v. Wade protests), be co-opted by the establishment (e.g., Occupy Wallstreet), or be violently suppressed (e.g., BLM).
There are historical examples showing how swift regime change is possible, but this comment is long enough as is.
I never said you need a million people, I said million to 1… As in there are so many people that getting enough is trivial.
Protests we’ve had in cold weather were supported by local charities, people who brought equipment because for obvious reasons you don’t goto a protest without preparing first.
Overnight… Well Americans have had almost a year to plan… Not too mention many many protests to organise apparently.
Driving was again mentioning how many people are within easy transport distance.
Again… People don’t go to these events without preparation.
Who provides shelter to a million people converging on a city?
Do you know what winters in the US are like? How do you keep those people warm enough to continue protesting in 10° (-12°C) weather? You can’t just say “people will have to figure that out for themselves”, people will literally freeze to death if you do that.
A cold winter was instrumental in defeating the Nazis in Russia, wasn’t it? Everyday civilians are not trained soldiers, are not accustomed to spending long periods in freezing cold, and for the most part don’t own the proper equipment that would even make such a thing possible.
Are you going to equip them? Feed them?
These things don’t just come together overnight or without a huge amount of planning and logistics. The fact that you think it’s as easy as “driving to the capitol and staying there” just goes to show how little you’ve actually thought about this.
Edit - just for context, there are roughly 115,000 hotel rooms in the DC Metro Area. Even with illegal double occupancy, that’s 800,000 people living on the streets, underequipped, in winter.
Ironically, logistical questions become much easier to answer if We the People are willing to rebel instead of merely protest.
Revolutions are essentially all or nothing; anyone who picks up weapons should be prepared to appropriate the food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. needed to keep it going. Essential goods and services can then be distributed by the revolutionaries themselves (e.g., food/clothing drives, car pools, communal daycare, skills training, weapon’s training, etc). Not only does this mutual aid allow us to fulfill our own needs: it allows us to build solid networks of trust. Lastly, the revolutionaries must stay on the offensive to keep the state on the back foot. The moment they are put on the defensive, the state will capitalize on its overwhelming advantages (organizational, logistical, informational) and the revolutionaries will be ruined.
On the one hand, you’re correct on all counts.
On the other, you’re the only person in this entire discussion framing things in terms of open revolt. Collective action is NOT that, and presupposing the necessity of armed conflict could needlessly get innocents killed.
I’d much rather show up for a protest and have to deal with tear gas than show up expecting to assault the city and give them an excuse to meet us with tanks instead.
Edit - not to mention that a wave of people stripping the country bare of supplies and equipment as they move towards the capitol is going to do absolute wonders for the public perception of any rebellion. You’ll have Mr and Mrs Public screaming for it to be put down, hard.
I don’t mean to reduce collective action to open revolt; rather, the former is insufficient. Historically, unions, strikes, civil disobedience, and violence were all employed in order to win concessions from the ruling class. Civil rights and workers rights were won in blood. But these concession were clearly temporary because we are not addressing the root of the problem.
The perpetual violence of the state–both domestically (e.g., against protestors) and abroad (e.g., Venezuela, Palestine) – and the violence of our institutions (e.g. healthcare, prisons) already result in countless preventable deaths. Innocents are quietly dying every day and will continue to do so until we address the problem.
Have you ever been shelled? Or fired upon by a member of an enemy army who’s trying his level best to kill you?
I have. It’s not an experience I’m anxious to repeat. I think you’re drastically under-estimating the average person’s aversion to physical violence and the lengths the vast majority of people will go through to avoid ever being in proximity to it.
Successful rebellions start with demonstrations and build. The escalation of protest and response is necessary to build the kind of commitment a sustainable campaign of violence will require. You can’t just conjure a willingness to run into gunfire for people who haven’t been trained to do so, and thinking that you can just jump past the slow brewing of rage you need in the general population is idealist at best and naive at worst.
You’re making two points here that I’d like to distinguish: 1) Difficulty, 2) Progression. The two points are connected, and I can see how your lived experience is relevant here.
As regards difficulty (#1), this has always been true for every conflict with the state, even for mere civil disobedience. No one wants to face dogs, or fire hoses, or firing squads, or artillery shells. Most people just want to take care of their family (myself included!). But the fact that resistance will not be easy does not make it any less necessary. The ruling class’ quest for infinite profits, which started with imperialism (of land, labor, and resources) abroad, has been steadily coming for the workers at home. Every administration we see the powers of the president growing, every decade it is harder for workers to get by. Now the situation is so dire that the rulers are no longer attempting to hide their disdain for the Constitution and international law. (We are openly throwing brown people in the backs of vans and kidnapping foreign leaders.) If we do not resist, the rulers will consolidate their power under a fascist regime.
Progression (#2) brings up a practical question concerning time frame. And here I concede your point that the difficulty of resistance requires groundwork. (This is why veterans are so helpful to the groups that are now making preparations.) Note, however, that we do not have the luxury of time. The ruling class is watching how we react and is working against us. The people must be willing to escalate in favor of their demands and must do so quickly. If we are not willing to escalate, then peaceful protests will continue to be ignored (e.g., The Woman’s March); If the people do not escalate quickly enough, then we will either lose steam (e.g., Roe v. Wade protests), be co-opted by the establishment (e.g., Occupy Wallstreet), or be violently suppressed (e.g., BLM).
There are historical examples showing how swift regime change is possible, but this comment is long enough as is.
I never said you need a million people, I said million to 1… As in there are so many people that getting enough is trivial.
Protests we’ve had in cold weather were supported by local charities, people who brought equipment because for obvious reasons you don’t goto a protest without preparing first.
Overnight… Well Americans have had almost a year to plan… Not too mention many many protests to organise apparently.
Driving was again mentioning how many people are within easy transport distance.
Again… People don’t go to these events without preparation.