No one’s going to storm any Bastille until we are threatened with actual starvation. Past revolutions happened because people had absolutely nothing to lose but their lives.
Wealthy overlords have figured out that as long as they keep our food supply available, we will never revolt. It doesn’t mean that we will be happy or that we will disagree with it … it’s as long as food is made available to us no matter how meager or unpleasant, then we will never rebel.
So unless we’re starving, we’ll never rebel … governments and wealthy owners have figured out that they have to keep us fed, even if its just a little (and even if its shitty food), to keep us pacified.
This popular image of the French Revolution, and revolutions in general, is almost completely false. The central issue that led to the French Revolution wasn’t declining living standards (though economic pressure was certainly relevant), but the French treasury going bankrupt and the resultant calling of the Estates General. Prosperous middle classes for example are generally a notoriously revolutionary bunch, and so are oppressed peoples and the proletariat. Economic pressure, up to and including starvation, is important, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for revolution to break out.
Edit: If I were to oversimplify the causes of the revolution beyond recognition to produce something as short as the starvation thesis, it’d probably be something like the Marxist thesis: The Ancien Regime’s fiscal crisis opened the way for the French bourgeoisie to demand political power, which they (to put it lightly) did. The big problem with this simplified explanation is that it only describes the first two months of the 5-25 year-long French Revolution (definitions vary), because the French Revolution is really fucking complicated.
But you have to admit that part of the population did suffer greatly so far as lack of housing and lack of food, we are almost there . people will be fooled into war for profit but usually end up fodder, there is little convincing needed when family begins to starve.
That still assumes people have a place to stay. When jobs don’t cover rent anymore and you’re having a lot of folks holding an eviction notice things get ugly a bit faster.
I agree but I’ve been near homeless a few times in my life and honestly, it doesn’t really bother me that much. I grew up poor on a Native reserve in northern Ontario … we were so poor we didn’t have running water in the house … that’s where I was born and raised. So having no home, a bad home or very few conveniences doesn’t really bother me … and when you lay everything down, most people can live with it - correction, most people can SURVIVE it.
Food on the other hand is a deal breaker … if I or anyone runs out or starts missing food … we’ll become desperate and do anything for our next meal.
Why would they keep the food supply available? The food companies aren’t stopping to maximize profits because that’s endangering the profits of someone else. They are gonna keep maximizing and lowering the cost of the supply chains at the expense of resiliency. More and more people would go hungry. Either enough of us go hungry gradually or a supply shock puts most of us out of food rather quickly.
food as a weapon is very real, that is usually when martial law happens along with rebel insurgency groups, war lords, eventual total breakdown if things keep going that way.
No one’s going to storm any Bastille until we are threatened with actual starvation. Past revolutions happened because people had absolutely nothing to lose but their lives.
Wealthy overlords have figured out that as long as they keep our food supply available, we will never revolt. It doesn’t mean that we will be happy or that we will disagree with it … it’s as long as food is made available to us no matter how meager or unpleasant, then we will never rebel.
So unless we’re starving, we’ll never rebel … governments and wealthy owners have figured out that they have to keep us fed, even if its just a little (and even if its shitty food), to keep us pacified.
This popular image of the French Revolution, and revolutions in general, is almost completely false. The central issue that led to the French Revolution wasn’t declining living standards (though economic pressure was certainly relevant), but the French treasury going bankrupt and the resultant calling of the Estates General. Prosperous middle classes for example are generally a notoriously revolutionary bunch, and so are oppressed peoples and the proletariat. Economic pressure, up to and including starvation, is important, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for revolution to break out.
Edit: If I were to oversimplify the causes of the revolution beyond recognition to produce something as short as the starvation thesis, it’d probably be something like the Marxist thesis: The Ancien Regime’s fiscal crisis opened the way for the French bourgeoisie to demand political power, which they (to put it lightly) did. The big problem with this simplified explanation is that it only describes the first two months of the 5-25 year-long French Revolution (definitions vary), because the French Revolution is really fucking complicated.
But you have to admit that part of the population did suffer greatly so far as lack of housing and lack of food, we are almost there . people will be fooled into war for profit but usually end up fodder, there is little convincing needed when family begins to starve.
That still assumes people have a place to stay. When jobs don’t cover rent anymore and you’re having a lot of folks holding an eviction notice things get ugly a bit faster.
I agree but I’ve been near homeless a few times in my life and honestly, it doesn’t really bother me that much. I grew up poor on a Native reserve in northern Ontario … we were so poor we didn’t have running water in the house … that’s where I was born and raised. So having no home, a bad home or very few conveniences doesn’t really bother me … and when you lay everything down, most people can live with it - correction, most people can SURVIVE it.
Food on the other hand is a deal breaker … if I or anyone runs out or starts missing food … we’ll become desperate and do anything for our next meal.
Why would they keep the food supply available? The food companies aren’t stopping to maximize profits because that’s endangering the profits of someone else. They are gonna keep maximizing and lowering the cost of the supply chains at the expense of resiliency. More and more people would go hungry. Either enough of us go hungry gradually or a supply shock puts most of us out of food rather quickly.
food as a weapon is very real, that is usually when martial law happens along with rebel insurgency groups, war lords, eventual total breakdown if things keep going that way.