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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.