When peace and harmony are an option, they are the best option. Unfortunately, unrest complicates things; maybe a revolution would improve a bad situation, or a small war distract people from it. So break out the popcorn and political prisoners: here’s a brief guide to causing one.
Step one is to make some enemies. When you’re starting a conflict, the danger isn’t the people fighting against you; it’s people not fighting you. Even if you can’t convince everyone to join your side, persuade them that they have to pick some side — otherwise you’ll be left with a painful ceasefire. “You’re either with us or against us” is a time-honoured tactic to deploy.
Next up is to pretend that killing and fighting is the moral choice. Pretend we have the high ground, perhaps maintaining that we are retaliating for what ‘they’ did to us. You’d be hard pressed to find a successful revolutionary that didn’t believe they were in the right.
The enemy should be thought of as inhuman, and thus acceptable to murder. Turn them into cold bodies rather than living breathing people — both physically and figuratively.
Give us hope that things can change for the better. You may have heard that civil instability is not so prominent when times are tough, but when things are worsening. Nostalgic memories of the past feel like proof that we could return to those times, if we could only make the necessary change. It hints that victory is possible.
Assuming all goes to plan, you will have kindled a clear-cut faction that despises outsiders for their supposed lack of morals and that believes they can change the world. After that, keep escalating until you get to the top.
The last step is the most difficult. It’s the one Stalin got wrong.
Once fierce loyalists have defeated all enemies and believe themselves to be superior leaders, you’ve got to stop: look back at the bodies you’ve made from your species, and admit you were wrong.
Image edited from Julius Caesar (1953) at 13:21.
I really enjoyed reading this Gali! I think that what you have talked about relates so much to the situations at the moment especially where you say “turn them into cold bodies rather than living breathing people – both physically and figuratively.” This is extremely relevant with the way that Trump handles the police brutality killings by making the people who passed away seem like they were doing horrible things that led to their deaths rather than admit that it was the fault of the police. I think the way you have written your post in ‘steps’ makes it so much more clear to understand the thinking behind the cause of a revolution.
This is a really important point, and I think your last few lines are really powerful here. Knowing when to stop is of particular importance in leaders, and many become power hungry, or get too caught up in their victory to realise what they’ve become. Whether we agree that violence is necessary for social change or not, looking back and realising what you’ve done, recognising the loss of lives, and admitting that you were wrong is the only thing that keeps us human, once all else is done.
“To recruit believers, I must build something for them to believe.” – Cultist Simulator
“To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” – Douglas Adams
If you want to take power then, please, look to this guide and then, if you think anything here fits into your plan then please, go and play some games instead. They are much safer for others, even if they might be quietly horrifying
This raises the question — what other methods of bringing about change are possible? Off the top of my head, I can only think of one non-violent revolution that has occurred successfully, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal. Though my head isn’t the best source of historical knowledge, it’s clear that a majority of revolutions are to some degree, violent. How acceptable is it for revolutionaries and protesters to engage in violent acts, if the revolution will result in an outcome that is considered better than before?
On the surface, you would weigh up the pain during a revolution against the prosperity afterwards. However, that system is only as accurate as your chosen method of calculating pain and prosperity. Maybe you think in terms of lives lost, or maybe in terms of average happiness, and maybe you account for everyone, or just your allies. Based on those initial assumptions, you might get wildly different estimates of the price of a conflict.
I would say that a revolution is never justified unless every cost-benefit analysis agrees with you. That means you have to be protecting the lives and happiness of everyone, as well as specifically those of your allies. You should have popular support and be bringing about a more just world. You also have to go about it with genuine care and respect for your comrades and enemies, with minimal deception or dishonour. Without any one of those, you can’t be sure you have the moral high ground.