My source is dead tree and not to hand, but having read the Wikipedia entry I realise that the author had not understood what was happening*. This is what it said in Wikipedia:
In 1672, Jean-Baptiste Colbert devised a system by which the fountaineers in the garden would signal each other with whistles upon the approach of the king indicating that their fountain needed to be turned on. Once the king passed a fountain in play, it would be turned off and the fountaineer would signal that the next fountain could be turned on (Thompson, 2006).
The enormous system of canals, reservoirs and pipes was dug by, apparently, soldiers.
So I apologise for being unintentionally misleading. I have deleted the post rather than try to correct it.
*Edit - IIRC it said something like “a large labour force was needed to convey water to the ponds that fed the fountains, and they had to be concealed from the nobility.” So, partly lack of clarity by the author and partly my own misunderstanding.
I don’t know. Even scientific revolutions probably cause some pretty passive-aggressive moments over the water cooler.
(If it’s not violent, isn’t it just “politics”? One of the standard identifiers for proper democracy is the point at which handover of power takes place without people getting killed. John Glubb wrote that the tragedy of the Arabs is that they have never developed a political system that makes this possible. It’s why dictators like Mugabe cling on to power; they expect to be killed if they lose it. Of course, the more they cling on and the more corrupt they get, the more likely there is to be violence eventually.)
Partition resulted in a massive civil war. Gandhi himself was murdered. The relative absence of state violence in the lead up to partition was unable to stop the tensions between communities from turning into war. I’m afraid India/Pakistan/Bangladesh is not a hopeful example for the future of the US or Europe.
Which is why I usually point to Argentina or the Baltics as a more hopeful example, and emphasise that even peaceful revolution is not a fun or easy solution.
It isn’t easy, but it can be done. But it is much easier to achieve if you don’t wait until the last minute; you need to get in before the security state achieves total dominance.
It’s like climate change. It’s never too late to try, but every second of delay makes the task more difficult, more dangerous and less likely to succeed.
—
I know that it is not simple or easy. It is going to take blood and courage and heroic work from masses of people, and even with all that it will still be a close-run thing.
But if a hundred million Americans united and all did this:
In thinking about nonviolent revolutions, the new digital age provides us with the most potent tool of all: exclusion. What good is all that money if you cannot use it in a literal sense? What if all your communication is mysteriously cut off? What if your staff walks off the job because no paychecks are clearing? Heck, let’s go all in, lock the smart locks on your homes, mess with your online groceries orders, and let you pretend to order out. Who needs a guillotine if we can simply make you no longer exist?
I keep reading sentiments along the line of, “They had 10 years to come up with this, and all they managed was this shit?!” It seems like other recent Republican legislation in that they pulled it out of their ass at the last minute, so I’d not be surprised if no one did get to see it beforehand - at least, not this particular, screwed-up version.
the trick has always been republicans set the economy up to crash, blame the democrats when it does, and then take credit when the democrats fix things. ( for some value of fix which involves an ever spiraling descent towards destroying the working class. )
look at 45 - not that anyone believes him - saying that this is “his” recovery. look at gwjr or regan both of whom crashed the economy - but they get a pass. instead the right hates the clinton and says obama was the worst president ever.
Protip 3: Don’t count on them staying non-violent, no matter how hard you try. In fact, try not to have a revolution if humanly possible. And if there is a revolution, don’t be one of the revolutionaries. You’re probably going to be purged by one of the later waves of revolution, or the strongman regime that is most likely to follow.
Things in the US are not good, and in some ways, they’re getting very much worse (while in other ways, things are getting much better quite fast). But you’re nowhere near the point where a revolution would be a good idea, IMO.
They spent the Obama years screaming and saying “NO!” to everything. Eight years is a long time, more than enough for the Republicans’ legislative skills to atrophy from the lack of use. And looking at the House, with its two-year terms, you could easily have a Republican representative with several terms under their belt, who had never actually had to do their job, ie. legislate.
When the next recession comes, we need to more insistently blame the asshole rich bastards who caused it. And, take their money away so they can’t do it again. They keep doing it and we keep letting them.
Bullshit.
Those people have made so much thanks to the policies they’ve caused to be enacted that at worst they’ll be extremely wealthy instead of obscenely wealthy.
True, and, sadly, just like any other invention, the law of unintended consequences jumped in. Now that executions were more palatable, the number of executions increased radically.
