FYG Premise 2: Compliance, NOT Coercion

"It is delusional to think that any government, no matter how tyrannical, repressive, and unchallenged, has the resources to stand up to even a significant fraction of its own constituency in crazed, famine-driven rebellion."

The second premise of my approach to politics is simply that every government without any kind of exception operates on a principle of compliance rather than PURE coercion. Fearmongering using videos and vivid descriptions of malnourished people dressed in rags being used for various forms of slavery by tyrants is very common among various political movements to attract followers, with the false dichotomy implication that this scenario, in which they are unable to resist, is their future if they do not join the cause. However, REAL inability to resist is almost impossible in human society, and if you think you have an historical example of one, I really encourage to post a comment citing it. The premise is that in every situation, the members of society HAVE the power to overthrow their government and do not do so by CHOICE.

It is easy to understand, despite what some conspiracy theorist detractors claim, the concept of government relying on compliance in liberal democratic models such as the United States and most of Western Europe. Electoral fraud, corruption, and various other gimmicks used by incumbents to hold onto their power are no doubt present in these societies, but nevertheless elected politicians and the bureaucrats they manage are answerable to the voters by means of the electoral process, and often have knee-jerk reactions to perceived changes in the political climate that indicate the electoral process no longer favors their incumbency, such as issues of focus in the media. This is not to say that these systems are perfect models of democracy or lack corruption and government overstepping its bounds - in fact a huge purpose of this blog is to point out the opposite - but it does illustrate that public opinion heavily influences policy in the western world, and constituents can choose non-compliance through avenues that are legal and minimally unsafe, such as voting against the incumbent, participating in campaigns, leafletting to distribute information, and so on, and in great enough numbers this changes the direction of government policy.

However, the principle of rule by compliance applies to even the most totalitarian regimes in history, in which freedom of speech meant only the freedom to praise the incumbents and any attempts at subversion resulted in violent repression. In Stalin's USSR, in Mao's China, in Hitler's Germany, in modern North Korea, the oppressed masses STILL had and have the option to bring down the government through non-compliance. In the cases of these regimes, however, the option is pretty much limited to picking up whatever blunt objects are available for use as weapons and storming the government strongholds with them in hand EN MASSE - when a significant percentage of the population chooses this option simultaneously, no military or law-enforcement agency has the capacity to stop them (provided the people enlisted in said agencies are satisfied enough with the government to even risk their lives protecting it and not join the ranks of the rebellion). Seeing as this option is extreme both in terms of risk and inability to organize, history shows us that it requires extreme conditions. Totalitarian regimes often use control of media and access to information to instill a belief in their righteousness and limit subversion, and it is important to note that THIS in itself is meant to instill compliance, even if through misinformation. However, even under controlled information conditions, historical records indicate that in every such state, a large enough proportion of the population is displeased with the government to have the capacity to throw it out by force if only they could organize and act simultaneously. They don't do so because, simply put, the risks outweigh the incentives. Sure, they are disillusioned, but their cramped communal apartments are still a home to keep their families from the elements, and the food and other necessities they acquire through intense and thankless hardship is enough to avoid starvation, and so on. Despite these conditions, people tend to want to live, and even would-be martyrs for freedom are stopped by the thought of what may happen to their families and loved ones if they were to act on their rebellious impulses and not succeed. Hence, rebellion of the hungry, as I shall refer to it from this point on, requires a political situation in which a large enough proportion of the population has significant incentive by means of nothing to lose. Historically, such conditions have included widespread starvation, lethal pandemics with lack of access to treatment, and mass-displacement of people due to war or other conditions that caused them to be exposed to the elements in ways that are deadly or close to it. Knowing that death for oneself and his children is certain is the ultimate requirement for this form of rebellion, and historical examples of it include the Russian, German, and French revolutions. Nothing in this paragraph is meant to excuse the actions of totalitarian autocrats or paint their constituents as slaves or cowards - I am merely pointing out through historical and social trend observations that every government must provide SOME minimum living necessity to its constituency to stay in power, and that this necessity is inversely proportional to the government's access to force and coercion, but with limitations. Even the walls of Auschwitz are said to have had "Work will set you free" scrawled on them. Sure, this was untrue and partially a propaganda necessity, but it still demonstrates a need to give the oppressed SOME TINY HOPE of survival and improvement to limit their incentives to rebel, even in the most extreme of extreme oppressive conditions.