# Is it possible?



## reverend ben (Jul 11, 2013)

So I have been thinking about this all morning, since yesterday when my friend told me about her new version of Monopoly. Also, I had a dream last night that the U.S. military was calling for civilian sponsors for their new campaign of sending mercenaries all over the world to search out economically advantageous resources and take them by force. In my dream this call for investment contributions was aired on NPR.


Given the assumption:
If the world is economically dominated by large power structures that rose to a position of supremacy through nefarious means(lying, cheating, and stealing)...

Question:
Is it possible for one person, or a group of people, with limited financial assets to supersede the dominant power structure armed only with intelligence, honesty, and resourcefulness?

Why, or why not?


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 11, 2013)

As long as the culture at-large in the West, where the majority of the resources go, are staring at their iPhones and more interested in pop-culture than learning about and dealing with the loss of their rights, it probably isn't possible.

So - for the purposes of fiction, the small group would have to possess some kind of leveraging mechanism. Can't be bombs, can't be guns... can't be currency... What finite and desirable resource would this group have that could bend the will of the world powers?


----------



## Sandy (Jul 11, 2013)

Oh, gosh, I think so!  "Supersede" seems to be the issue, because it depends on what you mean by supremacy (that is, owning it all, or having everyone on your side, or controlling the people who seem to be in charge).  Seems to me the more powerful the structure, the more difficult to topple.

But yes, that's what revolutions and guerrilla conflict are all about.  Who strikes the match, who fans the flames, what price they're willing to pay: the stuff of big stories!


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 11, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> So - for the purposes of fiction, the small group would have to possess some kind of leveraging mechanism. Can't be bombs, can't be guns... can't be currency... What finite and desirable resource would this group have that could bend the will of the world powers?



Very good - and difficult - question, but this is where you can get really creative. There's a lot of potential there for a great story.  The struggle for the upperhand. Perhaps, you can even make you question part of the story.  Some characters ask themselves the very same question.  See how each go about answering it.  Do they just give up, or do they seek?

Sorry I did not answer you question.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 11, 2013)

I would say in America, there wouldn't be any question. 

We have millions of gun owners. And there are plenty of people in the U.S. that I think would pick up their rifles and fight for freedom. 

Also, money doesn't really matter. Every battle won would provide the opposition with resources.


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 11, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> We have millions of gun owners. And there are plenty of people in the U.S. that I think would pick up their rifles and fight for freedom.



And just who do you think these freedom fighters will go up against? Commies with pamphlets? Hippies with bunches of flowers? Black helicopters armed only with FLIR?

No, they'll be facing the police, who have been upgrading their equipment for years because of terrorism. And the National Guard. And the US Army, if it comes to that. You'll notice all those groups are already organized. The freedom fighters will get picked off one by one before they can begin to fight.

Now that that's settled, we move on to nonviolent means. Civil disobedience is out. We've learned that these same government forces were ready to assassinate members of Occupy Wall Street. Protest doesn't work because nobody pays attention and nobody cares.

Next strategem? Anybody?


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 11, 2013)

There'd have to be some kind of cataclysmic change to civilization. Something like the sun being blocked by a nuclear winter and no crops can be grown, and the small group has some kind of hydroponic system that runs off CO2 or plastic and souls, or something like that.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 11, 2013)

Perhaps guerrilla cyber-warfare? With economic collapse caused by global warming fallout?  Or failing that, everyone quits Facebook all at the same time?  Hm, well, back to cyber-warfare....


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 11, 2013)

Nickleby said:


> And just who do you think these freedom fighters will go up against? Commies with pamphlets? Hippies with bunches of flowers? Black helicopters armed only with FLIR?
> 
> No, they'll be facing the police, who have been upgrading their equipment for years because of terrorism. And the National Guard. And the US Army, if it comes to that. You'll notice all those groups are already organized. The freedom fighters will get picked off one by one before they can begin to fight.
> 
> ...



And that's why we're pulling out of the Middle East after what, 13 years? We aren't winning there with all of these organized forces.

Also, how many police officers and military do you think would actually turn on Americans? Probably not enough. There are 4,000 enlisted soldiers in the U.S. military. Stack that up against how many civilians? And, there are legal militias in every state, that I'm guessing make up almost 4,000 people.

Not too mention that a lot of military and police training have been tweaked for urban warfare. I see the minute man coming back into play and picking off the opposition. Sure, they got planes, tanks, ships, RPG's, just not enough men and women to stack them against a civilian force like the U.S. 

I personally own an arsenal, and know there are at least one hundred more people in my tiny, Podunk area willing to protect what's ours...that's not even all of Butler County PA. 

Find a shop in your area like www.altrafirearms.com and go in there and talk to them. Get to know what's up in the gun community. You'd be surprised how many civilians own flak jackets, multiple high capacity magazines, thousands of rounds of ammo, rifles, pistols, food supplies, etc. We're not a country that would fall to our knees and beg.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 11, 2013)

Let's just hope they don't actually have to _run. _We might be a nation of gun-carrying "freedom fighters," but we're the fattest folk on the planet. 

My dad's got an arsenal and has been convinced of impending economic and societal collapse for thirty years. Some of his "supplies" have actually gone rancid. Life's too short, if you ask me.

Seriously, back on track here - the bombs and planes and military-industrial mechanism of the world powers is always gyrating, always growing, and I fail to see how a small group could even begin to challenge it without some change in relative leverage.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 11, 2013)

What are we considering a small group? Realistically.

Also, Mexico beat us as the fattest country. We're getting better.

Just because http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/gun-sales-2012_n_2303513.html


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 11, 2013)

Anyone that has some tactical training will tell you definitively, Urban warfare is the toughest there is, especially when you are trying to avoid innocent civilian casualties.  With that said, if the government is trying to battle citizens in the citizens environment, that's another advantage to the citizens.  If you look at a lot of your major battles where it is fought in a uniquely specific terrain, like the jungles of Viet Nam, in the cold wilderness of Russia, or in the wilderness mountain area of North America, the home team wins hands down.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 11, 2013)

We're talking about trying to "supersede" the world powers here. Seems like insurgencies focus on resistance versus domination.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 11, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> We're talking about trying to "supersede" the world powers here. Seems like insurgencies focus on resistance versus domination.



Well on that front, if this couldn't happen, you wouldn't have coups like the ones in Libya and Egypt.


----------



## reverend ben (Jul 11, 2013)

See, this is the thing though. Power would have to come into the mountains with guns blazing for the 'home team' to win in a shootout. Power is never going to do that. Power doesn't think like one human with a lot of guns, or a small community with a lot of guns. Huge power structures have well defined and well... very powerful ways of thinking about complex issues like this. 
This train of though led me earlier today to a depressing end point.  "The only thing worse than being poor and dumb, is being poor and smart enough to see what's going on around you."

But I like the leverage idea. What could it possibly be? What could be the thing?
The Truth rocks pretty hard core, but we all already have the internet, and that hasn't overturned any power structures yet. 

Maybe it's better no one can hit the nail on the head out loud. Better save that idea for when the time is ripe. They are listening you know...

Nah. I'm just messin' with ya.

What could be the thing that the little guy can have, that the big guy can't?

Luck?
Heart?
Captain Planet?


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 11, 2013)

Granted - but there are big differences between those governments and the supercharged machine that makes up the militaries and governments actually control the world. Good point though! *Lewdog

Sorry, Reverend. We seem to have posted at the same time. What's the one thing the little guy can have that the big guy wants... 

An insatiable appetite for entertainment, fast food, and the pablum of pop-culture. Wait, we have that. 

You're going to need more pox. Lots and lots of pox.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 11, 2013)

reverend ben said:


> See, this is the thing though. Power would have to come into the mountains with guns blazing for the 'home team' to win in a shootout. Power is never going to do that. Power doesn't think like one human with a lot of guns, or a small community with a lot of guns. Huge power structures have well defined and well... very powerful ways of thinking about complex issues like this.
> This train of though led me earlier today to a depressing end point.  "The only thing worse than being poor and dumb, is being poor and smart enough to see what's going on around you."
> 
> But I like the leverage idea. What could it possibly be? What could be the thing?
> ...



It's easy...it's been the theme for a long time, it's manpower.  It doesn't matter how many guns the government has, or how much power they have, they have to have bodies to get things done.  Do you think the Pharaohs of Egypt were out there lifting all those stones on their own?  They had slaves, until Moses (?) came along and got them to rise up against their suppressors.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 11, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> We're talking about trying to "supersede" the world powers here. Seems like insurgencies focus on resistance versus domination.



Because resistance keeps an opposition from dominating. The bigger, more powerful opposition always gives up and leaves.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 12, 2013)

A great example of the underdog fighting against powerful entities, would be the Boxer Rebellion in China.  If you need any inspiration, this would be a good place to do some research.

Boxer Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The storming of the Bastille in France is another good example, though not as good as the Boxer Rebellion.

Storming of the Bastille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 12, 2013)

It strikes me that the physical potential for resistance is not the same as resistance, whilst there may be many like Flesheater with a small arsenal most people repeat received ideas rather than thinking for themselves and are deeply conservative. I can imagine a lot of them being out there 'Supporting our boys and whiping out these darned rebels'. rather than supporting any anti government rebellion that was portrayed by the media as a threat to their freedoms to. 

Note; the distinction between freedom to and freedom from is a very useful one that is often not made, meaning people can be talking at cross purpouses and not even realise it.

My view is that real change is incremental and long term, and the best hope at the moment is that education starts teaching how to think rather than what to think. Things like the Boxer rebellion are short lived, even the Maoist communist revolution has just about reverted to the previous status quo with orders coming down from the top, an Imperial system with another name.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jul 12, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> So - for the purposes of fiction, the small group would have to possess some kind of leveraging mechanism. Can't be bombs, can't be guns... can't be currency... What finite and desirable resource would this group have that could bend the will of the world powers?



Oil!

Water.

People?

_Hope_ baaaaaahh ha ha ha ha ha no way


----------



## Sandy (Jul 12, 2013)

It seems to me that most people in most cultures in most places want pretty much the same things:  shelter and safety, food and water, companionship and love, maybe a little luxury or two, and a belief that their children will have a better life.  

If they believe they have these things, they will not sacrifice them for an idea, a cause, an alternative belief or even justice; they will remain compliant, even if things are not quite perfect.  If you deny them these things, especially a sense of hope, they'll follow any radical, any demagogue, any leader who promises to put things right.  

Indifference by those in power will cause discontent to grow into anger and pushback will cause anger to crystallize into resistance.  All you need after that is a charismatic leader, especially a martyr.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 12, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> It strikes me that the physical potential for resistance is not the same as resistance, whilst there may be many like Flesheater with a small arsenal most people repeat received ideas rather than thinking for themselves and are deeply conservative. I can imagine a lot of them being out there 'Supporting our boys and whiping out these darned rebels'. rather than supporting any anti government rebellion that was portrayed by the media as a threat to their freedoms to.
> 
> Note; the distinction between freedom to and freedom from is a very useful one that is often not made, meaning people can be talking at cross purpouses and not even realise it.
> 
> My view is that real change is incremental and long term, and the best hope at the moment is that education starts teaching how to think rather than what to think. Things like the Boxer rebellion are short lived, even the Maoist communist revolution has just about reverted to the previous status quo with orders coming down from the top, an Imperial system with another name.



Olly, the fact that the U.S. and other countries that were trying to provide influence in China are no longer, proves definitively that the Boxer Rebellion was not short lived.  Now I can go on and on about coups against organized governments or groups that have been successful and still hold today.  What about the Haitian Revolution against France?  How about all the slave rebellions in the Caribbean?  Che Guevara?  The Taliban against Russia in Afghanistan?  The list goes on and on.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 12, 2013)

> Now I can go on and on about coups against organized governments or groups that have been successful and still hold today.


Precisely, they have become the new norm, they are a replacement power structure but they are not essentially a different one. To me revolution means change, not just a change of the people at the top. Coups are quite often aimed at change, but the amount they actually achieve is usually minimal. Think 'Animal Farm'. 

On that basis the ones who are most dangerous to the status quo are those who preach non-violence. Pacifists are often pretty wet, but the actively non-violent pose a real threat and are treated as such from J.C. to the Rainbow Warrior, to Wikileaks.


----------



## shinyford (Jul 12, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> So - for the purposes of fiction, the small group would have to possess some kind of leveraging mechanism. Can't be bombs, can't be guns... can't be currency... What finite and desirable resource would this group have that could bend the will of the world powers?


But aye, there's the rub! Isn't a 'leverage mechanism' a 'nefarious mean' by any other name? Leverage implies you're getting people to do things they otherwise wouldn't; which surely puts you in the same camp as the existing powermongers (if you get to come to power yourself, that is).

Just out of interest - genuine question - why can't it be bombs or guns? Because terrorism is an awful thing, or is there a practical reason you're thinking of which stops it? (No axe to grind, just thought that the outright 'can't' was interesting.)


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 12, 2013)

shinyford said:


> But aye, there's the rub! Isn't a 'leverage mechanism' a 'nefarious mean' by any other name? Leverage implies you're getting people to do things they otherwise wouldn't; which surely puts you in the same camp as the existing powermongers (if you get to come to power yourself, that is).
> 
> Just out of interest - genuine question - why can't it be bombs or guns? Because terrorism is an awful thing, or is there a practical reason you're thinking of which stops it? (No axe to grind, just thought that the outright 'can't' was interesting.)




Simply 'can't' because a small group of people against the immense firepower of the world's controlling militaries renders all but the most powerful weapons hardly effective. Even a nuclear device would have to be employed in a very "leveraging" fashion to impact the balance of power. 

I suppose 'can't' is a pretty strong word, but I'm not seeing a readily plausible scenario using violence of any kind. That's where I think some kind of cataclysmic change must take place, either reducing the opposition's population, which number in the millions or tens of millions counting all of the allied fighters, voluntary or otherwise, or somehow changing the "leverage" I mentioned earlier. I haven't even hear a likely speculation that stands to reason in the real world, other than Olly's sage words on teaching people how to think.

But again I say, for the sake of fiction, a small group taking the reins from "Power" is doable but only somehow disabling the physical component of the Power's masses.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 12, 2013)

Again I think you are missing the point.  If you have a small group in power, that has the powerful weapons, they HAVE to have people to do the dirty work for them.  This means they can't simply just kill off their opposition, because then that leaves no future 'workers.'  It would be the equivalent of wiping out the lower class, yet if that happened, who would collect all the resources?  Who would do the construction?  Who would do all the manual labor?  If no one was available to do all this, then there would be no society worth having power over.  So once again, manpower IS the leverage.  It always will be.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 13, 2013)

> Question:
> Is it possible for one person, or a group of people, with limited financial assets to supersede the dominant power structure armed only with intelligence, honesty, and resourcefulness?



Partly it depends how you read 'supersede', If it simply means 'replace', then yes, Lewdog is right lots have done it, if it means replace it with a new system that makes the old one redundant then it becomes much harder, Gerald Winstanley had a plan that looked possible for a bit.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 13, 2013)

> *Originally Posted By Reverend Ben* Is it possible for one person, or a group of people, with limited  financial assets to supersede the dominant power structure armed only  with intelligence, honesty, and resourcefulness?



_For the purpose of this discussion (Not A Debate) _

All governments are designed to preserve the status quo. Any real change will be done via economics. 

One person or a small group can  motivate larger groups. Enough pressure applied to the economic system will change it. Using 'market forces' to alter the market.


I have a world changing idea that is forming the backbone to my WIP. It would work in the real world as well. All I need is a break.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 13, 2013)

A friend of mine once told me that all the troubles of the world - disease, poverty, ignorance, human rights - are simply a consequence of economic decisions we (wealthy societies) make for our comfort and convenience.  I thought about that when your post and think you might really be onto a great idea.  Good luck with finding your break!


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 13, 2013)

Isn't economics nothing more than a bartering tool?  So in a sense it's only a way of appeasing the masses, or making them rebel even more, defending how things go.  That makes it a driving force, not the actual power.  The power still lies with the people.  It's like saying guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 13, 2013)

I've been thinking about this and following this since you first posted it.  Is the question just a topic of discussion, or are you actively searching for a scenario?

I agree that a small group - whether survivalists/end-of-the-world hoarder types, or active pacifist, or any others mentioned - could potentially cause change in a society dominated by a nefarious (corporate, political, etc) group.  More likely, though, it would take a combination of small groups with different tactics to effect real chance though.  

Think about the American Revolution.  There were loyalists who, for various reasons, were OK with the status quo.  Some were OK with it because they were profiting.  Others were not quite content but were jaded, "it's just the way things are, nothing you can do" etc.  On the opposite end were many motivations too.  Some were philosophers.  Others were rogues.  Still others were second sons of second sons, bitter that the status quo had left them behind.  I'm leaving out a lot, but you get the idea.  It wasn't just one of these groups who incited the Revolution.  The philosophers whispered or shouted or preached their persuasions.  The rogues talked tough - and eventually followed through.  The second sons of second sons organized.  etc.  Without various tactics, conceived and implemented in different ways, Revolutions often die as mere Rebellions.

As for "something that the honest have that the nefarious don't - and need"  in my opinion the only thing that that could be (besides tools of war) is water.  Human civilization is dependent on it.  We can't live without water, our food sources can't live without water.  Dirty/corrupt water produces dirty corrupt landscapes that cannot support life (i.e. game animals, work animals, human animals).  In modern technology, dirty water goes even further, to corrupting equipment made of metal.  I have no idea if clean water is essential in electronics.

So, if it is a story scenario you are looking for, rather than a real-life "what would it take?" then my opinion is that the "good guys" need to have the ability to produce clean, healthy water; this ability is left alone by the "bad guys" while there is still clean water to be had "in the wild"... but once all the water tables have been corrupted (toxic waste, the end result of laws that allow companies to pollute them for too long, natural disaster, an organized plot) the bad guys need the ability to re-clean the water, not only to save themselves, but their peon slaves/workers (the common man is the economic backbone whether capitalists admit it or not) and ultimately their way of life.

Hope that made sense.  Sandy hit on it when she said, there are a few basic things no society - indeed no person - can survive without.  Food, water, shelter.  Lack of shelter (including clothes) won't kill you as fast as the other two.  Lack of food won't even kill you as fast as most people think.  It's the lack of water that kills quickly and mercilessly.  As a nurse, one thing was drilled into my head throughout school.  There are only three things that truly kill a person.  Lack of or ineffective: brain, heart, or kidneys.  Anything else leads to one of those.  And water is essential to the functioning of all three.


----------



## Robert_S (Jul 16, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> So - for the purposes of fiction, the small group would have to possess some kind of leveraging mechanism. Can't be bombs, can't be guns... can't be currency... What finite and desirable resource would this group have that could bend the will of the world powers?



Control of information.


----------



## ToBeInspired (Jul 17, 2013)

We have the ability to turn ocean water into clean drinking water, it's just an expensive process. Toxic waste would have to cover over 70% of the world... then there would be more problems than controlling the water supply.

A lot of the ideas being bounced on here persist to control. A means of leverage is just another forming of controlling the actions of another. I'm surprised no one has thought of the most simple of ways; assassinations. There have been many independent cases of men in power being assassinated; Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK, etc. While it would clearly be labeled as terrorism... could not a group of people simply eliminate the powers-to-be in a mass exodus of power? Why would they need to bother with the soldiers, who after-all are simply just hired guns, when the decisions come from a select few? In all this talk of theory would it not change the balance of power if say... a group eliminated a large amount of corrupt social leaders?

Of course that raises the question of who deserves to die and what we would call corruption. From business leaders who destroy the environment and knowingly enslave its citizens (tobacco) with addictive products to politicians who sell out the trust the people have given to them to fatten their own pockets. Would a company who creates only sugary products be labeled as wrong? They serve no real function besides helping increase the diabetes percentage in our country, but does that make them evil or just another result of our market society?

Of course even if a group was powerful and capable enough to assassinate all these people it's possible that others would just take their place. If they were capable of staying well hidden enough to not simply be eradicated by the powers-who-be its possible they could serve as a deterrent through controlling a very simple means of leverage; fear. It's the same philosophy as a jail or any punishment system. If you become a corrupt leader - you will be killed. I could see this effecting the decisions of quite a few people. A majority of people fear for their lives, after all, when push comes to shove. 

While this may be possible if properly executed it seems very unlikely. The powers to be have intelligence networks that are EXTREMELY capable. Control of satellites and virtually able to tab into all technology leaves few areas of wiggle room. The people capable enough to fight back in this technological age most likely have files which will be perused as soon as something like this begins. There cannot be too many people capable of doing some of the things that would be required to successfully hide an entity as this. Then dealing with all these wealthy and powerful people comes the risks of overcoming each of their own defenses they raise in protection of their own life. Though the thought of a these people being financially bled dry simply by the continual price of the protection needed to keep them safe is interesting.

Fear isn't a proper means of leverage however. Fear can make people make rash and poor decisions. If there ever becomes a way where a person can kill someone from any distance without having access to them than I could see a change in the power regime... also a lot of chaos and the death of quite a few innocents.

I also believe the implementing of a new governmental system would potentially work. Democracy has quite a huge flaw in it; it allows corruption. Before you begin to say; what doesn't? I would like to add that the humans have one thing that we are marvelous at; invention. Just because something has yet to be thought of does not mean it is impossible. If someone could create a new and better governmental system I could see it potentially replacing the United States with Democracy. However I do not see it happening in a fast and simple method. Legal battles and debates in Congress while CEOS buy their resistance to anything that jeopardizes their profits. However, I would love to see a better system than Democracy implemented. It's rather old now after all... why not update it?


----------

