Revolutions usually succeed because a "negative coalition" f...

mar

npub1c7k2hu076gq62vv9unw9urrt4c4utkce6uatlpq9xhestk8s2xqql8qh4c

hex

15178b937a3c44df8e766a6c642ed6caf94e45b346d28a242c6a4484b7f15f37

nevent

nevent1qqsp29utjdarc3xl3emx5mry9mtv472wgke5d552yskx53yyklc47dcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsv0t9t78ldyqd9xxz7fhz7p346u279mvvaww4lsszntuc9mrc9rqqcnnn3k

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-05-01T04:58:57Z

Revolutions usually succeed because a "negative coalition" forms. People who hate each other, socialists, libertarians, religious conservatives, and tech-bros, all agree on one thing: the current guy has to go.

The Success: They unite and topple the regime.

The Failure: The second the regime is gone, the "No" disappears. Now they have to decide what the "Yes" is. Because they have zero common ground on how to actually build a country, they start fighting each other, leading to gridlock or even a second, bloodier conflict.

The Institutional "Brain Drain" When you burn down the "government stuff," you aren't just burning furniture; you're often dismantling the only administrative machinery the country has.

If you fire everyone who worked for the old regime because they are "corrupt," you suddenly have a government run by people who are passionate but have no idea how to keep the power grid running or manage a central bank.

This leads to "incompetence-driven" poverty, which can be just as bad as "corruption-driven" poverty.

Capital is a Coward Money follows stability. A revolution, by definition, is the most unstable thing that can happen to a country.

Even if the new government is "better," the people with capital (both locals and foreigners) often wait 5–10 years to see if the new guys get overthrown too. By the time they feel safe enough to invest, the revolution has often already failed because the people got tired of being hungry.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "15178b937a3c44df8e766a6c642ed6caf94e45b346d28a242c6a4484b7f15f37",
  "pubkey": "c7acabf1fed201a53185e4dc5e0c6bae2bc5db19d73abf840535f305d8f05180",
  "created_at": 1777611537,
  "tags": [
    [
      "alt",
      "A short note: Revolutions usually succeed because a \"negative co..."
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Amethyst"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Revolutions usually succeed because a \"negative coalition\" forms. People who hate each other, socialists, libertarians, religious conservatives, and tech-bros, all agree on one thing: the current guy has to go.\n\nThe Success: They unite and topple the regime.\n\nThe Failure: The second the regime is gone, the \"No\" disappears. Now they have to decide what the \"Yes\" is. Because they have zero common ground on how to actually build a country, they start fighting each other, leading to gridlock or even a second, bloodier conflict.\n\nThe Institutional \"Brain Drain\"\nWhen you burn down the \"government stuff,\" you aren't just burning furniture; you're often dismantling the only administrative machinery the country has.\n\nIf you fire everyone who worked for the old regime because they are \"corrupt,\" you suddenly have a government run by people who are passionate but have no idea how to keep the power grid running or manage a central bank.\n\nThis leads to \"incompetence-driven\" poverty, which can be just as bad as \"corruption-driven\" poverty.\n\nCapital is a Coward\nMoney follows stability. A revolution, by definition, is the most unstable thing that can happen to a country.\n\nEven if the new government is \"better,\" the people with capital (both locals and foreigners) often wait 5–10 years to see if the new guys get overthrown too. By the time they feel safe enough to invest, the revolution has often already failed because the people got tired of being hungry.",
  "sig": "829212b8ccf5c357e386fc285a1c667a3304d7928a658936b02fa183be02addfb9f76aee83964cfc981c14b22e2174c35e16f1e894e8655bade1feff1525d924"
}