I agree with what you said about the work and effort part but why not just use the methods that are proven to work which are none of those things you mentioned?

There are a million non-violent ways to oppose authoritarianism such as boycotts, labour strikes, voting blocs, etc. but since they involve at least some amount of effort and inconvenience no one (in the USA, at least) wants to do them.

These economic levers typically need a critical mass of participation. And one way to get that participation is via buy-in from the government (regulation) or capital (BSD). Random people refusing to shop at Starbucks doesn't mean much. But when a location is shut down for violating ordinances or because the landlord kicks them out, that's a material hit to their pocketbook the owners can't ignore.

Rallying that critical mass of support is difficult and frustrating. I've heard more than one organizer describe it as "herding cats". This isn't a trivial issue of inconvenience or effort. It requires an industrial scale of activism.

However, by wanking about a revolution that you know will never come you can claim to be on the right side of history while still taking the path of least resistance in every way that matters.

"The Revolution" is a critical mass of critical mass events. Its something you can only really talk about in hindsight, because it requires a bunch of constantly moving social parts to kinda line up at the right moment and move in the right direction together.

Revolutions aren't uncommon. Large institutional shifts in composition, function, and ideology happen regularly. But they're a lot easier when the people executing them already have a bunch of institutional controls to operate. "Wanking" often feels like the only thing you can do, because you're so cut out of the so-called democratic process.

Every non-violent revolution succeeded because of the violent revolution behind it. The peaceful leaders like Gandhi or MLK make the history books because they make for better propaganda. MLK was seen as easier for government and society to deal with rather than the gun toten' Black Panthers. And Gandhi had bunches of armed and violent small revolutionary groups in the background.

History shows that unless enough people are actually willing to fight and die for social and political change, peaceful marches don't change much.

I'm convinced mass-protest revolutions only happen in developing countries like Nepal.

However, they do happen. We don't need to define who gets violent revolution and who gets a slow crawl towards reform, these things are always conditional.

Plus, it scares billionaires.

So we are literally edging our way towards revolution, lol