I wonder if the American psychosis would survive a protracted people's war. How many bombs need to be dropped on our cities by our own government before people start actually waking the fuck up.
I imagine it’s also pretty important the number of people that would accept or tolerate as opposed to actively fight against the revolution.
People have done the math. About 7% of the population has to be committed revolutionaries (ie, ready to pick up a rifle if absolutely needed) or strong organised support networks (ie, ready to go to jail.) About 20-30% have to be fellow travellers in some way.
I suggest reading Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara. He answers most of your questions in that short book, much better than I could in a comment section. And it has valuable insight in tactics that I think every leftist should know.
The limiting factor is money. Conquest through capitalism is the only tangible way I see of overcoming capitalism in the short-term. Once it becomes unnecessary and support is there then it's discarded and attention is turned on capturing the state. But to do so we need the weapons of the capitalist state in our own hands.
As an example. Anti-landlordism is a prime opportunity to gain momentum. A renters union could really undermine the market but it would have to be on the promise of lower rent, which would require the money to make up the difference in the mean time. Suck people in with "10% of your rent!" and pay the difference. When you control enough of the market you demand lower rents in the area. Do it through a limited company to protect the union and take the liability off the people who're renting. Identify weaker landowners who can't deal with protracted legal battles and offer them a pathetic amount for their properties. Hand these off to the people and take a much smaller rent in return. - No ideal in the name of socialism but necissary for conquest by capitalism.
It would be strong-arming the middle-class and sticking them with mortgage debts. And no doubt if this happened in America it would end in a hail of bullets...so it would be better achieved somewhere else in the west.
I have heard people say "1% of the population in the streets" I think (maybe??) more than once, BUT I don't know if it was based on any historical evidence at all.
And it would probably mean doing some real obstruction to society that would shut down critical infrastructure. It was probably cited more with "protest" in mind rather than "revolution" too.
The amount of soldiers was that, the amount of people who were in the Revolutionary orgs was a bit over double that.
You should read Revolutionary Strategy by Mike Macnair that goes into this topic.
