Why is the rebellious spirit of Chinese people always concentrated on situations where survival is impossible? For example, in history, most are peasant uprisings after they cannot afford to eat. In fact, it is not that “Chinese people are inherently like this,” but rather a result shaped by long-term structural conditions. Structural factors have shaped the fact that, throughout Chinese history, ordinary people's resistance is often not for “rights upgrades,” but for “survival guarantees.” When “living is impossible” becomes a common state, rebellion will erupt in explosive forms.

First, the economic structure determines the “tolerance threshold”

Smallholder economy: Once food is cut off, it’s a dead end. China has long been a highly land-dependent, self-sufficient small-farming society: farmers have almost no savings, social security, or freedom to migrate. When faced with: natural disasters, increased taxes, official exploitation, or direct threats to survival, resistance often occurs at the stage of “not being able to eat,” rather than “rights being suppressed.” In contrast: industrial and commercial societies have buffers, and urbanized societies have alternative survival paths.

Second, the political structure: lack of “intermediate protest channels”

In traditional Chinese politics, resistance is a “dead end.” In traditional China, there were no: legitimate party competitions, normalized legal protests, or autonomous organizations. There was almost no institutional buffer between officials and the people.

As a result: minor discontent is suppressed, moderate discontent is either absorbed or divided, and when accumulated to the limit, it explodes all at once.

This creates a characteristic: if you don’t resist, you endure to the end; if you do resist, it’s “life-saving resistance.”

Fourth, cultural factors: emphasizing “patience,” “stability,” and “not causing chaos”

Confucian ethics under institutional design reinforce “enduring to the limit.” Confucian society highly values: patience, stability, family responsibility, and not causing trouble for the collective. Many people are not unaware of injustice, but instead think: “Can I endure it?” “If I hold on a little longer, will it pass?” “Don’t involve my family.” This is not weakness, but a rational survival strategy.

Fifth, why not “resist early” like in the West?

Western resistance often stems from “marginal interests being damaged.” In Europe and North America: the bourgeoisie emerged early, trade unions and church autonomous cities are numerous, and there is a tradition of “legitimate confrontation.” Therefore, it is common to see: strikes when wages fall, protests when taxes rise, lawsuits when laws are unjust, rather than waiting until “starvation is imminent.”

The fundamental difference is not “courage,” but whether social structures leave room for maneuver.

Sixth, an often overlooked point

The reason why peasant uprisings are more frequent is not because they are “more irritable,” but because they are the first to be pushed to the brink of despair. Urban elites have connections and resources; merchants can relocate; officials can protect themselves. Only peasants have no way out. That’s why history shows: “Once they resist, it’s inevitably when they can’t survive anymore.”

Finally, it’s not that “Chinese people only rebel when starving,” but that “in societies lacking institutionalized channels for expression, resistance is delayed until survival collapses.”

Why do some hope to continue suppressing until the very end, waiting for that moment to arrive?

In fact, it’s no longer about “daring or not,” but a deeper question: does a society have to go to the edge of the cliff before anyone is allowed to call a halt?

So, do you think it’s better to continue suppressing until the very end, waiting for that moment to come? Or do people want to immediately pick up the sickle and hoe, and rebel right away?