This is a total catch 22 as you realize. I think it's also concern trolling which you don't realize. The major revolutions in world history have not been planned. In fact planning, especially in house planning, is antithetical to what most revolutions are. The only strong exception appears to be 1688 and I'm lf the opinion that itself isn't the Revolution.
I didn't say it would be easy, but first there needs to be actual people who can take leadership and have the capacities to follow up on real revolution. I was acknowledging the barriers revolutions face today were they to act in the US. None have appeared in the 21st century, otherwise we'd have discussing them right now. I'm not concern trolling, all that I've said was true - you're more than welcome to dissect my stances to test my thesis. I gave you plenty to pick apart.
This ignores the facts that currently there is no sign of a revolution boiling anywhere in the US at the moment, despite the shut down for weeks and Trump being Trump. There are no equivalent on the streets of the Yellow Vests even. Revolutions have to be revolutions in the real world otherwise all it is talk, which it usually ends up being in America. We haven't had a civil war on America's soil since the 1800's. The Socialists and anarchists certainly aren't leading any such organisations or movements today.
I've said it multiple times in this thread. No one in 1788 knew what was going to happen. No one could have guess Robespierre let alone Napoleon were to become it's leaders. That's how Revolution works. It's a context, not a telos in itself.
There have been successful revolutions which weren't improvised, like the
Russian Revolution. That was like a rolling revolution of organised groups fighting each other to the death until the dust finally settled and Stalin took centre stage.
Another was Mao taking over China. Pol Pot lead a successful revolution with the Khmer Rouge against the Cambodian government. What began the movement may be an unexpected development but when it gets to a civil war stage the side who isn't organising a legit army will lose because the other side has their own. These occurrences did not occur with riots and protesters, they were full blown civil wars. Coup d'état's are common, and many horrid regimes have been installed from
Iran to
Chile by actors from the military to intelligence agencies which don't improvise and get results with disturbing regularity. Meanwhile peaceful revolutions, like
the Green Movement in Iran were slaughtered mercilessly and failed because they were unarmed college kids against armed, highly trained soldiers who destroyed them.
In the long term the French Revolution produced good results, but it wasn't instant. It caused immense destruction and death in its wake, like many revolutions do once they seize power. Supporting revolutions does not begin and end with how they began, that's one part of an long process which can include the aftermath when the victors aren't that different from their oppressors.
The French revolution did have immense organisation, that's how they gained Louis XVI's favour when he refused their offers via the National Assembly. They didn't simply put the king's head in the guillotine and take over the government by force.
You've mentioned the iconic French revolution but what others are you using as a examples?
edit: I wasn't kidding about the police, military and mercenaries, either. Any US revolution that succeeds would have to put them down, which I'd say being skeptical would be an understatement. The US military are one of the most dangerous armies in the world, and was able to neutralise the Iraqi army during 2003 in just over a month. So if you intend to get between them and the wealthy I'll be sitting over here, safe, rather than being arrested or killed.