Re:Decline in the labor share of income in the U.S.
by ThomPete on Friday October 23, 2015 @09:53AM
(#10438516)
Revolutions require a fairly equal amount of weapons. That doesn't exist today because it's not needed. Instead we have election and they take care of the anger. At the end of the day if enough people care for it. Sanders or someone like him will get elected. But there aren't enough yet to make revolutions in any way we normally think about it.
Re:Decline in the labor share of income in the U.S.
by netcan on Friday October 23, 2015 @10:44AM
(#10438862)
I don't think this is true. Revolutions come in all sorts of flavors, but some of them involve some point where armed forces are required to choose between shooting on citizens or not.
Most of the eastern block revolutions 25 years agos were peaceful. None had dissident firepower playing a significant role. When East German security forces decided not to fire on the wall crossers, it was 50% over. When Moscow decided not to send in tanks it got to 100%.
Not many revolutions are armed insurrection like you see in Syria.
Re:Decline in the labor share of income in the U.S.
by ThomPete on Friday October 23, 2015 @10:54AM
(#10438928)
Eastern block revolutions was about people who didn't have other choices, even those with weapons was tired of it.
In the west we do have choices, our elections and they do much more to secure some sort of stability.
The difference is fundamental.
Re:Decline in the labor share of income in the U.S.
by snowwrestler on Friday October 23, 2015 @11:41AM
(#10439294)
I agree with you, but I'd point out the legislative process in addition to elections as critical "relief valves" for anger.
If there is enough public pressure, it almost doesn't matter who is in office. Nixon signed the EPA into existence, for example.
I think revolution is more imaginable than war and even though we've made a lot of progress on war, it's not unimaginable. I'm not a Marxists and I don't think these things are deterministic, but I do think certain societal conditions make revolutions more likely.
If you look around the world today, most "wars" are civil conflicts or centre around civil conflicts or something in that neighborhood. Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Korea, Taiwan… The line between civil conflict and revolution is pretty blurry.
The dominant revolutionary paradigms are religious, national and economic-ideological. The last one's big examples are the US-French revolutions and their communist descendants. It's not as much of a big paradigm now. I think the intellectual zeitgeist has moved passed it. New paradigms emerge though and old ones like religion and nationalism have a long half life.
To go back to the quasi-marxist point… I think economic inequality plays a role. If enough people have little enough of the income generating power, whether that's capital or labour (or land and privilege or whatever the system), they have no interest in maintaining the status quo. I think capitalism's "raises all boats" promise is a key promise. If it holds no power, I think revolution becomes a greater possibility.