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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.