The last quarter millenia of history stands in contradiction to this. The country with the most extensive security apparatus in 1916 was Russia, and that did not help the czar and his family in the end.
Among the young in the US, socialism is now as popular as capitalism ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capita... ). As Marx predicted, short sighted big business functionaries yet press ahead with removing the few scraps they toss from the table in response. It is not the working people who have to fear, but the aristocracy. Besides, the enlisted soldiers abandoning the front and marching back to St. Petersburg and Moscow is what really ignited the revolution.
Rather I think it more likely that the concerted effort to brand welfare and regulated capitalism as socialism for decades has finally succeeded.
When Ukrainian pleasants were starving in 1932, did it cause any sort of disturbance? No. Why? Because the soft and pathetic Okhrana was replaced by the effective and ruthless Checka.
Prosperity requires hard work, and capitalism encourages that push for excellence more than socialism ever could. Socialism tends to degrade into communism and authoritarianism, with lots of corruption, because the notion of giving away everything to the state goes against human nature.
I often wonder if what we have today is really capitalism or rather it is something much worse.
You picked a very peculiar weasel word to refer to being fairly compensated by the value you create. As if workers who scramble to make ends meet while working for the wealthiest organizations ever devised by man were actually wasting resources that can only possibly be used wisely by billionaires.
And by the way, I recommend you check out the french revolution, and what the urban plebes did to their old masters.
As to the French revolution, who ended up being the master of the French plebes at the end? Could it be a certain military officer named Napoleon and his marshalls?
I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous, but you should pay attention to what I said and understand that my comment was on your adoption and use of the weasel word "justification of getting more resources to consume".
As if actually paying workers a living wage is somehow destroying resources.
Either the company's profits go for the billionaire's pockets, or it is transfered to the worker's salary as part of the fair compensation for making everything happen. It's curious how you only see "destruction of resources" when profits don't line up a billionaire's pockets.
Do you understand what I said?
The workers of the world may think the chains were made to bind them, but in truth the chains bind the military and security apparatus.
And this has happened before. The Roman emperor Caracalla once described his policy on taxes and welfare thus - "None should have money but I, so I can bestow it to soldiers."