You can't fool the children of the REVOLUUUUUUUUUUUUUTION!

[Cain]

Seven signs of impending revolution, according to Sara Robinson.  Ignore the tedious "liberal/conservative" dichotomy and take note of the events and sociopolitical trends instead.


1.  Soaring, then crashing. 

Revolutions don't happen in traditional societies that are stable and static -- where people have their place, things are as they've always been, and nobody expects any of that to change. Rather, modern revolutions -- particularly the progressive-minded ones in which people emerge from the fray with greater rights and equality -- happen in economically advancing societies, always at the point where a long period of rising living standards and high, hopeful expectations comes to a crashing end, leaving the citizens in an ugly and disgruntled mood.

2.  They call it a class war

Progressive modern democracies run on mutual trust between classes and a shared vision of the common good that binds widely disparate groups together. Now, we're also about to re-learn the historical lesson that liberals like flat hierarchies, racial and religious tolerance, and easy class mobility not because we're soft-headed and soft-hearted -- but because, unlike short-sighted conservatives, we understand that tight social cohesion is our most reliable and powerful bulwark against the kinds of revolutions that bring down great economies, nations and cultures.

In all the historical examples Davies and Brinton cite, the stage for revolution was set when the upper classes broke faith with society's other groups, and began to openly prey on them in ways that threatened their very future. Not surprisingly, the other groups soon united, took up arms, and rebelled.

3. Deserted Intellectuals

Mere unrest among the working and middle classes, all by itself, isn't enough. Revolutions require leaders -- and those always come from the professional and intellectual classes. In most times and places, these groups (which also include military officers) usually enjoy comfortable ties to the upper classes, and access to a certain level of power. But if those connections become frayed and weak, and the disaffected intellectuals make common cause with the lower classes, revolution becomes almost inevitable.

Davies notes that, compared to both the upper and lower classes, the members of America's upper-middle class were relatively untouched by Great Depression. Because of this, their allegiances to the existing social structure largely remained intact; and he argues that their continued engagement was probably the main factor that allowed America to avert an all-out revolution in the 1930s.

4. Incompetent Government

It turns out there's never been a modern revolution that didn't start against a backdrop of atrocious government malfeasance in the face of precipitously declining fortunes. From George III's onerous taxes to Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake," revolutions begin when stubborn aristocrats heap fuel on the fire by blithely disregarding the falling fortunes of their once-prosperous citizens. And America is getting dangerously close to that point now. Between our corporate-owned Congress and the spectacularly bad judgment of Bush's executive branch, there's never been a government in American history more inept, corrupt, and criminally negligent than this one -- or more shockingly out of touch with what the average American is going through. Just ask anyone from New Orleans -- or anyone who has a relative in the military.

5. Gutless Wonders in the Ruling Class

Revolution becomes necessary when the ruling classes fail in their duty to lead. Most of the major modern political revolutions occurred at moments when the world was changing rapidly -- and the country's leaders dealt with it by dropping back into denial and clinging defiantly to the old, profitable, and familiar status quo. New technologies, new ideas, and new economic opportunities were emerging; and there came a time when ignoring them was no longer an option. When the leaders failed to step forward boldly to lead their people through the looming and necessary transformations, the people rebelled.

And, in the teeth of this restless drift toward inevitable change, America has been governed by a bunch of conservative dinosaurs who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that the 20th century is over. (Some of them, in fact, are still trying to turn back the Enlightenment.) Liberal governments manage this kind of shift by training and subsidizing scientists and planners, funding research, and setting policies that help their nations navigate these transitions with some grace. Conservative ones -- being conservative -- will reflexively try to deny that change is occurring at all, and then brutally suppress anyone with evidence to the contrary.

6. Fiscal Irresponsibility

As we've seen, revolutions follow in the wake of national economic reversals. Almost always, these reversals occur when inept and corrupt governments mismanage the national economy to the point of indebtedness, bankruptcy, and currency collapse.

There's a growing consensus on both the left and right that America is now heading into the biggest financial contraction since the Great Depression. And it's one that liberal critics have seen coming for years, as conservatives systematically dismantled the economic foundations of the entire country. Good-paying jobs went offshore. Domestic investments in infrastructure and education were diverted to the war machine. Government oversight of banks and securities was blinded. Vast sections of the economy were sold off to the Saudis for oil, or to the Chinese for cheap consumer goods and money to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.

7. Inept and Inconsistent Use of Force

The final criterion for revolution is this: The government no longer exercises force in a way that people find fair or consistent. And this can happen in all kinds of ways.

Domestically, there's uneven sentencing, where some people get the maximum and others get cut loose without penalty -- and neither outcome has any connection to the actual circumstances of the crime (though it often correlates all too closely with race, class, and the ability to afford a good lawyer). Unchecked police brutality (tasers, for example) that hardens public perception against the constabulary. Unwarranted police surveillance and legal harassment of law-abiding citizens going about their business. Different kinds of law enforcement for different neighborhoods. The use of government force to silence critics. And let's not forget the unconstitutional restriction of free speech and free assembly rights.

Abroad, there's the misuse of military force, which forces the country to pour its blood and treasure into misadventures that offer no clear advantage for the nation. These misadventures not only reduce the country's international prestige and contribute to economic declines; they often create a class of displaced soldiers who return home with both the skills and the motivation to turn political unrest into a full-fledged shooting war.

[LMNO]

Well, damn.

[edit]

Ok, so I suppose the Black Swan aspect of this is, what will this revolution look like?

Where will it begin, who will it involve, and what direction will it travel?

[Diseris]

Support the revolution, vote McCain!


Heh, you think W. fucked things up..
     /

[Requia ☣]

Huh, maybe a revolution really is coming.  All of those, except maybe number 3, seem either dead on, or very close.

The domestic aspects of #7 mostly aren't true, though I think a lot of people perceive it that way.

Number 5 I also think most people are unaware of, or else just don't care about it.

So the only real thing we need is a bunch of disenfranchised potential leaders.

Actually, I have to wonder how much this applies to democracies, where people seem to go and try to have a revolution with voting, either to be quashed by the establishment, or else elect some schmuck whose not that different from the guy before.

[Cramulus]

[Jasper]

I wonder if number three could be bolstered via internet communities, to give a sort of faux-desertion effect by drawing them into a counterculture.

Oh, wait.

[Cain]

I think its somewhat broad, and obviously tailored to the current situation, but is correct in some ways.  However, I was disappointed not in the least because many of the criterea taken from this list were drawn up in 1962, and the world has moved on since then.  Why is there no mention of the revolutions that took place in 1989, which brought the Soviet Union to its knees?  There it was an international effort, built around human rights law, self-determination, intellectual links with democracy advocates in the other parts of the world and the presence of 24-hour live-stream cable channels that did much of the work. 

There was also the question of the Soviet Union not being willing to fight and kill to maintain its power, something not talked about much, because it is hard to explain, even with the changes in the news media of the time.  China, for example, pulled Tiananmen Square and crushed the revolt.  If your revolution doesn't take place when the ruling powers that be have decided excessive use of force is worthless, then its going to be bloody and painful, and may fail quite readily.  How a state comes to that decision, to crack heads or surrendeur, is a real one worth looking at.

[Jasper]

That's just it though.  A revolution only happens if enough people who matter are willing to let it.  Back before weapons were too sophisticated you could win with sheer numbers and a little bit of organization, but now it's become a new animal.

[LMNO]

Re: so-called "cultural revolution" of the hippes.

tentative conclusion: failed revolution, cultural backlash, revolutionaries subsumed back into corporate culture.

not enough people willing to let it continue.

Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" now played by Kenny G in Starbucks.


Side thought:

Is revolution possible without people noticing? 

[bringdownthesystem]

I say at the moment...no, you need people to support it so therefore....notice. Unless it is under the guise of something else that people would not consider a revolution, but then it would have to be more gradual and I would see it as  more of a....covert takeover, not a revolution.  I think what we do or try to do with memetic bombs is slowly build up to that end change by using the oh so ancient conditioning and propaganda techniques that the powers that be have used for years, the tables turn...but still the public will have no idea in general, and those who know will either join or fall.

[Nast]

I think that people need the "image of a revolution" in order to spark one.
For example, an extremely important social change could occur and be practically unnoticed by the public because it happened behind the doors of a some out of touch party. Or even the events leading up to social change were so gradual and subtle that they were only visible in hindsight.

People also need a figure-head, or a symbol, hence the "image of a revolution". Revolutions are usually seen by the public as big, sudden, and full of comraderie and bravado. A big revolution feeds upon itself, while small ones are just regarded as part the natural flow of social customs.

[Vene]

Side thought:

Is revolution possible without people noticing? 

It's be interesting, but I am unaware of this happening at any point in history.

[Nast]

Side thought:

Is revolution possible without people noticing? 

It's be interesting, but I am unaware of this happening at any point in history.

Well, I'd imagine that it would depend on the type of revolution, as well as the interests/culture of the society in question.

It's doubtful that an entire society would be unaware, but most likely the lower-classes in which change takes a longer while to trickle down to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have been bred and reared for the Revolution, and for no other purpose.

#3 is more true now than most people are aware. Many in military leadership are unhappy, disenfranchised by the misuse of what they believe to be a sacred trust.

The current regime has been unkind to the entrepreneur, the businessman. Under heavy taxation, many such entrepreneurs feel the government is their enemy.

[Cain]

Except those involved in security or getting no-bid contracts, that is.  Security is now a boom business on a par with the dotcom bubble of the 90s.

Small businessmen are getting hit, but its the guys with all the capital who are reaping the benefits of a deregulated, low tax regime.