The Seeds of Revolution

[Davka]

Over the years, I have often heard bombastic, over-the-top declarations that there would soon be a revolution in the USA. I've always laughed these absurd claims off as wishful thinking and hyperbole. The reason is simple: revolutions happen when people are so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives to make things better, and life in America is soft and easy for the most part.

Often the American Revolution is brought up as a counter-example, but in reality it's the exception that proves the rule. Historically, the American Revolution of 1775-1783 is an anomaly. Things were nowhere near desperate in the American colonies, making the decision of the colonists to put their lives on the line quite unusual. In fact, it was due to a confluence of unique circumstances - a sort of perfect storm - that the colonists managed to revolt at all, let alone to win. Most such uprisings are driven by brutality and hunger, not by high-minded ideals. Such a confluence of events is unlikely to ever happen again.

If we look at the various revolutions and uprisings over the course of history, we find certain ingredients are present in almost every case. These include high unemployment rates; little or no prospect of change; brutality and intolerance on the part of the ruling power; lack of any mechanism for the people to air their grievances in a manner which will result in improvements; and - perhaps most importantly - a sense that the oppressed have little or nothing to lose by taking up arms against overwhelming odds. When a large enough percentage of the oppressed decide that they would rather die fighting than continue to live in misery, the seeds of revolution have been sown.

As I said, I've always dismissed the idea that Americans would rise up against the government as absurd. Joe Stoner, sitting on his couch ranting about how the fascists are taking over, is not about to get off his ass and put his life on the line - not while there are Cheetos to eat and pot to smoke. His neighbor Joe Sixpack is similarly unlikely to act on his steady diet of FOX news incitement, beyond posting angry online diatribes and perhaps holding a sign that says "Obama is a Moran!" No matter how dysfunctional our system is, most Americans have it pretty good. We're not likely to decide to die fighting any time soon.

Or so I thought.

The ongoing protests and riots over race inequality have made me rethink my position. For centuries now, promises have been made and broken by the white ruling class. Black Americans, particularly those living in inner-city poverty, have been lied to, beaten, and most of all ignored for so long that it seems a growing number are deciding that it is better to die fighting than to live as second-class citizens. The rhetoric just keeps heating up, and the willingness of many protesters to engage police in violent clashes seems to be growing. Out of sight and out of mind, the seeds of revolution have been quietly sown in the American Ghetto.

Now, I am NOT saying that I think a Race Revolution is imminent, or that Black America is about to try to overturn the government. I don't believe things are that bad, nor do I foresee that they will be that bad in the near future. But I do think that the level of anger and the willingness to fight in the streets should be an eye-opener for the rest of us.

Think about it: just how bad do things need to be for people to rise up in the streets? How unheard and oppressed must this community feel? How little chance for change, based on past experience? How desperate must people be in the American ghetto, for the protests to continue escalating with no sign of letting up?

It's time to stop blaming the victim, ignoring the problem, and sweeping it under the rug with soft racism. It's time to consider what life has been like for generations, and why protesters are unwilling to even listen to authorities begging them to take a break, or explaining that Antonio Martin pulled a gun before he was shot to death. Many of the protesters have reached the point where they no longer believe a word the authorities say. It's past time to ask how things got this way - it's time to change the entire paradigm. Before an actual revolution breaks out the next time that the "business-as-usual" attitude becomes too much to bear.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the most important factors in the success of the American Revolution was the affluence and power of the Revolutionary leaders. They saw the British Crown as a threat to their affluence power. This is very different from a revolution where the poor and powerless rise up throw off the yoke of tyranny.

There are two things which affluence and power desires more than anything else and those are, first, maintain power, and second, maintain order. A threat to order is a threat to power. Power without order is a hollow thing. Mafia style extortion rackets operate on this principle. A store owner will pay a "protection" fee to a criminal gang, but if the gang can't actually protect him, he won't pay. Order comes at a cost and most people are more than happy to pay that cost.

In the late 1800's, as the US became an industrial nation, there were a lot of labor union protests and lot became violent. In the beginning, law enforcement and even military force was used to control the protesters. Eventually, those with power and affluence began to realize that force was ineffective for maintaining order and laws were changed to make it possible for labor unions to become part of the industrial economy.

These men did not have a great philosophical transformation and suddenly decide the working class had a right to form labor corporations, in the same way capital corporations were defined by law. What they realized was, if something wasn't done, people were going to come in and break all their shit. It was not a matter of right and wrong, although that is easier to sell, it was a matter of maintaining power and order. Sometimes you trade a little power to maintain order, because without order, no one has any power.

It's long been acknowledged that government can only govern with the consent of the governed. Disorder is the first sign that consent has been withdrawn.

 

[Davka]

One of the most important factors in the success of the American Revolution was the affluence and power of the Revolutionary leaders. They saw the British Crown as a threat to their affluence power. This is very different from a revolution where the poor and powerless rise up throw off the yoke of tyranny.

There are two things which affluence and power desires more than anything else and those are, first, maintain power, and second, maintain order. A threat to order is a threat to power. Power without order is a hollow thing. Mafia style extortion rackets operate on this principle. A store owner will pay a "protection" fee to a criminal gang, but if the gang can't actually protect him, he won't pay. Order comes at a cost and most people are more than happy to pay that cost.

In the late 1800's, as the US became an industrial nation, there were a lot of labor union protests and lot became violent. In the beginning, law enforcement and even military force was used to control the protesters. Eventually, those with power and affluence began to realize that force was ineffective for maintaining order and laws were changed to make it possible for labor unions to become part of the industrial economy.

These men did not have a great philosophical transformation and suddenly decide the working class had a right to form labor corporations, in the same way capital corporations were defined by law. What they realized was, if something wasn't done, people were going to come in and break all their shit. It was not a matter of right and wrong, although that is easier to sell, it was a matter of maintaining power and order. Sometimes you trade a little power to maintain order, because without order, no one has any power.

It's long been acknowledged that government can only govern with the consent of the governed. Disorder is the first sign that consent has been withdrawn.

Good points all, and perhaps if the current disorder continues for long enough, the Powers That Be will act to redress wrongs out of self-interest. It seems to be the pattern that laws are changed as little as possible in order to quell dissent, and then those laws are slowly rendered impotent over the next few decades. But some changes actually remain fairly robust, such as labor laws and the Voting Rights Act.

It is useful to look at how far people have to be pushed before they rise up in rebellion. Things got pretty bad in early industrialized America before riots broke out. Vietnam was killing draftees for years before we saw any significant protests. When people start marching in the streets, and don't stop, it's a good indication that something is very, very wrong.

 

[Bronzeage]

Good points all, and perhaps if the current disorder continues for long enough, the Powers That Be will act to redress wrongs out of self-interest. It seems to be the pattern that laws are changed as little as possible in order to quell dissent, and then those laws are slowly rendered impotent over the next few decades. But some changes actually remain fairly robust, such as labor laws and the Voting Rights Act.

It is useful to look at how far people have to be pushed before they rise up in rebellion. Things got pretty bad in early industrialized America before riots broke out. Vietnam was killing draftees for years before we saw any significant protests. When people start marching in the streets, and don't stop, it's a good indication that something is very, very wrong.

There are always unforeseen consequences to any policy change. The protests were more against the draft, than against the war. This resulted in an end to the draft.

Up to this point in US history, the burden of calling for a military draft was a great moderating force on the temptation to use our army for a particular cause. Now, with our all volunteer army, military service touches fewer families, which immediately relieves the political pressure against use of military force.

The social negotiation used to be, "You can have my son, what do I get in return?" There was a rational acceptance of the risk of death or injury, but there had to be a reasonable idea that the sacrifice was worth it. Maybe not so reasonable, but at least make a plausible bumper sticker. After 13 years of our military "fighting for freedom", I don't believe you or I are the least bit more free than before.

 

[boneyard bill]

The historian, Crain Brinton, wrote a book entitled, Anatomy of a Revolution. Brinton studied four revolutions including the American and French revolutions. He concluded that in all four cases, conditions in these countries had been improving at the time that these revolutions occurred. He cautioned, of course, that we couldn't generalize to all revolutions what he had discovered for these. Nonetheless, he study should be instructive. We cannot generalize that poor economic conditions create revolutions. The truth of this matter may very well be the opposite.

It makes a certain amount of sense. People who are living on the margins of survival do not have the time nor the resources to mount a revolution. The Peasant's Revolt in England, for example, occurred after the Black Death had decimated the population and wages were higher than they had been since the Roman Empire and serfdom was on the decline. Race riots in this country broke out AFTER the civil rights laws were passed. There was very little violence during the Great Depression. It appears that rising expectations are much more of a factor in revolutions than is a decline in living standards.

I would also point out that revolutions seem to be associated with a split within the ruling elites. The American colonies were divided between the Patriots and the Tories, but both of these groups had formed part of the elite. Louis the XVI was opposed by the Duke of Orleans during the French revolution and the rising commercial classes had not attained political influence commensurate with their economic status in the country. In the Soviet Union it was a division within the ruling elite, the Communist Party, that led to the break-up of that country.

If we have a revolution in this country, I don't think that it will be a racial revolution. However, if the economy collapses, a very real possibility in my view, then we could see a split among the ruling elites; and that could produce of revolution. This is especially true if we see a collapse in the value of the dollar. In that event, the military-industrial complex would collapse also and leave a power vacuum within the current ruling elite. The same is likely true of the Wall Street Banks.

 

[lpetrich]

Davka, I think that you are right about that. It's not just racial unrest, but also labor unrest and unrest against the economic elite. The Occupy movement and the Wisconsin revolt both failed, but fast-food and Walmart labor activism continues.

Looking at the longer view of US history, it seems that it's about time for another phase of militant activism. Arthur Schlesingers I and II had proposed that US history moves in cycles, between liberal, reform phases and conservative, retrenchment phases. During conservative phases, problems build up that society's elites are unwilling to acknowledge or do anything about. But liberal phases involve activism that can be intense, and it can be hard to sustain intense activism, especially when one seems to have succeeded.

The phases don't have very fixed times or very sharp boundaries, but their lengths average out at about 15 years. Two conservative phases have been especially long, and they followed times of great national trauma: the Gilded Age, after Civil War and Reconstruction, and the current era, after Sixties radicalism. Our current era may be described as Gilded Age II, after its similarities to the previous one. It seemed as if the Clinton presidency would be the start of another liberal era, but President Clinton wimped out after Clintoncare flopped.

So we are overdue for another liberal era, though the increasing activism suggests that one may be on the way.


Peter Turchin is a biologist who turned to humanity's recorded history. He has found some interesting cycles there, and he has theorized about what makes these cycles happen.

The longer-lived large-scale societies go through cycles of rise and fall, lasting some 300 - 400 years. This is due to the social dynamics of these preindustrial, agrarian societies. In the rising phase, a society is relatively united and egalitarian, and it may conquer its neighbors. The population grows, and the elites rise even faster, often at the expense of ordinary citizens, and society ends up top-heavy with them. Then the fall phase starts, with elites fighting each other and the society losing population and sometimes territory.

Superimposed is a shorter cycle, a two-generation or father-son cycle about 50 years long. The first generation in the cycle revolts against perceived injustices, and may resolve some of them. The second generation is unwilling to revolt, not suffering as much or else having bad memories of its parents revolt. But the third generation suffers more, and it has less memory of the previous revolt, so it revolts.

Industralized societies are somewhat different, but in US data, one can see evidence of 1 1/2 of a long-term cycle in a variety of social indicators. One can also see a 2-generation cycle, with nasty outbreaks of strife around 1870, 1920, and 1970, though curiously not around 1820. That was during the Era of Good Feelings; everybody must have felt very good back then.

The first peak was in that era, some time around 1825. The US went downhill until about 1905, and then went uphill until about 1960, and it is now going downhill again.

So according to this theory, the US should have a lot of trouble around 2020. We may already be starting to see that trouble.


US History Cycles - Liberal vs. Conservative
Peter Turchin's Cycles of History
Peter Turchin: US-History Cycles

 

[fromderinside]

Davka, I think that you are right about that. It's not just racial unrest, but also labor unrest and unrest against the economic elite. The Occupy movement and the Wisconsin revolt both failed, but fast-food and Walmart labor activism continues.

Looking at the longer view of US history, it seems that it's about time for another phase of militant activism. Arthur Schlesingers I and II had proposed that US history moves in cycles, between liberal, reform phases and conservative, retrenchment phases. During conservative phases, problems build up that society's elites are unwilling to acknowledge or do anything about. But liberal phases involve activism that can be intense, and it can be hard to sustain intense activism, especially when one seems to have succeeded.

The phases don't have very fixed times or very sharp boundaries, but their lengths average out at about 15 years. Two conservative phases have been especially long, and they followed times of great national trauma: the Gilded Age, after Civil War and Reconstruction, and the current era, after Sixties radicalism. Our current era may be described as Gilded Age II, after its similarities to the previous one. It seemed as if the Clinton presidency would be the start of another liberal era, but President Clinton wimped out after Clintoncare flopped.

So we are overdue for another liberal era, though the increasing activism suggests that one may be on the way.


Peter Turchin is a biologist who turned to humanity's recorded history. He has found some interesting cycles there, and he has theorized about what makes these cycles happen.

The longer-lived large-scale societies go through cycles of rise and fall, lasting some 300 - 400 years. This is due to the social dynamics of these preindustrial, agrarian societies. In the rising phase, a society is relatively united and egalitarian, and it may conquer its neighbors. The population grows, and the elites rise even faster, often at the expense of ordinary citizens, and society ends up top-heavy with them. Then the fall phase starts, with elites fighting each other and the society losing population and sometimes territory.

Superimposed is a shorter cycle, a two-generation or father-son cycle about 50 years long. The first generation in the cycle revolts against perceived injustices, and may resolve some of them. The second generation is unwilling to revolt, not suffering as much or else having bad memories of its parents revolt. But the third generation suffers more, and it has less memory of the previous revolt, so it revolts.

Industralized societies are somewhat different, but in US data, one can see evidence of 1 1/2 of a long-term cycle in a variety of social indicators. One can also see a 2-generation cycle, with nasty outbreaks of strife around 1870, 1920, and 1970, though curiously not around 1820. That was during the Era of Good Feelings; everybody must have felt very good back then.

The first peak was in that era, some time around 1825. The US went downhill until about 1905, and then went uphill until about 1960, and it is now going downhill again.

So according to this theory, the US should have a lot of trouble around 2020. We may already be starting to see that trouble.


US History Cycles - Liberal vs. Conservative
Peter Turchin's Cycles of History
Peter Turchin: US-History Cycles

I find all our inputs interesting and informed. I just don't see the analyses concentrating on the motivating factors of our current expanding discontent.

Does anyone really care about whether the US is going to have a liberal renascence when its clear that water starved countries are already radicalizing toward an outright insurrection against the haves (moneyed, clerical, landed)? Can the end of technological rule be far off?

The seeds of our discontent is found in the seeds of international resource shortages. Bits nor liberal humanist adjustments will cure empty stomachs.

 

[untermensche]

We call the War that began in 1775 a Revolutionary War, but it was a war to kick out what was perceived to be a foreign power, more than a war to overturn existing conditions.

The average person fighting the war had no idea what would replace the British. They didn't really care much.

If Washington had been declared King many would have gone along with it. They was no great cry for democracy from the bottom. That was an idea of the elite who led the war.

And because of that fact they constructed a system skewed to favor the rich elite and called it democracy.

Today there are many who disparage democracy and rightly say the US system is not very democratic.

But there really are only two choices.

You can have a functioning democracy or you can have rule by a tiny few.

Those opposed to democracy favor rule by a small group of elites.

These are still the Revolutionary lines.

Those who support rule by a tiny, usually invisible, group of "elites", against those who support as much open democracy as possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Think about it: just how bad do things need to be for people to rise up in the streets? How unheard and oppressed must this community feel? How little chance for change, based on past experience? How desperate must people be in the American ghetto, for the protests to continue escalating with no sign of letting up?

People rise up in the streets because scumbags like Al Sharpton tell them to.

 

[Davka]

Think about it: just how bad do things need to be for people to rise up in the streets? How unheard and oppressed must this community feel? How little chance for change, based on past experience? How desperate must people be in the American ghetto, for the protests to continue escalating with no sign of letting up?

People rise up in the streets because scumbags like Al Sharpton tell them to.

Whenever i think Loren cannot possibly sink any lower...

 

[lpetrich]

I find all our inputs interesting and informed. I just don't see the analyses concentrating on the motivating factors of our current expanding discontent.

Peter Turchin – The history of inequality
The Double Helix of Inequality and Well-Being | Social Evolution Forum
PT uses several social indicators, and he found them to be correlated.

• Health: average height and life expectancy: +++
• Social optimism: age at first marriage (both sexes): ---
• Labor supply: fraction of population that is foreign-born: ---
• Price of labor: average wage / GDP per capita: +++
• Wealth inequality: largest wealth / median wage: ---
• Elite competition/conflict: political polarization in Congress: ---
• Sociopolitical instability: death rate from strife: ---

At a peak, people live long, grow tall, marry early, and earn a lot in comparison with the GDP. There are not many immigrants. The maximum wealth is relatively small, the politicians get along with each other, and not many people die from strife.

The Era of Good Feelings and the Eisenhower Era were both peaks.

At a trough, people live short, grow short, marry late, and earn little in comparison with the GDP. There are lots of immigrants. The maximum wealth is relatively large, the politicians fight each other, and many people die from strife.

The end of the Gilded Age was a trough and the US is currently heading for another trough.

Some of the social indicators are now rather obviously trough-ish. Lots of immigrants, wages stagnant with respect to productivity, wealth concentrations comparable to Gilded-Age values, and the politicians the most hostile to each other in decades. The two parties have tried to gerrymander each other out of existence, with the Republicans going farther than the Democrats. Republicans often act as if Democrats are usurpers, especially Presidents Clinton and Obama. Republicans themselves are split between "establishment" and "Tea Party" ones, with moderates often scorned as RINO's, Republicans In Name Only (rhinoceros ~ fake elephant).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People rise up in the streets because scumbags like Al Sharpton tell them to.

Whenever i think Loren cannot possibly sink any lower...

Al Sharpton is scum. The black community would be well served to dump him.

 

[bleubird]

Good night.Loren.

 

[boneyard bill]

We call the War that began in 1775 a Revolutionary War, but it was a war to kick out what was perceived to be a foreign power, more than a war to overturn existing conditions.

The average person fighting the war had no idea what would replace the British. They didn't really care much.

If Washington had been declared King many would have gone along with it. They was no great cry for democracy from the bottom. That was an idea of the elite who led the war.

And because of that fact they constructed a system skewed to favor the rich elite and called it democracy.

Today there are many who disparage democracy and rightly say the US system is not very democratic.

But there really are only two choices.

You can have a functioning democracy or you can have rule by a tiny few.

Those opposed to democracy favor rule by a small group of elites.

These are still the Revolutionary lines.

Those who support rule by a tiny, usually invisible, group of "elites", against those who support as much open democracy as possible.

The founding fathers had no intention of founding a democracy and certainly didn't refer to the republic that they created as a democracy. They regarded democracy as a bad form of government and so made only one part of the new government, the House of Representatives, into a democratic institution. All other branches were chosen through indirect means.

The current system, however, is probably more elitist, and certainly less diversified, than the system created by the founders. Our system does not represent the people because the elites control the information that the people receive.

 

[Davka]

The current system, however, is probably more elitist, and certainly less diversified, than the system created by the founders. Our system does not represent the people because the elites control the information that the people receive.

Although I agree with your concluding sentence, I'm not sure I'd characterize a system in which slave-owners get to count their slaves during redistricting (at 3/5 of a human each) - and women have no say at all - as any more egalitarian than the current mess.

 

[untermensche]

The founding fathers had no intention of founding a democracy and certainly didn't refer to the republic that they created as a democracy. They regarded democracy as a bad form of government and so made only one part of the new government, the House of Representatives, into a democratic institution. All other branches were chosen through indirect means.

The current system, however, is probably more elitist, and certainly less diversified, than the system created by the founders. Our system does not represent the people because the elites control the information that the people receive.

The founders were elitist racist sexist slave owners.

To think they have anything to teach us today is absurd.

And yes, they didn't like democracy very much.

But they were wrong about so much this isn't surprising.

 

[Deepak]

The current system, however, is probably more elitist, and certainly less diversified, than the system created by the founders. Our system does not represent the people because the elites control the information that the people receive.

Although I agree with your concluding sentence, I'm not sure I'd characterize a system in which slave-owners get to count their slaves during redistricting (at 3/5 of a human each) - and women have no say at all - as any more egalitarian than the current mess.

The founding fathers didn't really have much to say about women having a say - ultimately this decision was up to the states. Massachusetts, Vermont, and NY colonies prior to the revolution had provisions for women voting. Ultimately most states borrowed from the English model after the war, with the exception of NJ. Joisey women had the right to vote until (IIRC) 1807 when those pesky broads cost a local politician his election.

The 3/5ths compromise, while ridiculous, wasn't so much an egalitarian issue as was slavery - something which was hotly contested from pre-revolution to the civil war. Lincoln spoke pretty eruditiously about the topic in his opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska act when he was a candidate.

 

[fromderinside]

I find all our inputs interesting and informed. I just don't see the analyses concentrating on the motivating factors of our current expanding discontent.

Peter Turchin – The history of inequality
The Double Helix of Inequality and Well-Being | Social Evolution Forum
PT uses several social indicators, and he found them to be correlated.

• Health: average height and life expectancy: +++
• Social optimism: age at first marriage (both sexes): ---
• Labor supply: fraction of population that is foreign-born: ---
• Price of labor: average wage / GDP per capita: +++
• Wealth inequality: largest wealth / median wage: ---
• Elite competition/conflict: political polarization in Congress: ---
• Sociopolitical instability: death rate from strife: ---

At a peak, people live long, grow tall, marry early, and earn a lot in comparison with the GDP. There are not many immigrants. The maximum wealth is relatively small, the politicians get along with each other, and not many people die from strife.

The Era of Good Feelings and the Eisenhower Era were both peaks.

At a trough, people live short, grow short, marry late, and earn little in comparison with the GDP. There are lots of immigrants. The maximum wealth is relatively large, the politicians fight each other, and many people die from strife.

The end of the Gilded Age was a trough and the US is currently heading for another trough.

Some of the social indicators are now rather obviously trough-ish. Lots of immigrants, wages stagnant with respect to productivity, wealth concentrations comparable to Gilded-Age values, and the politicians the most hostile to each other in decades. The two parties have tried to gerrymander each other out of existence, with the Republicans going farther than the Democrats. Republicans often act as if Democrats are usurpers, especially Presidents Clinton and Obama. Republicans themselves are split between "establishment" and "Tea Party" ones, with moderates often scorned as RINO's, Republicans In Name Only (rhinoceros ~ fake elephant).

While I find a lot of similarities between US today and 15th century Spain, I think our dynamics are going in the opposite direction. The world is becoming more accepting as measure by immigration and emigration despite those trying to purify in one way or another across the globe. Reactionary forces always hate modernity and they push most when they ore nearest demise.

Sure one can hate regulation, demand rights to stay pure, even maximize taking when social and technological breakthroughs occur.

So rather than using such indices as threats to us I find them providing hopeful and wake up signals to those societies who have become accustomed to doing their own things. Things are gonna change and territory will take another drubbing when push comes to shove. Shrinking minorities and shrinking power go hand in hand with a bit of flummoxing along the way. Who knows. An attempted Inquisition might even bring on a new renascence. Go for it losing bastards. You just encourage us to gather strength for the party to come.