3 ms·
>Their goal is to create a workforce bound by their economic debt to the system, forced to take whatever work they can find, while being paid as little for that
by cryoshon 9y ago
>Their goal is to create a workforce bound by their economic debt to the system, forced to take whatever work they can find, while being paid as little for that work as possible, understanding ultimately, the creation of an indentured workforce is not only the result but an expected one, keeping society enfeebled and unable to create opportunities for further development.
mmhmm. that's called capitalism. this mode of capitalism is all that many people of the millenial generation have ever known, which makes it ripe for some "disruption."
the good news is that because of burgeoning rage, our broken system probably can't continue much longer. my estimate is maybe 20 years, although i wouldn't be too shocked if it's more like 5 years or more like 30 years. hard to predict these things.
middle class people are no longer secure, and they're the most likely source of revolutions if we look at history. there have already been rumblings; first in 2011-2012, then later with the race riots, and more recently with acceptance of socialism edging into the mainstream-- not your grandma's mainstream, the mainstream of the young and healthy.
i'd expect this country to have a more violent and perhaps more productive repeat of the 1960s reformation before we settle on democratic socialism or some other equitable politicoeconomic system. or perhaps we'll flub it somehow and accelerate our meteoric descent into third-world poverty, corruption, and squalor.
i'm sure people will take issue with that statement for a lot of reasons, but realistically that's our near future. the current system is a house of cards waiting for a breeze.
- snarf21 9y agoI think it can't go on forever but these things need leaders in order to evolve. How quickly did Occupy last? What is the agenda? What is the solution? The women's march was great but... just a one time thing to say we don't like what's happening. Until you have these things everywhere and everyday, you don't have enough momentum. Was everyone back on their couch watching Netflix the day after? The problem is that life could be better and it could be worse. I would argue that things would have to significantly worse for people to stand up.
- cryoshon 9y agopeople have already stood up, at the times you mentioned. what they haven't done is pick up a brick. that comes after standing up for multiple days (weeks, months) in a row doesn't accomplish anything.
- Chaebixi 9y agoBringing a brick to a gunfight seems even less intelligent than bringing a knife.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago>I would argue that things would have to significantly worse for people to stand up. I was watching an interesting lecture the other day where a professor contended this idea. (I really wish I could find it again) Basically his point was that revolutions do not emerge from conditions of total despair but rather from an imaginative vision of what could be better. As an example he compared North Korea in the present and America in colonial times. North Korea has terrible suffering but no real uprisings because the people there don't believe they could win against their government and they're not sure what society would look like even if they did. In colonial America conditions were relatively good, a fair amount of colonists were actually wealthy. But these people were seperated from Britain and so had time to conjure up imaginations of what their country could be. Once that imagination had been set, they were willing to fight and die against the large English empire. I'm not so sure that we need a great man but we do need a coherent vision that people can coalesce behind.
- snarf21 9y agoIt is an interesting point but I would say look at the civil rights movement. Lots of people thought it couldn't really change and didn't do anything, but eventually leaders appeared to be a focal point of the energy and thoughts.
- Chaebixi 9y agoThere was an interesting article I read a few months ago that observed that the ease of communication that the internet provides has actually crippled movements for social change. In the past building the infrastructure to coordinate and communicate to a movement was difficult, and you had to master that before you could manage a big attention-grabbing protest. You needed leaders, cohesive ideas, and a plan; and you needed them first. That meant that those movements had the staying power to get things done. Today? People organize massive protests spontaneously on Facebook and Twitter, based on the emotions of the moment, and get tons of attention. Then the members are forced to confront the question of "what next?" in an uncoordinated and leaderless way, and all the energy fades away.
- snarf21 9y agoVery good point. It is super easy to get your message out now. And also super easy for it to disappear in the noise of the social firehouse by next week.