4 ms·
Income inequality and lack of social mobility don't lead to widespread violent revolution unless you add in famine. Just because you'll never be able to afford
by ameister14 9y ago
Income inequality and lack of social mobility don't lead to widespread violent revolution unless you add in famine.
Just because you'll never be able to afford floor seats doesn't mean you're going to attack the people that can. If you don't have food for your children, though, and you don't see another way - that's a lot more likely.
- Gustomaximus 9y agoYou're missing a few classic violent revolutions in that logic, the NAZI party, Mao (he created a famine and kept power...) Stalin, Pol Pot (also made famine, not created by it). People really get triggered by real or perceived injustice. It seems to be one of those common human instincts. Being downtrodden with lack of opportunity while others are born to the manor can get people going.
- ameister14 9y agoThe Nazi party wasn't a violent revolution, and Mao came to power in part through widespread famine and war. Creating famine doesn't always generate a violent and widespread revolution, that wasn't my point. Inequality on its own, without other types of degradation or the growing desperation that famine brings has sparked no such revolutions.
- kamaal 9y ago>>Income inequality and lack of social mobility don't lead to widespread violent revolution unless you add in famine. The term 'Income inequality' in developed economies can almost always be translated to one word: 'Envy'.