3 ms·

One issue might be that, going by history, there is likely a tipping point where those not in the 1% use force to redistribute. That's got nothing to do with wh

One issue might be that, going by history, there is likely a tipping point where those not in the 1% use force to redistribute. That's got nothing to do with whether the wealth was accrued lawfully.

mc32 12y ago
Revolutions aren't typically driven by the starving populace who worry about their next meal --it's more people already in power or higher classes who use the masses to effect their change. Change usually has champions at the top. In other words it's a power struggle at the top manifested at the bottom.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I would love to hear more about this analysis of the ontology of revolutions. I can think of instances in history where this seems to be the case (1850s America) but also instances were it does not seem to be the case (The Peasant's Revolt). Do you know of a more nuanced (empirical) approach to predicting or recognizing which instances are driven by the masses, rather than political narrative?
  - mc32 12y ago
    Unfortunately not. This is just what I've heard from students of history not actual experts. It seems like a subject that could do with more analysis --although this would require lots of inference with regard to older revolutions I think
- RobertKerans 12y ago
  I'd kinda agree with that, there generally needs to be a driving force, and that driver is often primarily a group of persons who already have a measure of power. But it's not as much a starving populance that would be worrisome, rather an ignored one that a. feels it has no power and b. feels it cannot ever bridge that gap between haves- and have-nots. If that group includes the majority of the population, it would seem ripe for people with specific [often extremist?] agendas to manipulate, or maybe ground-up revolution driven by [demagogues?].

3 ms·

One issue might be that, going by history, there is likely a tipping point where those not in the 1% use force to redistribute. That's got nothing to do with wh

by RobertKerans 12y ago

One issue might be that, going by history, there is likely a tipping point where those not in the 1% use force to redistribute. That's got nothing to do with whether the wealth was accrued lawfully.

mc32 12y ago
Revolutions aren't typically driven by the starving populace who worry about their next meal --it's more people already in power or higher classes who use the masses to effect their change. Change usually has champions at the top. In other words it's a power struggle at the top manifested at the bottom.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I would love to hear more about this analysis of the ontology of revolutions. I can think of instances in history where this seems to be the case (1850s America) but also instances were it does not seem to be the case (The Peasant's Revolt). Do you know of a more nuanced (empirical) approach to predicting or recognizing which instances are driven by the masses, rather than political narrative?
  - mc32 12y ago
    Unfortunately not. This is just what I've heard from students of history not actual experts. It seems like a subject that could do with more analysis --although this would require lots of inference with regard to older revolutions I think
- RobertKerans 12y ago
  I'd kinda agree with that, there generally needs to be a driving force, and that driver is often primarily a group of persons who already have a measure of power. But it's not as much a starving populance that would be worrisome, rather an ignored one that a. feels it has no power and b. feels it cannot ever bridge that gap between haves- and have-nots. If that group includes the majority of the population, it would seem ripe for people with specific [often extremist?] agendas to manipulate, or maybe ground-up revolution driven by [demagogues?].