There are two possible scenarios involving a popular rebellion, both of which are somewhat remote at this point in time, and one of which is probably remote at any time.
The more likely scenario I foresee is not so much an all-out Arab Spring revolt, but perhaps a period of ongoing unrest and tension between the capitalist elite and everyone else, such as what we experienced in the US from from 1885 to 1930. What’s interesting to note is that during that time, America enjoyed major economic expansion fueled by technological revolution, which transformed the US into indisputably the world’s largest and most vibrant economy. While all of this was happening, though, there was also major income and wealth inequality, which is in part what gave rise to the labor movement here and elsewhere. It was during this time of expansion that the resistance to oligarchy was violent, with several incidents of violence in places like Pittsburgh and West Virginia. In fact some race riots or massacres actually had their origins in labor conflicts, as was the case in the East St Louis riot of 1917. For a brief time during the Great Depression, there was the fear that violence would go mainstream when the WWI veterans were denied pensions, with none other than Gen. Douglas MacArthur being tasked with brutally putting down the unrest. But in the election of 1932, the country overwhelmingly delivered FDR a mandate to balance capitalism. It was a revolution in terms of politics because voters were giving an American president permission to modify our understanding of the role between government and the economy in a major way.
A second scenario, which is more remote in my opinion, is a growing political divide between progressive states and regions of the countries and more conservative regions which leads to one or more progressive or conservative states attempting to secede from the Union.
I think Apple introduced the iPhone that year. Plus, wasn’t there something happening in Iraq? I think it was in the papers. Nothing I recall was like 1928. Oh, sure, the stock market went down quite a bit and there was a recession…but there wasn’t a Great Depression, there weren’t bread lines or soup kitchens or anything like that. Know why? Because the US is much, MUCH wealthier in 2007 than it was in 1928, and the income distribution curve was completely different then than it was in 1928. The curve you had in the US at the turn of the last century was a large distribution on the left end (the poor end), with a large number of people in the poorest 3 segments, a smaller number in the middle 3, and very few people in the final 3, with VERY few at the highest level. The curve in 2007 was more like a camel, with it’s single hump in the middle. Today, the camel has a rather small but and the hump is oriented more towards the head.
Again, 2007’s ‘crash’ was nothing like the 1928 crash, and the subsequent events weren’t like those either. I’ll point out that despite far less radical (and ultimately misguided and failed) programs of FDR, Obama managed to get us back to an improving economy and rising jobs IN HIS FIRST TERM. By the time he left we had more than made up for what was lost in the crash…I believe, for myself, the cross over was actually in 2010 when I had essentially made back what I lost in the crash. Unemployment went from, IIRC, close to 10% at it’s worst back to 7% or less, again IN HIS FIRST TERM. There is no comparison between that and what happened in 1928. There is no comparison between the way things are today and how they were in the early 1900’s, when most citizens fell into the ‘poor’ categories and had access to just the most basic survival necessities and very few luxuries.
Yes, I get that you think it’s important. I don’t believe it is. I think the income distribution tells the real tale concerning what the OP is talking about. Folks like you get riled by the income inequality, but I don’t think the average Joe does. The reason is because the majority of people are in those middle tiers today. And all tiers, including the poorest have access to goods and services that even the rich in 1900 couldn’t dream of.
But you are still missing the point. You are talking about wealth, and trying to make a comparison but ignoring that the majority of people in that time were in the poor categories wrt just income, with few in the middle class brackets and fewer in the highest brackets. Today, the highest brackets have millions of people in them, not a few hundred. And the upper 2 mid-tier brackets such as I am in and most likely most 'dopers are in make up over 50% of the population. Add in the lowest of the mid-tiers and you are talking over 60% of the population right there…closer to 70% IIRC. The lowest bracket (the lowest 3) make up around 20%-25% of the population. Contrast that to 1900 when the lowest brackets had over 50% of the population and you’ll see why it’s different. Couple that with the fact that today, all tiers have access to goods and services the like of which the folks then couldn’t even dream of.
There is simply no way a popular revolution sparked by income inequality is looming on our horizon. Close to zero chance unless there is a radical change. There was a very real chance of just such a conflict in the early 1900’s…we were on the brink, in fact, several times. There might be a slim chance (very low probability but higher than the one you are talking about) of a popular revolution sparked by politics and political conflict between conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, left wing and right wing. I think it’s a pretty low chance, but it’s possible. But a popular revolution because of income inequality? Not a chance. We are too rich, and too many Americans are in those middle 3 tiers…they aren’t going to spark a popular revolt because of income inequality. The lower 3 tiers, especially the lowest tier could, in theory, but I don’t think so. As another poster up thread said, bread and circuses. When even the majority of the lowest tier of society have access to sufficient food, clothing, shelter, and even luxuries like cell phones and the like it’s unlikely they are going to revolt…and if they do, they will be heavily outnumbered.
America is not too big. Other large countries have undergone civil wars. Also, relative prosperity is not immunity from civil war (though it does have a negative correlation.) Average income in pre-civil war Syria as an example was improving rapidly.
Civil War red flags are a large amount of male unemployment and lack of educational opportunities. A commodity based export system (This leads to people feeling that ‘their’ commodities are benefiting someone else.) A minority grouping that feels dominated. Governments that lack resources and established bureaucracy. Mountainous terrain with dispersed populations. Poverty.
Places with more of those things are more likely to erupt in Civil War. In the US, those aren’t the tech centers or coasts. If a Civil War were to start, you probably want to look at places like rural Appalachia. For the interests of full disclosure, I live in West Virginia and I think that there’s a non-zero chance of us starting a Civil War, but honestly, West Virginia independence largely means that we know you mock us and we’re past giving a ‘fig.’ I don’t think that there is an overwhelming sense that the government is an oppressor, more like we’re an afterthought. We get a bit of lip service every now and again, but no one actually cares. This is different from feeling dominated. Largely too, our unemployed males have chosen to deal with their issues through substance abuse rather than violent revolution, so I guess that’s nice for the sake of political stability.
What role do veterans play in revolutions? Did any of the revoultions of the 20s and 30s have to do with all the ex-veterans of WW1 in European nations? Smedley Butler said the coup he was encouraged to lead was a coup of veterans. Does having a large number of combat veterans increase the odds of revolution?
I wonder if dictatorships ever encourage drug abuse as a way to dilute any feelings of revolution. I know meth abuse is rampant in North Korea for example. I wonder if dictators figure its better to encourage their young male citizens to get high rather than be angry about the injustices of the government.
The only reason – the ONLY reason – the United States avoided a complete financial collapse in 2007 is because of the New Deal era legislation of 1933. Had it not been for congress and the president infusing money into the financial system, had it not been for the US spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to bail out the financial system and industrial sector, and had it not been for things like FDIC and the SEC…America would have entered a full-on depression. But here’s the thing: the numbers you’re seeing in the mainstream media about the GDP and incomes rising are deceptive, dare I say falsehoods – because they are based on averages, means. The reality is that half of America is much, much poorer than it was even 10-12 years ago, and it’s not like they were rich then. Moreover, there are fewer banks controlling more of our deposits and investments. Further still, we’re reentering the era of financial sector deregulation and toxic asset collection – for the simple reason that financial services firms still don’t have higher interest rates to get more for the holdings they have. The next crash will be harder than the last one, and the government won’t be able to save everyone. It won’t save most. It will simply save the rich and thus be the final nail in the coffin of the democraticization of wealth. We’ll be left with oligarchy.
I’m going to hazard a guess that you have no idea what’s going on because you’re simply not exposed to it. You drive from suburbia to your office - or maybe you telecommute - but you have no idea what’s really going on in this country. None. FACT.
Right - the middle tiers who barely have $400 on hand in emergency savings, LOL!
I don’t care if the average Joe gets riled up by income equality or not because it is economic and historical fact that income inequality leads to financial and political instability. Failure to understand income inequality is a failure to understand how economics, how capitalism, works - or how it fails to work, more specifically.
The Soviets famously had rampant alcoholism, but boozing is so much a part of Russian culture, I doubt they needed much encouragement from the government.
Toward the end of George W Bush’s administration, I remember commenting to someone that I could see a conservative government actually supporting the legalization of drugs for the purpose of deadening their senses. They don’t even have to legalize it; just promote the illicit trade, and employ police/military corruption to establish a criminal network – they could always plant drugs on their political rivals, frame them, and lock them up for decades.
