The rich are much easier to intimidate, they have a lot more to lose. It has been theorized that the social reforms passed by FDR were made possible because the wealthy were terrified of the Russian revolution that ended up in Communism. We need to terrify the wealthy again. We need them to fear an American Spring.
Terror attacks against civilians actually has a very, very low success rate. From this study:
If robots are growing the food, everyone will starve to death except the robot owners and the people they allow to live.
Precisely my thoughts on the subject. If we had more of a social democracy, like many European nations, probably not. But with so many wealthy libertarians and conservatives here in the US, yes, there will be a lot of starvation.
If farmers are growing the food, everyone will starve to death except the famers and the people they allow to live.
How is that any different from robot-farming?
How does that follow? If anything, I’d think robotic food production would lower costs and make food cheaper and safer, much like robotic production has done in many other industries.
We already have “robot farming”, in the sense that one combine literally does the work of thousands of peasants with sickles.
So why doesn’t Industrial Harvester control the United States?
It will. The problem isn’t so much robot farming alone, but the fact that robotics will invade other industries and drive the number of unemployable people right through the roof. Think of Greece, only the unemployment rate is 85 percent and for everybody. So long as most people have jobs they can pay for food. The ones who can’t can be handled through surplus food provided by food banks at present. But what happens when most people don’t have jobs and can’t pay for food? Are farms charitable operations? Archer Daniels Midland thinks not, I suspect.
It worked in the 1930s in the US. The question is, will our current crop of oligarchs be frightened enough to make more than cosmetic changes?
Revolution, OTOH, is sometimes a thing worth doing. Of course, again, there’s always a lot that could go wrong.
What worked? Lynching bankers? That didn’t happen.
You’re not going to frighten oligarchs into supporting universal health care by random murder campaigns. If people thought OWS types were killers, or helped killers, or sympathized with killers, then they’d support crushing the fuck out of OWS.
Of course, here in real life OWS doesn’t have any sort of broad support that could be lost when they start engaging in political violence. To lose the sympathy of the American people they’d have to have it in the first place, which they don’t.
So the real problem, if you’re sympathetic to OWS type goals, is to convert OWS from a fringe movement to a mass movement. Planting bombs at banks doesn’t seem like a good way to do that, does it?
And why would you think that frightened Oligarchs would respond by giving up instead of releasing the hounds? Because if I were an Oligarch, and people were going around shooting at Oligarchs, I’d call up the President and order him to arrest the kind of people who shoot at Oligarchs, take them out behind the chemical sheds and put a bullet in their brain. I mean, even if we stipulate that Oligarchs are a superstitious cowardly lot, don’t you think their fear would lead them to try to destroy the source of their fear, rather than curling up in a ball and hoping it would all go away? You don’t get to be an Oligarch by being the kind of person who pisses his pants at the first sign of adversity.
Terror attacks didn’t occur in the 1930s in the U.S. They did occur in the teens, and were a total failure. Terrorism does not work. If you have the interest, read the Harvard study I linked to, it definitively proves that it doesn’t work, and develops a very persuasive theory as to why. For instance:
That the group wanted to destroy American values and/or society is exactly what people would infer from OWS murdering bankers.
Then how do you?
First off, it’s not entirely clear that the Oligarchs are against universal health care. Oligarchs run businesses, those businesses have employees, and a large fraction of those employees have employer-provided health insurance as part of their compensation.
Why not make bitching about health care into the President’s worry instead? It’s going to cost about the same either way, so what’s the difference? Outsourcing health insurance to the government and focusing on the core business makes a lot of sense.
And I thought you left-wingers believed that the Oligarchs controlled the government lock stock and barrel anyway, so this is just shifting the name on the letterhead from one business unit to another.
What’s the alternative then? Compelling farmers and agricultural companies to employ thousands (millions?) of people to do manual labor, right up until the point when foreign competitors with robots undercut them on price and drive them out of business?
In Spain the economic crisis came about, not because of a failure of central government but because of a failure of regional government and in particular regional banks. Spain devolves a lot of power to the regions to keep the likes of the Basques and Catalans on side. Sadly the international credit bubble was too much of temptation for the regional banks (known as Cajas) and they borrowed heavily and spent wildly on huge prestige projects and property. So it was not so much a failure of central government, but pretty much up to central government to solve the problem.
The beneficiaries of property bubbles are often very close to home. Big mortgages, holidays homes and so on are family decisions. I would guess people knew they were involved in some madness of crowds.
The resulting contraction in the economy and youth unemployment are borne by families. The kids kicking their heels waiting for something to turn up. Or…going abroad.
In the 28 countries of the EU there is free mobility of labour, so you always find work in another country. Plenty of Spanish young people do this. Home is only a cheap budget flight away, so it is easy to return home if it doesn’t work out.
So there you have a safety valve and safety net and a bit of mea culpa.
Reasons enough to take it on the chin, tighten the belt and repair the banking system. It is not the end of the world.
Greece is rather different and the central government must shoulder a lot of blame. They spent like there was no tomorrow, amassed huge debt in a country flooded with international capital. The Governments of the day tended to buy votes by creating government jobs for their supporters, often on high ticket items. F16s, The Olympics, a rail network that employed many but served few.
But again, I think they knew the madness was not far from their own backyard.
If there is a hate figure in these countries it is the Troika : The European Commission, The European Bank and the IMF. Together they have the task of funding the bailout of these countries or risk the problems spreading across the whole of the EU. The rioters and demonstrations tend to blame international capitalism. But there are no easy answers. No easy alternatives…but you can vote with your feet.
It is easier to blame the hardworking Germans who hold the purse strings of Europe rather your own family who took the money and had a party.
The strains within the European Union are considerable during this economic crisis. A A single market, single currency, free mobility of labour, a federal government and reserve.
The US has considerably more experience at this sort of thing than the Europeans.
Are you aware of Kale Borroka or of hooliganism? Ever heard of Manos Blancas? One of the things of which people here are extremely sick is assholes and murderers (and people who are both) destroying public and private property. Most people don’t want to incur in the kind of behavior that’s associated with ETA and with drunks who use sports victories as an excuse for arson.
filmstar-en, cajas that were healthy have been used to bail out banks that were not, and some of the high managers who were in several of the worse cajas are politicians, from previous central governments or in the current one. Dividing the bank map into “banks (who were doing things right)” and “cajas (which are the ones that screwed up)” and separating the central government from either one is a simplification worthy of Hollywood.
That would be silly. The alternative will be to find some metric for valuing human beings other than for their labor. But this will require a profound cultural shift. I think widespread unemployment and possibly starvation, riots, etc., will occur first.
The chances of a revolution leading to a worse situation are greater than those of improving the situation, especially in a democracy.
Sure, it’s a last resort. I hope it will not happen. But oligarchies typically take a LOT of shoving to get them out of power.