[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'A') lot of people don't live in the suburbs.

[rangerone314]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '[')url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/17/300.million.over/index.html]This 2006 article[/url] from CNN states: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n addition, American suburbs have seen steady growth -- between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of the total population living in suburbs grew from 38 percent to 50 percent.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'I')f even 20% don't live in the suburbs that would be a lot. Control 60 million people.

[rangerone314]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'F')unny thing is, it's even easier with cities. Take New York, for example. A few well-placed ASMs against a few dozen or so bridges and tunnels and voila, ~19 million people isolated from the rest of the continent...

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Wed, 14 Oct 2009 at 11:00 AM EDT: Will Inequality Lead to Revolution?
One year after a public bailout, the bonuses are back " big-time " at Goldman Sachs. The headline now: a $23 billion bonus pool estimated on the way for the bankers.Meanwhile, unemployment is sky high. Foreclosures, too. And middle class anxiety.

You can feel the discontent, the anxious volatility in America right now. My guest today says one way or another it's the stuff of revolution. Really? Here? We'll hear his case and we'll hear from an historian who says it's not so easy to light that American fuse.

This hour, On Point: The powder keg argument, American history, and America now. You can join the conversation. Tell us what you think here on this page, on Twitter, and on Facebook. ~Tom Ashbrook

[eXpat]

It depends, some people / countries have the guts like the Hungarians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5358546.stm) while others are too cozy in their sofas ...

[timmac]

There still is not enough unemployed as of yet to cause a revolution and with the stock market creeping back up and many 401's are looking better this to will keep a revolution at bay.

I don't see a real revolution today or even in the near future for America, we are to fragmented nowadays for this, I see a slow downward colapse, crime rising, morals gone and no since of a real direction from the majority any more.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You know, it's funny in a way. In the past year (per Google searching I did a week or so ago) the overall economic (family wealth) disparity has actually lessened, due to the market collapse having a much greater absolute effect on the wealthy than J6P. I think that was the first such trend reversal since the Reagan era.

What's REALLY pissing people off (even generally free market guys like me) is seeing the outfits like Goldman:

1). Being bailed out by rescuing stupid and/or criminal firms like AIG's CDS's -- and them still claiming they needed NO bailout since they paid their loan/warrants off. (Like they could have if all their bad paper had been allowed to fail. Sure.)

2). Making a ton of money on criminal schemes like flash trading, and claiming in WSJ editorials that all they're doing is making markets more liquid. (High speed trading is fine -- flash trading is frontrunning).

3). Having the arrogance to pay $20+ Billion in bonuses (final tally not yet decided) in spite of items 1 and 2, while many millions lose their jobs, and the fate of the banks remains undecided -- and act like there's nothing at all wrong with it.

Well, I guess as long as our politicians extend unemployment, $250 gifts to seniors when SS COLA's are zero, etc. etc. etc. all is well(!)

When the hard dollar crash truly occurs and people actually realize they have NOTHING, perhaps the Washington crowd will all end up on pikes.

Nah, I just can't see the sheeple doing that, regardless.

[Isochroma]

Let's take the question and turn it on its head.

What revolution ever happened without grievous economic inequality, including land maldistribution, to ignite and sustain it?

People don't just decide one day for the fun of it to risk their lives against armed agents of the State. Hellacious circumstances force them into violent conflict with authority, and such conflict often leads to destruction of one or both factions.

I see this dynamic continuing into the future. I see mass poverty worldwide causing mass revolution worldwide. Very soon.

[Prince]

I used to think that the middle or working class would go weary of the rich and that there would be all-out class warfare. However, it's pretty obvious to see that this will never happen. In human history, I can't think of a time where there was widespread revolt. Sure, there have been minor revolts or subtle uprising, but these are usually quickly subdued, and more often than not it's the poor and middle class who eat their own. The rich/poor gap has grown astronomically over the last 50 years, and I see no reason why this trend will not continue.

The government is full paid for by the the same scum that run Goldman Kikes and CitiJewp. I'm a free market guy, but as Outcast mentioned, there is nothing free market about what has happened in the last 5 years. It's pure criminal and, apparently, condoned and endorsed by our government (after all, the banks make the rules and pay off the politicians, so why would the government stop it). That said, I don't see a huge crash in financial industry that will give these people their comeuppance. The banks have a free pass from the government to be fully backed by Joe Taxpayer. Besides, look at all the outrage we've seen from the poor/middle class in the last year over the bailouts, porkulus, and healthcare issues. All this anger and outrage has fallen on deaf ears. The politicians will do what they want, so long as it benefits their cronies. As for some of these big banks, wait until cap-and-tax passes.. GK looks to make and absolute fortune on that scam.

My guess is that there will indeed be class warfare and revolution, but it will be the middle class against poor. As more and more middle class lose their jobs, benefits, retirement, and 401k money, they'll find an easy scapegoat, all the while ignoring the real cause of the problem.

So revolt against the rich? No f-ing way. Never has happened on a broad scale (that I know of), and never will.

[Isochroma]

Your knowledge is lacking. Read history.

The tiny minority of rich stand on the shoulders of the masses, and they know it. They live in fear of revolt and it's already happening throughout the world.

Why, today Chavez even expropriated a hotel, the lovely Hilton.

Pay close attention: history is written by the revolutions of the masses - real history - not the crap written in textbooks designed to brainwash people into thinking their masters will have perpetual control and wealth.

Armed struggle and resistance to the wealthy and their policies is increasing worldwide. When conditions decline past a certain point in previously-stable countries, they too will undergo their own culturally unique upheavals.

What is that certain point? How bad do things have to get before the masses take up arms and take to the streets in revolt?

Here's a nice study which measures how revolt pressures are altered by the economic life of citizens. His was the only paper I have ever found that actually attempts to calculate how income changes correlate with tendency to revolt.

What Makes a Revolution?
by Robert McCulloh
London School of Economics and Political Science
Full Text PDF: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/de/dedps30.pdf

And my favorite snippets from his paper, quoting from his Conclusions:

"After controlling for personal characteristics, as well as country and year fixed effects, we find that:

1. More people desire revolutionary action when their net incomes are low. The regressions estimate that a one standard deviation decrease in net income (or $US 2588 in 1985 dollars) leads to an increase in revolutionary support of up to 5.7 percentage points (or 3.2 times one standard deviation in the support for revolt).

2. Revolutionary support is lower when income inequality is low. A one standard deviation decrease in inequality (or a shift in the Gini coefficient of 0.04 measured on a 0 to 1 scale) leads to a decrease in revolutionary support of up to 3.4 percentage points (or 1.9 times one standard deviation). Results (1) and (2) combined indicate that ‘going for growth’, or implementing policies that reduce inequality, can buy nations out of revolt. For example, although inequality is higher in the United States compared to Luxembourg, an increase in net income of $US 3510 should keep revolutionary support in the U.S. unchanged. Actual net income in the U.S. compared to Luxembourg exceeded this difference.

3. Being unemployed significantly increases the likelihood of an individual responding in favor of revolutionary action in 7 of the 12 nations used in the panel regressions. However the unemployment rate is not a significant determinant of aggregate revolutionary support, after controlling for this personal effect."

[Prince]

I still disagree. I would like to see some historical examples of poor/working class revolting against rich, so please share (I'm being serious, too... this is something I've wondered about for years). This is certainly open for discussion and interpretation, but in the last 100 years there has been very little revolt in places where you would most expect it. The rich may well live in fear of the masses, as well they should, but ultimately they can keep people just smart enough to hit the enter key and just dumb enough to accept increasingly lower pay with disappearing benefits and pensions that are gone the moment you go to collect them (to paraphrase George Carlin).

Is there revolt? Sure. There has been revolt of sorts in inner cities. Ghettos. "Bad neighborhoods". But is this revolt against the rich? Hell no. Most of these people who "revolt" do so against one another...like I said, it's the poor and middle classes feasting on their own kind. The rich, albeit living in fear that the game may come crashing down, are never pitted in the ring.

[Isochroma]

Now you're asking a different question, so I'll assume we're done with the first. If you want to find the revolts of people against their oppressors you need look no further than the Americans' revolution against their British oppressors (that was an economic revolt too).

History is chock-full of such revolts, some successful, some not. Often after such a revolt, like the French Revolution, old or new powers regain or rise into new positions.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has managed to regain power after the US-sponsored antirevolutionaries took over for a very short time. He did so and continues to lead because he's got widespread popular support.

So far, most revolts have been put down by oppressors funded, armed, trained by the US, if the US wasn't busy directly intervening with military force.

What's unique about the state of the States now, is that they may at last become victim to their own oppressed population.

I see it as a great opportunity for the people of that nation, but suspect that due to generations of brainwashing and total media control, breaking of labor unions and all other progressive organizations, the coming US popular revolt will be as disorganized, chaotic, bloody and brutal as it could be.

In countries where the population is less broken-up and demoralized they make revolts which have a chance at success, in the sense that the revolts aren't just random anarchy but are co-ordinated attacks against their oppressors and the oppressive institutions that serve their oppressors.

So yeah, there's really three important questions:

1. The likelyhood of revolt
2. The form(s) it takes when it does occur
3. The final results of a revolt

The paper only answers number one, and maybe some hints at number two. To really answer these last two depends on the culture and outside intervention.

If conditions get bad enough anyone would revolt, so it's like how far can you squeeze the money out of the populace before they say: 'Enough! We've had enough of this!'. That's what people like Robert McCulloh are paid to do: do studies to find out how much money can be squeezed out of the masses before they pick up guns and revolt. Those who run the show are very, very interested to know just where the 'safe line' is, and how far they can go without going too far. You could call it the Calculus of Greed.

What happens after that is even more important to the eventual outcome - assuming a revolt happens, of course. What happens after that shows whether there's a fundamentally civil society being oppressed, or a broken self-victimizing group of isolated individuals whose anger is targeted not at their oppressors but at conveniently 'safe' targets: racial minorities, immigrants, the unemployed, women, etc.

Even 'the government' aka. 'big government' can be a useful target. Do people hate government because it's killing people all over the world, stealing their tax dollars to do so, oppressing them through numerous means including restrictive labor laws, nonpunishment of labor, environmental and other offences by big business, or do they hate it because Rush Limbaugh blames the black welfare queens or Mexican immigrants for the problems?

That's where the crucial power of propaganda and the influence of the media become decisive, at least in a populace which gets its information from these sources. And that's why the media is the most highly controlled and directly influenced bloc in the entire self-supporting system. However, even with that scope and power it isn't always the decisive factor. The Internet is one of the X-factors which is changing the game even as it's played.

[Prince]

We disagree then. Using Hugo Chavez as a symbolic figure for freedom is very far-reaching. His people are still very much oppressed, and while they may have the illusion of freedom, he uses them as pawns in his game as with all such figures in society. Sure, the Revolution was a historic example, but that was nearly 250 years ago, and we simply do not, as a people, have the intestinal fortitude to revolt in such a manner today.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Isochroma', 'I') see it as a great opportunity for the people of that nation, but suspect that due to generations of brainwashing and total media control, breaking of labor unions and all other progressive organizations, the coming US popular revolt will be as disorganized, chaotic, bloody and brutal as it could be.

[neocone]

GS... the bubble making criminal outfit... since the 1920s...

It all started with the Rotchilds in the 19th century.

One group of bankers is responsible for all the wars, the bubbles, the manipulation and the mess we are in... someone gotta finally spread that word.

[neocone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Prince', '
')
I assume that you meant that it will NOT be as disorganized, chaotic, bloody and brutal as it could be. For the reasons you cite above--the media brainwashing, self-serving, iPod and Facebook society--I think this is exactly why there will be no revolt at all in America, big or small. The owners have positioned the people not to think for themselves, but to accept the massive brainwashed knowledge they receive on a daily basis as how life should be. This will not change anytime soon, so long as we have public media that ridicules independence and non-conformity and a government that continues to gain full control of our lives. True revolt requires self-sacrifice, free-thinking, and unity. These, sir, do not exist in our society..

[Isochroma]

We may indeed agree: that there is no basis for a successful revolt without an informed, free-thinking people. I don't see that basis in America today.

If an American revolt were to happen most of the victims would be the people themselves. Not by chance or because of legitimate grievances, but because that rage was channeled by certain interests, toward 'safe' targets. That's been a long-standing strategy used by almost every wealthy/powerful ruler-group throughout history. Pit the people against each other to avoid getting roasted themselves.

If the greed of the super-rich in America (and other nations to a lesser extent) isn't stopped, it will continue to squeeze the people until a chaotic revolt happens. Or many chaotic revolts. That's what I mean when I say ugly. It will be ugly because of the discoherency and scapegoating which has for a long time been fomented by the media, and to a certain extent as you mention, lifestyle: which itself is a product of the reigning capitalist system: atomize people and turn them into atoms of consumption and production, with the tiny fraction of rich powerful people deciding all other matters.

Keeping these things in mind, it should also be remembered that a new generation will be produced (assuming continuity of life itself nationally or internationally). Those next generations living in a despoiled, resource-depleted future won't have to worry about losing their iPods, etc. cause they won't have them.

With less to lose, people are more likely to revolt. Back to the paper again.

Further on the general revolt topic, the wealthy/powerful have been watching and talking among themselves for some time (last few years especially) about how to handle such revolts. They live in fear and know that if they don't actively intervene to an even greater extent than they already do, they are doomed.

The topic has even made the pages of some public journals. I'll dig some stuff up tomorrow, to show how much fear these people really have. I think that if the public really knew how afraid they were, it might give them more confidence and surety on their own chances.

Years ago I came up with a saying that kind of captures the dynamic: the wealthy will take and take until they've taken too much, at which point comes chaos or revolution. The key element seems to be that once an entire system is on such a trajectory, past a certain point it becomes almost inevitable, like a Titanic crashing into an iceberg.

I know it's kind of crazy to say that the greedy managed to make a system where they'll be compelled to be the most greedy in a brutal ruthless competition to see who can squeeze more from the working people and environment, but it seems to be true. What I can't fathom is why such a group could so suicidally entangle themselves in such a machination, knowing that eventually it must break as it confronts the real-world contradictions inherent in its nature.

And like a bomb, the stronger the containment the bigger the explosion when it finally fails.

[Dreamtwister]

Bread and circuses

As long as the masses' bellies are full, and they have electricity to play "Manhunt 2", there will be no revolution.

[Isochroma]

Correct.

On a collision course with that happy picture is resource depletion (oil, phosphates and lots more), environmental destruction, excess population (its absolute level and growth), and structural greed.

Resolutions to some of these exist but they involve radical changes (often as radical or more radical than outright revolt), mostly ones freedom-loving Americans wouldn't agree with or allow so long as they have their guns.

And boy have Americans been buying guns and ammo. Wal-mart is now rationing certain kinds of ammo. That tells me they're afraid, but most aren't sure who their real enemies are. The constant, carefully selected and crafted media barrage makes it harder to tell what the real folks who make up the majority in America are thinking.

Once in a while some study appears like the one I linked to on income and revolt. My guess is that more studies on the topic would have been done, but the wealthy/powerful didn't want to create too much attention or focus on the issue because it implies lots of sensitive questions and topics that they would rather people be ignorant of. Finally as the issue becomes crucially important they begin to pay more attention to it, as of necessity. They gotta look after their own hides.

The big question is how and when will those guns be used? Will they be pointed at fellow American victims, or at their oppressors? Or will they be confiscated before they can be fired?