Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
Interesting article. I agree with the writer when he says "They have no ideas, no plans and no vision for the future."
I don't know that this a prelude to revolution, however. My sense is that the majority of the population still has too much to lose, and I doubt that very many people would have the stomach for it anyway. We don't really seem to have the same rebellious spirit that we once had.
The writer also states:
quote:
The preconditions for successful revolution, Brinton argued, are discontent that affects nearly all social classes, widespread feelings of entrapment and despair, unfulfilled expectations, a unified solidarity in opposition to a tiny power elite, a refusal by scholars and thinkers to continue to defend the actions of the ruling class, an inability of government to respond to the basic needs of citizens, a steady loss of will within the power elite itself and defections from the inner circle, a crippling isolation that leaves the power elite without any allies or outside support and, finally, a financial crisis.
I'm not sure that it affects all social classes, not yet. The so-called "silent majority" still remains silent and probably somewhat complacent. Most people still have jobs, homes, and families to take care of, and that's what they would be more inclined to protect.
I agree that there are "widespread feelings of entrapment and despair" and "unfulfilled expectations," but I strongly disagree that there is "a unified solidarity in opposition to a tiny power elite." There's no unified solidarity that I can see, so I'm not sure what the writer means by this. In fact, that seems to be the biggest stumbling block, since everyone seems to have their own individualized pet cause, very specialized and limited, without much attention to the big picture. Likewise, many people don't seem to take any responsibility for themselves as voters and citizens. Everybody wants the government to "do something," but few seem willing to acknowledge that it was we the people who got us into this mess in the first place.
The writer mentions other revolutions, such as in Central America, the Middle East, the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, but the one thing that strikes me by these statements is that all of these other countries were dictatorships, where the people had no say as to who their leaders were. This is not the case in America. We have a democratic system, and we are responsible for those whom we elect. If too many people have neither the backbone or intelligence to have a revolution at the ballot box, how can they possibly sustain a real revolution?
I'm also wondering about how many scholars and thinkers are actually "refusing to defend the actions of the ruling class." I'd like to see this, actually.
The power elite will probably just see whatever way the wind blows, so they won't be totally without allies or outside support. If the left rises up, the elite will find allies among the right. If the right rises up, the elite will find allies among the left.
Our current government will find outside support around the world as well, since our government is internationally connected and propped up by foreign interests. That's primarily the reason why America has fallen into such dire straits, because our government cares more about kissing up to foreign interests over American interests. That's why China practically owns the country, since our leaders have been kissing up to them since at least 1990. To quote the movie Patton, "This is what happens when your commander stops being an American and starts being an Ally."
|
Chris Hedges: This Is What Revolution Looks Like - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread