I told you there's gonna be a revolution. "Yes, There Will Be a Social Revolution in America"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 3:00 PM GMT
    "The United States has never had a social revolution in its history, but it may be in the process of getting one at long last. That would make America a true latecomer to the game of revolutions -- 225 years after the French, a century after the Russians and over six decades after the Chinese. In true American style, writes Stephan Richter, it will be a truly novel form of social revolution.

    What lies ahead in the United States, by force of demographics as well as a highly imbalanced income distribution, is a dynamic shift away from a political and economic power structure that has been amazingly white and male-dominated to date.

    In its place, we will see a multiracial society emerge that makes the most of its diversity. The social innovation lies in effecting that takeover of the country in a peaceful, non-bloody manner.

    Contrary to political folklore, the so-called American Revolution did not do any more than replace a foreign king. The country's social structure essentially remained the same.

    There have also been many arguments about why there would never be a need for a European-style revolution (or, in the milder form, no socialism) in the United States. Count on that entire literature being revised now.

    The supposed reason for the "no revolution" scenario was that the benefits of economic growth in the United States were always distributed broadly and fairly enough so that there was no need to topple the established social order. That was basically true at the time of America's founding, when the country's income distribution was significantly more balanced than it is today.

    But at a time when 93% of the growth in nation's income in 2010 went to the richest 1% of Americans, according to economist Emmanuel Saez, and when average household incomes have been stagnant since 1988, it is clear that the economic balance sheet of U.S. society needs to be structured differently."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/stephan-richter/yes-there-will-be-a-socia_b_2125143.html?icid=hp_politics_featured_art
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 5:10 PM GMT
    Not sure if I buy the premise and I'm not sure that a social revolution is necessarily a financial revolution. Just because something changes for even a few generations doesn't necessarily mean it's anything completely different. In fact it might just be part of a process where you think while you're living it that it's the real thing, until, of course, it changes. Not unlike a housing bubble. It's real until it's not, or so it seems.

    The wealth of this nation has been redistributed numerous times up and down like a bellow of capitalism. Currently it is bloated and holding its breath and we don't know what it's gonna look like when it pops. I've posted these on other threads but following is showing various redistributions just from modern times. I don't think we consider any of the tide turns a revolution and I doubt we'll see one here either, at least one that's actually real and doesn't just look that way.

    When we stop using money, that will be the revolution. When the powers that be including any bureaucracy is treated and thought of the same as the homeless, though then there would be no homeless, that's revolution. Everything else is just an illusion, a variation of the theme. Star Trek is a long way off.

    1917-1929.jpg

    1929-1969.jpg

    1969-2008.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 6:54 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 said"The United States has never had a social revolution in its history, but it may be in the process of getting one at long last. That would make America a true latecomer to the game of revolutions -- 225 years after the French, a century after the Russians and over six decades after the Chinese. In true American style, writes Stephan Richter, it will be a truly novel form of social revolution.

    What lies ahead in the United States, by force of demographics as well as a highly imbalanced income distribution, is a dynamic shift away from a political and economic power structure that has been amazingly white and male-dominated to date.

    In its place, we will see a multiracial society emerge that makes the most of its diversity. The social innovation lies in effecting that takeover of the country in a peaceful, non-bloody manner.

    Contrary to political folklore, the so-called American Revolution did not do any more than replace a foreign king. The country's social structure essentially remained the same.

    There have also been many arguments about why there would never be a need for a European-style revolution (or, in the milder form, no socialism) in the United States. Count on that entire literature being revised now.

    The supposed reason for the "no revolution" scenario was that the benefits of economic growth in the United States were always distributed broadly and fairly enough so that there was no need to topple the established social order. That was basically true at the time of America's founding, when the country's income distribution was significantly more balanced than it is today.

    But at a time when 93% of the growth in nation's income in 2010 went to the richest 1% of Americans, according to economist Emmanuel Saez, and when average household incomes have been stagnant since 1988, it is clear that the economic balance sheet of U.S. society needs to be structured differently."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/stephan-richter/yes-there-will-be-a-socia_b_2125143.html?icid=hp_politics_featured_art


    This article seems to discount the turn of the century (19th to 20th) when the super rich monopolists made today's rich look like paupers (Bill Gates is worth $61 billion and Carlos Slim $69 billion, while JD Rockefeller was worth $650 billion (not a typo) in today's money) and millions of people worked very long hours in extremely dangerous and unhealthy conditions for almost no money and lived in extreme poverty. The chances of dying on the job was 1 in 11 every week in many factories, and attempts to unionize for better wages and working conditions were brutally put down.