Across the western world, our political classes are oblivious to the powder keg of revolt they're sitting on. So warns Polish philosopher, Marcin Krol.
Notwithstanding received ideas to the contrary, the poor and downtrodden
have never been the driving force behind western revolutions. They have
always been instigated by the middle class.
In the classic case of the French Revolution, the revolutionary vanguard
was composed of lawyers, entrepreneurs, civil servants of the time and
sympathetic army officers. The economic factor was important, but not
primary. Revolutionary movements are first and foremost triggered by an
absence of openings in public life, and the impossibility of social
advancement.
When the French aristocracy demonstrated that it would go to any lengths
to limit the influence of lawyers and businessmen, it launched a
revolution that inspired members of the new middle class and other
disenfranchised citizens in countries all across Europe, with the
exception of "commonsensical" England.
...The aristocracy no longer decides everything, but bankers, stock-market
speculators and executives who earn hundreds of millions of euros, have
cleverly excluded the middle classes from decision making, leaving them
to suffer the consequences.
Revolutions emerge when there is a democratic deficit and exclusion
from professions and decision making. They are also prompted by
intergenerational barriers, and the need to counter the domination of
old men.
It is no coincidence that the leaders of the French Revolution were
in their thirties, while the decision-makers who attended the 1815
Congress of Vienna, which restored conservative order in Europe, were on
average over 60.
For the members of today’s mainly young middle class, all the avenues
for advancement have been blocked by billionaires, old men, or people
whom they assume should belong in one of these two categories. This is
an explosive situation. ...revolutions are never
undertaken in the name of a particular measure, for example, for
stricter banking supervision, but rather because it is no longer
possible to live in a particular way. A revolution that is in total
opposition to the methods of political parties does not make use of
political language. A revolution is a bellowing chorus of rage, the
sound of a revolution is disorderly, but on occasion, very audible.
So do we want a revolution or not? As I see it, probably not, because a
revolution means total destruction, followed by the construction of a
new order. Having said that, our political leaders are still unaware
that they are sitting on a powder keg. They do not understand, because
they are caught in the thrall of one idea which has become an obsession:
to return to the state of stability that prevailed 10 or 30 years ago.
In Krol's view the risk of revolution is quite real although, if it comes, it won't be because we specifically want it. It will arise more akin to spontaneous combustion, smouldering along until it suddenly bursts into fire. That certainly does surface as a common theme in the history of revolution.
Today's youth certainly suffer "the domination of old men" Krol refers to, foremost among them our preternaturally greyed prime minister. We suck the life out of the country in a frenzy of maximized production and consumption and bequeath to those who will follow the destruction and debt of our excess.
4 comments:
Rather then the Middle Class I think it is more accurate to describe them the young, educated and underemployed class.
Unlike most places that had revolutions we have a democratic system that can replace governments against their will. It remains to be seen if it works well enough.
Good points, DOC. Yet we are witnessing the phenomenon of "political capture" in which economic and political power is passing to an emerging oligarchy. When democratically elected legislators persistently legislate for the benefit of a small minority at the direct expense of the great majority what remains of democracy?
The political class today generates a good deal of its support by manipulation - the spreading of fear, insecurity and anger. Make enough people fearful enough and they'll support just about anything.
I don't really think it's just the young. There's a broader problem, where "climbing the ladder" has become less workable. The instability of work means no accumulation of seniority, formal or informal. For blue collar work, the high paying industrial work is gone. White collar work sees deskilling, outsourcing, offshoring, human skills replaced with software. The promised high-tech jobs evaporate.
Basically, there is less and less "up" to go to.
If it were just the young, it wouldn't be such a huge problem; our demographics are such that we ain't got the tons of young we had in the 60s.
Meanwhile of course it seems like the same forces blocking advancement for many of us, are also fairly determined to chop pensions and benefits for the old, just as the boomers retire. They hope to play the two groups off against each other, but if they fail that could be a lot of unrest.
PLG, I wonder whether our near slavish adherence to obsolete, classical economic models won't incite revolt? The old "market forces" and "constant growth" paradigms have lost much of their utility and credibility in a finite world that has reached the limits of resources in the face of burgeoning populations with increasing per capita demands.
There's a growing movement toward new economics models often called "steady state" or "full earth" economics even as the old models are maintained by an increasingly small sector that still benefits enormously from them. There seem to be two conflicting realities - one a legacy reality that gave rise to and maintains the most advantaged, the other a new reality based on current conditions that is needed to serve the many but not yet adopted.
The conflict cannot continue indefinitely - the rich cannot get much richer than they are today without releasing the forces of revolt that are growing beneath their feet.
Post a Comment