Welcome to the World Revolution.

[UndercoverElephant]

Excellent and rather lengthy exploration of the early stages of what is going to be the most important revolution in human history so far:

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2012/07/ ... e-of-rage/

This brief look at the resistance, rebellious and revolutionary movements emerging and erupting around the world is by no means an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to be. It is merely a brief glimpse at the movements with which I intend to delve into detail in researching and writing about in my upcoming book, and to raise the question once again: Are we witnessing the start of a global revolution?

I would argue that, yes, indeed, we are. How long it takes, how it manifests and evolves, its failures and successes, the setbacks and leaps forward, and all the other details will be for posterity to acknowledge and examine. What is clear at present, however, is that no matter how much the media, governments and other institutions of power attempt to ignore, repress, divide and even destroy revolutionary social movements, they are increasingly evolving and emerging, in often surprising ways and with different triggering events and issues. There is, however, a commonality: where there is austerity in the world, where there is repression, where there is state, financial and corporate power taking all for themselves and leaving nothing for the rest, the rest are now rising up.

Welcome to the World Revolution.

[AnOriginalIdea]

It reads like someone confusing ticked off people, of the OWS variety, with those actually having a cause, versus just normal, politically repressed younglings without much to do and irritated for the same reason some of the OWS were, bad student loans, irritation that they can't find only the jobs they want (which usually don't involve working), "give us our parents lifestyle only we don't want to work for it like they did" stuff?

[UndercoverElephant]

deleted

[ceti331]

There is a generational swing; the younger people do feel the pinch; in the housing bubble they are the last generation of suckers for that ponzi scheme.
peak oil per capita was 1979. peak oil is peak jobs. oil multiplies the value of labour.. as oil runs out labour is effectively devalued.

malthusian pressure;

my parents were born into a world of 2.5billion people and more resources
I was born into a world of 4billion.
now there's 7 billion .. declining oil, and yet way more people to divide it between.

Of course this is all going to end in tears, wars/revolutions/or societies staying stable by becoming oopressive authoritarian ... a miserable future and no way out.

revolutions usually lead to yet more misery because changing the social rules doesn't change the underlying physical cause, overshoot.

[emordnilap]

Overshoot...or greed. Or, more fairly, taking more than you need.

[featherstick]

INteresting post, that highlights just how badly the MSM have been coopted - protests in Canada and Israel? Who knew?

[emordnilap]

BTW, good piece Undercover, thanks for posting it. Ignore the trolls and keep up the good work.

[UndercoverElephant]

There is a generational swing; the younger people do feel the pinch; in the housing bubble they are the last generation of suckers for that ponzi scheme.
peak oil per capita was 1979. peak oil is peak jobs. oil multiplies the value of labour.. as oil runs out labour is effectively devalued.

malthusian pressure;

my parents were born into a world of 2.5billion people and more resources
I was born into a world of 4billion.
now there's 7 billion .. declining oil, and yet way more people to divide it between.

Of course this is all going to end in tears, wars/revolutions/or societies staying stable by becoming oopressive authoritarian ... a miserable future and no way out.

revolutions usually lead to yet more misery because changing the social rules doesn't change the underlying physical cause, overshoot.

From the article:

Our world is in the midst of the greatest economic, social, and political crisis that humanity has ever collectively entered into. The scope is truly global in its context, and the effects are felt in every locality. The course of the global economic crisis is the direct and deliberate result of class warfare, waged by the political and economic elites against the people of the world. The objective is simple: all for them and none for you.

There's several different crises colliding right now, but we are here discussing two of them, which should not be mixed up.

One of them is overshoot, peak everything, fossil fuel dependency and all that comes with it.

The other is class warfare, as the political and economic elite tries to hold on to its own wealth and power with no regard for the consequences for the "plebs."

[Little John]

There is a generational swing; the younger people do feel the pinch; in the housing bubble they are the last generation of suckers for that ponzi scheme.
peak oil per capita was 1979. peak oil is peak jobs. oil multiplies the value of labour.. as oil runs out labour is effectively devalued.

malthusian pressure;

my parents were born into a world of 2.5billion people and more resources
I was born into a world of 4billion.
now there's 7 billion .. declining oil, and yet way more people to divide it between.

Of course this is all going to end in tears, wars/revolutions/or societies staying stable by becoming oopressive authoritarian ... a miserable future and no way out.

revolutions usually lead to yet more misery because changing the social rules doesn't change the underlying physical cause, overshoot.

From the article:

Our world is in the midst of the greatest economic, social, and political crisis that humanity has ever collectively entered into. The scope is truly global in its context, and the effects are felt in every locality. The course of the global economic crisis is the direct and deliberate result of class warfare, waged by the political and economic elites against the people of the world. The objective is simple: all for them and none for you.

There's several different crises colliding right now, but we are here discussing two of them, which should not be mixed up.

One of them is overshoot, peak everything, fossil fuel dependency and all that comes with it.

The other is class warfare, as the political and economic elite tries to hold on to its own wealth and power with no regard for the consequences for the "plebs."

This is exactly it, UE.

The former is a description of the unavoidable. There are no choices here.

The latter is a description of how we deal with the above. We do have a choice about what happens here, but only if we fight for it.

[extractorfan]

but only if we fight for it.

We will, when we get hungry and cold.

[PS_RalphW]

Unfortunately many people see the latter problem and not the former predicament. Simply soaking the rich might buy us a little more time but it will not cure anything.

A bit like the fate of the Greenland Vikings, in Diamond's interpretation of the archaeology.

(They totally failed to adapt to local climate change, due to rigid social structure and hieararchy (sp) and when the poor were starving they attacked the rich farmsteads, killed the animals and ate their seed corn, guaranteeing the demise of rich and poor alike).

[Little John]

Unfortunately many people see the latter problem and not the former predicament. Simply soaking the rich might buy us a little more time but it will not cure anything.

A bit like the fate of the Greenland Vikings, in Diamond's interpretation of the archaeology.

(They totally failed to adapt to local climate change, due to rigid social structure and hieararchy (sp) and when the poor were starving they attacked the rich farmsteads, killed the animals and ate their seed corn, guaranteeing the demise of rich and poor alike).

Ralph, I would argue that forcing the rich to give up their obscene wealth to the central pot has far more value than simply buying time. The truth is, as you have said, this would buy us precious little time. This is because the bulk of money lies in the hands of the masses. The problem is, it is spreads so thinly that each individual citizen is finding it progressively more difficult to make ends meet. In this, sense, the old chestnut that soaking the rich won't solve the economic crisis is at least partially, though not completely true.

The real reason the rich need to be soaked is not an economic one, at least not in the first instance. It is a a moral one. Given that we all know on here that massive changes are needed to be implemented in terms of the mass of people's lifestyles and their consumption levels, there is no way on earth they are ever going to be persuaded to stomach that if they see a ruling elite continuing to live high on the hog. In other words, the mass of people really do need to see, unambiguously, that we really are all in this together. If they don't see that, then expect massive resistance to the changes that need to be implemented.

[ceti331]

Unfortunately many people see the latter problem and not the former predicament. Simply soaking the rich might buy us a little more time but it will not cure anything..

one view i (malthusian) find myself arguning against is the "venus project" mentality;
it is as follows:-

- all scarcity is artificial caused by profit,profit requires scaricty
(imo:false: we really have dwindling resources; population is exploding as we chew through them - we had temporary super-abundance)

-profit motive retards technology
(imo:false: consumption evolves tech and ,individual profit motive is waste less because you dont want to waste money)

but worst of all,
-fossil fuels ate chosen because they are scarce("finite")- renewables would give superior abundance, because they are "infinte"

(imo: false: quite the opposite, fossil fuels created super abundance hence population explosion, renewables will be comparatively scarce.
this point confuses joules with watts , but appeals to people who dont understand how energy works.
Funnily both left and right hav their own version of this delusion, the opposite being 'market will always substitute and create abundance'
)

many people i know who say they have a socialist pov are slightly in this camp ..people who beleive hydrogen is ready to take over but greedy oil companies keep us using oil

Ralph, I would argue that forcing the rich to give up their obscene wealth to the central pot

but a lot of the wealth measures position in heirarchy. it is actually possible for rich peopple to personally consume less than people with negative wealth (debt).
socialist economies just replace this qyuantitative heirarchy (rank=log(networth)) with party structure (billionaire-> dictator, middle class->"outer party" debt slaves-> proles)

this is where counting $$$ does get confusing.. sometimes its a symbol for energy, other times its peoples opinions of eachother


eg - all you had to do to wipe out bill gates billions is use linux or any of the alternatives that fell by the wayside but enough people used windows to keep him "in power". and specifically, bill gates' "wealth" might represent a few hours saved here and there in "intelllectual labour" for computer users.. 'redistributing his wealth' would merely means we put that effort in ourselves.

same with industrial food. wiping out the global food companies "billions" means going back to growing your own food locally, which means less food overall..

Try explaining wealth redistribution to an american: the average american consumes 5x as much as the average person in china. Worldwide redistribution would involve westerners accepting a 3rd world lifestyle. this is probably what OWS are protesting about!,ie these people are first in line for that.
This is where i find myself running into the VP mindset - try explain to an american that the future of transport is walking (at best cycling).. they expect a sci-fi future as conditioned by media (trans-atlantic 4000mph mag-lev trains in vaccuum tubes)

i would guess that although there ARE cases of obscene resource consumption by elites*, the majority is by the sum of 1st world middle class and even working classes.

if they see a ruling elite continuing to live high on the hog.

ok on this point calling for leading by example would be a good thing. eg its not good if politicians continue to drive cars, etc

[JavaScriptDonkey]

The real reason the rich need to be soaked is not an economic one, at least not in the first instance. It is a a moral one. Given that we all know on here that massive changes are needed to be implemented in terms of the mass of people's lifestyles and their consumption levels, there is no way on earth they are ever going to be persuaded to stomach that if they see a ruling elite continuing to live high on the hog. In other words, the mass of people really do need to see, unambiguously, that we really are all in this together. If they don't see that, then expect massive resistance to the changes that need to be implemented.

What you run in to there is how to define the obscenely rich.

Of course they must be richer than you as no one argues to individually shoulder more taxation burden but how much richer?

Does it matter how they came by their wealth?

Should I tell my boss who started his business from scratch and now employs 25 people to expect a knock at the door?

Should I warn the local farmers who have done very nicely that we'll be along shortly to redistribute their land?

What about obscenely rich corporations like Shell or the RSPB - do we grab their wealth as well to pay off your teacher's pension?

[Little John]

The real reason the rich need to be soaked is not an economic one, at least not in the first instance. It is a a moral one. Given that we all know on here that massive changes are needed to be implemented in terms of the mass of people's lifestyles and their consumption levels, there is no way on earth they are ever going to be persuaded to stomach that if they see a ruling elite continuing to live high on the hog. In other words, the mass of people really do need to see, unambiguously, that we really are all in this together. If they don't see that, then expect massive resistance to the changes that need to be implemented.

What you run in to there is how to define the obscenely rich.

Of course they must be richer than you as no one argues to individually shoulder more taxation burden but how much richer?

Does it matter how they came by their wealth?

Should I tell my boss who started his business from scratch and now employs 25 people to expect a knock at the door?

Should I warn the local farmers who have done very nicely that we'll be along shortly to redistribute their land?

What about obscenely rich corporations like Shell or the RSPB - do we grab their wealth as well to pay off your teacher's pension?

How do you know I have a teacher's pension? If you have a real argument to make, you should be able to make it without the necessity of taking cheap shots by making personal assumptions you are not in a position know are valid.

Regarding where the line is precisely drawn, that is of course extremely difficult. However, while it is difficult, are you seriously trying to tell me you are unable to see that some people and the organisations they represent are unambiguously on the one side of it.