To wonder why there has been no revolution?

[DoctorTwo]

Even the Torygraph is mystified. Why are we not kicking the shit out of the thieving wankers that make up our parliament? Or burning down corporate headquarters and lynching the bosses? These bastards are making us poorer and blaming us for it.

Because there's no compelling consensus on an alternative political structure (that would feasibly work- i.e. not "let's all be subsistence farmers and have a barter economy but with the NHS, free education and benefits")and no obvious executor of said solution, and because revolutions are generally completely disastrous because you end up being ruled by the only people that can restore order, and they have to do it using force. When people envisage "post-revolution" they generally envisage everything being exactly the same, except with a different and far more cuddly government, but that's rarely what happens.

Well said Meh

red we'll never get 25-30% unemployment. They stick everyone on workfare schemes and zero hour contracts these days

Maybe not a revolution but we need to halt the decline in our employment rights. We genuinely seem to feel pathetically grateful in this country that employers pay us. They are so selfless, these employers.

MehsMum, has a point.

Look at social history as a result of the Black death.

Revolutions are a really bad idea IMO. They are very rarely peaceful, they tend to involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt or at least suffering, and they usually get their momentum from a passionately rhetorical cause with a mass following, which does not pan out well afterwards. The kind of person who can lead a revolution via charisma, rhetoric and ruthless devotion to the cause is not usually a great leader when it comes to the complex demands of managing a state. Then you get, at worst, a totalitarian state developing, or a power vacuum, or a mish-mash of corrupt incompetents in charge with power changing hands frequently - in other words, more of the same.

History suggests that gradual political and social change (including at grassroots level, not just in parliament) gets the best results, boring as that is. Look at Obama in the US. Plenty of people said there would never be a black president or not in their lifetime. It might have seemed impossible as recently as the 80s. But it didn't happen by revolution, but by gradual changing of opinions, the gradual reduction of bigotry through social forces, like education, legal changes and grassroots campaigns like the civil rights movement. Meanwhile, Obama worked from within. And someone who can do that, makes a leader who can then hold it together and run a stable state. (Not saying he's perfect of course, or that the US's problems are all solved - but that big changes can happen without revolution.)

I think there's actually a lot of campaigning and social change going on now, though there's an unfortunate lurch to the right in UK politics of late, but I predict that will lead to either the formation of a new properly liberal socialist left party, or labour getting a new direction under a new more forcefully left-wing leader.

Gordon Brown's referendum speech was the kind of leftiness I like to see. He actually quoted Marx directly in that speech, with no shame. And it made me think that's the kind of politics I would like to see invade westminster again. I think it will, as a reaction to the UKIP-style direction.

Scotland should have voted yes, that might have been the catalyst

The atmosphere of revolutionary fervour in Scotland pre-referendum was perhaps what made some of us even more wary about a Yes.

The quality of much of the most shared information on social media for the Yes campaign was poor. It was astonishing how many people believed it, and raved about biased websites such as Wings over Scotland.

It was a sobering experience.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised because the media is manipulated to ignore it.

This is not media driven. The government has simply convinced the middle classes that austerity is the only option. After they took that route any problems with austerity, like the banks not lending or taking huge bonuses were embarrassing for them so the Government, not the media, decided to not make such a big thing out of it. A decent government would have stood up to the banks piss-taking but we sadly don't have that. Only Boris shook his fist at them which they probably just found amusing.

For some reason the middle-wealth ordinary punters believe what the government say on this front. There has been plenty of reporting of austerity and the dramatic changes involved but people are shallow (or are too busy working) and interested only in the here and now.

Those at the bottom of the pile don't care because things aren't much different to before. It was shit being on benefits in the 90s and it's still shit now.

People don't want change because they are afraid of it. Sometimes you have to speak up if you want change. Sometimes you have to shout. Then everyone gets scared and shuts their ears. If the shouters don't pipe down they are branded as unhinged idealistic oddities. This is what happened in Scotland.

The best we can do now is destroy from within:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/23/ian-martin-labour-conference-thick-of-it

History suggests that gradual political and social change (including at grassroots level, not just in parliament) gets the best results, boring as that is.

...and less fun than entitled posh boys smashing things up and stealing trainers. Note the non-violent protests in Hong Kong where they have FAR MORE to revolt about than we do. And the response they are suffering.

while fewer phone companies are a good thing in my opinion, obviously financial fraud and job losses are not. But it doesn't need revolution, it needs laws that are enforced.

this was in the NYT last week. Obviously it's from a US viewpoint, but it acknowledges many people / countries are starting to realise they're getting shafted.

Meh is right. Too many people look at the current selection of politicians & say "there's no-one standing up for me, so I won't vote".

What it actually needs is for people to say "I want to make a difference", and to put themselves forward for election, or to rally behind those that do; to stand up & enunciate what it is that they believe in. Now, obviously the main parties have a lot of spending power & media coverage, but it's in no way impossible for local campaigns to be won. And of course, the more that people stand up to be counted, the more that the media will pay attention.

I know that everyone is very happy to blame the media for the lack of political discourse. But all they're concerned about is viewing figures & readership numbers. Someone mentioned upthread about the media being more interested in the size of Kim Kardashian's arse. Do you think they really are? Do you really think that the DM's sidebar of shame is about distracting the populace from the political discourse that needs to take place? Of course not; it's there because people read it. If everyone stopped reading celebrity / gossip mags & started reading political journals, you can bet that they'd be quickly replaced on the newsstand. Chat magazine would run with real life stories about grass roots campaigning, if that's what people wanted to read about.

The great thing about Britain is that we have an open democracy. We might all complain about it, but it is possible for any one of us to stand for, & be elected into Parliament. The deposit required to stand for election is only £500 - hardly a massive obstacle to anyone wanting to stand. We don't need a revolution - we just need to use the political structures that we already have in place.

If I could catch a bus to parliament and back in time to collect DS2 from school then maybe. Who knows?

Half facetious, but I think many of the people who are being hit really hard, this time around are the ones working 3 ridiculously part time jobs with antisocial hours just to put food on the table for the kids.

I understand the idea revolutions always started by the middle class educated agitating the working class to over throw the ruling elite - (that was Goldstein's theory in 1984 as well).

I also find compelling the idea that the first generation suffering tend to try and hang on for better times - by belt tightening and harder work - which takes energy. It's usually their DC that look around think this isn't working and start agitating for change.

The older middle classes are still doing well - the have their houses and often final salary pension schemes - the NHS is still there. The working middle classes are feeling the pinch - and insecurity - but are hanging on for better times.

If it goes on then I think next generation will be ones demanding changes and revolution.

we just need to use the political structures that we already have in place

I don't agree - local politics seems pointless and they have so little power - all the power is in London and I hardly see of hear anything from the local politician till election time.

My vote will count - as we are in a seat that changed lab to con last election- but my choice is between to main parties nether if which is offering much to me. Any other vote I cast won't matter in our system.

Any independent candidates that do occasional get voted in - seem pretty powerless against the party driven system at west minster.

I don't feel particularly empowered by my right to vote.

Obviously I could go to the media and try and create a storm on one issue I feel passionate about in the hope that this then influences the main political parties views but that's not quite the same as using the current political system.

I think one of the other posters were right. It is happening. It's called UKIP. And we should all be very very worried about it.

The UKIPers down my local are vile, racist thickos who've finally managed to find a legitimate outlet for their ignorance.

The revolution will come. It will be called UKIP. And in 50 years other countries will be looking at us and saying "how did they manage to convince a whole country to go along with them". Remind you of anything?

Yes UKIP are worrying me now.

They are after the Labour vote and that is the biggest weak spot/vacuum in UK politics.

Again note how Independence (localist) campaigners have scored a big hit on the Labour vote in Scotland.

I think the link Meglet posted is right - the UKIP, tea party are all symptoms of Crisis of Faith in the Global Elite.

Perhaps I should worry more about UKIP getting power.

?I agree that actual revolution is a bad thing, a bit on the primitive side and can result in a power vacuum which leaves an opportunity for even more corrupt groups to seize power

I think the reasons for no revolution are many, but most boil down to the vast majority of people in this country still believing what they are told by mainstream media. People are far too naive. And far too fearful of what the change would mean.

I am hoping for a quiet revolution.

We need another party to vote for, something completely different from what we have. A party which makes it illegal to be unjust and unkind to the most vulnerable in society. And does everything it can to even out all the injustices.

Bit of an oxymoron doncha think Happybubble?
Those who reach positions of power are inevitably ambitious for person power, that is axiomatic ?.
They are not the types who promote kindness and compassion ?

The deliberate demilitarisation of civil society has led to the present position. Every revolution has occurred where a significant proportion of the population is either in the military or has military experience. Significant reduction to the numbers of soldiers also prevents the military from absorbing popular values which might lead them to support a revolution.

I think when we talk of revolution, most people are actually talking of a civil uprising.

Going out on the streets in such numbers that we cannot be ignored, petrol strikes, work strikes, civil disobedience. The riots, whilst an expression of impotent rage, were not the same thing.