Chances of Revolution 2025-2060

“THE DESIGN which we proposed to ourselves is now nearly completed. Next in order follow the causes of revolution in states, how many, and of what nature they are; what modes of destruction apply to particular states, and out of what, and into what they mostly change; also what are the modes of preservation in states generally, or in a particular state, and by what means each state may be best preserved: these questions remain to be considered.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V

Revolution is a destructive storm which sweeps periodically through a society. Uprooting ancient traditions, flooding established institutions, consuming in flames much of the fabric of society, revolutions are generally a bad thing. Almost always, historically, the decades following a revolution are worse than those preceding it in terms of the well being of the people.

Aristotle was able to realistically discuss the nature and causes of Revolution thousands of years ago. Many studies of revolutions have been completed since, and it is possible to quite realistically discuss the chance of revolution today or in the near future.

How many of these causes of Revolution exist in the United States today? Virtually all of them in an early form. The growing inequality of wealth is one. The division of the US politically between basically rural and urban sections is another. In this context the map of counties voting for Bush and Clinton is frightening to the historian.

“Again, the situation of cities is a cause of revolution when the country is not naturally adapted to preserve the unity of the state. For example, the Chytians at Clazomenae did not agree with the people of the island; and the people of Colophon quarrelled with the Notians; at Athens too, the inhabitants of the Piraeus are more democratic than those who live in the city. For just as in war the impediment of a ditch, though ever so small, may break a regiment, so every cause of difference, however slight, makes a breach in a city. The greatest opposition is confessedly that of virtue and vice; next comes that of wealth and poverty; and there are other antagonistic elements, greater or less, of which one is this difference of place.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V.

 

 

As you can see from the map by the Associated Press, the US was divided politically along geographic lines. Rural communities and counties voted almost unanimously for Bush and urban communities and counties voted almost unanimously for Gore. The geographic division described by Aristotle exists in the US today.

“Revolutions also break out when opposite parties, e.g., the rich and the people, are equally balanced, and there is little or no middle class; for, if either party were manifestly superior, the other would not risk an attack upon them. And, for this reason, those who are eminent in virtue usually do not stir up insurrections, always being a minority. Such are the beginnings and causes of the disturbances and revolutions to which every form of government is liable.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V.

As you can see that condition, equality of strength between the divisive parties, exists in the US today. While the size of the area won by Bush is much, much greater than that won by Gore, the measure of population won by Bush is almost exactly equal to that won by Gore.

“Now, in oligarchies the masses make revolution under the idea that they are unjustly treated, because, as I said before, they are equals, and have not an equal share, and in democracies the notables revolt, because they are not equals, and yet have only an equal share.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V.

The geographical division between the votes for Bush and Gore also represent an economic division. To a large degree the element of the population voting for Gore represents an urban mass desiring a more equal share in wealth. This ancient principle advanced by Aristotle is the basis for all the discussion of unequal distribution of wealth in society and its negative effects today.

“Political revolutions also spring from a disproportionate increase in any part of the state…. for example, the number of poor in democracies and in constitutional states.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V.

The continuing urbanization of the US is changing the complexion of the US. This constitutes a disproportionate growth in city vs. rural populations. As it continues the House will be dominated by people elected in Urban districts and the Senate will be almost entirely dependent on Urban voters to be reelected. Rural and small town America will lose any meaningful representation in Congress. In states like New Mexico a single city like Albuquerque may elect the Senators without the rural population having any voice.

“The motives for making them are the desire of gain and honor, or the fear of dishonor and loss; the authors of them want to divert punishment or dishonor from themselves or their friends.” Aristotle, “Politics”, Book V.

The loss of meaningful representation in Congress, the loss of any real political power in the Federal government will prove a major source of dissatisfaction in the next few decades for the Bush constituency.

“Again, the revolution may be facilitated by the slightness of the change; I mean that a great change may sometimes slip into the constitution through neglect of a small matter;” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V.

Apparently minor changes in a political system may result in major changes in the real system of government. Aristotle cites slight changes in the Constitution of some cities as an example. He also recognizes geographical and economic changes as causes. The difference between an urban and a rural or small town environment creates psychological and cultural differences in the populations cleaving the society. These changes can be quite subtle and appear minor but have a profound effect.

“In revolutions the occasions may be trifling, but great interests are at stake. Even trifles are most important when they concern the rulers, as was the case of old at Syracuse; for the Syracusan constitution was once changed by a love-quarrel of two young men, who were in the government.” Aristotle, “Politics” Book V.

Clinton’s moral standards of behavior may be considered a trifling issue. Still they and other issues like abortion which cleave our society on fundamental lines of personal belief become exaggerated out of all proportion and become touchstones of Revolutionary oratory when other causes of Revolution are present.

Modern students of Revolution are capable of defining further causes and occasions of Revolution which were not apparent to Aristotle. Aristotle notes the role of economic issues in causing Revolutions. Modern students have isolated a general economic pattern which precedes a Revolution. The normal pattern is a sustained constant period of economic growth followed by a depression or recession and a period of economic instability and uncertainty.

This condition is apparently developing in the US today. All of the precursors of Revolution, division along geographic, moral, ethical, and economic lines coupled with economic uncertainty are present in the US today in an early form.

Another historical pattern which has been developed in other sections of this book is widely publicized in the US today as a pattern of repeating generations. Every 75 or 80 years history tends to repeat. http://www.timepage.org/theory.html is one of many sites on the web discussing the books by Strauss and Howe. They claim to have observed a four generation cycle which they attribute to differences in nurturing behaviors which change as each generation compensates for their own experiences in a repetitive fashion. Their ideas are set out in a more detailed fashion at http://www.timepage.org/time.html.

This observation of apparently repetitive generational cycles is not unique to them. This website reviews one of their books in terms of Chaos Theory. http://www.newtotalitarians.com/GenerationsBookReview.html “So far, this behavior has been in periodic equilibrium in America. That is, we have been sufficiently fortunate that the outcomes have been successful and victorious. The science of surprise, Chaos Theory, tells us, however, that such systems can experience very small changes in the 'constant of complexity' and stable periodic equilibrium can abruptly change to either an exponentially 'good' outcome or come to a catastrophic and sudden end, or any random point in between.”

As you probably noticed it virtually parallels Aristotle’s point that minor changes can result in major changes. Human life and political activity is the sort of super-complex system which is best modeled by mathematical models like chaos theory.

These patterns have been noted by men like Arnold Toynbee and other prominent historians. The existence of such patterns and the possibility that they can possibly someday be successfully modeled by complex mathematical systems are real. There are difficulties with the models proposed by Strauss and Howe. Saying that a model based on the historical patterns of events in the US can predict the occurrence of events outside the US which effect it like WWII is a difficult reach.

Let us look at a few dates. 1776, 1861, 1950. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Civil Rights struggle. Each occurs about 85 to 90 years apart. Each represents an internal or Revolutionary cycle in US history. The 1950s while eventful did not represent the kind of ripping apart of the social fabric which the other two events did. This is probably due to the absence of economic factors. This in turn is due to the boom following WWII. This external event acted to moderate the internal cycle of Revolutionary patterns in the US history.

WWII probably had other moderating effects on the Revolutionary potential of the 1950s. The US people were united by the experience of fighting the war. They were less subject to division and violent rivalry. Another element external to normal historical cycles which may have acted to moderate the violence of this period was the invention of television. Television was limited to three major channels. Most Americans watched it regularly. To a greater degree than ever before in history the people in the US were united by a common source of information and stimulus. They watched news coverage of the same events from similar sources. They enjoyed the same programs for entertainment. Such uniformity of input tends to produce a uniformity of output. The general role of television must have been to make the opposing views more familiar and develop a relatively peaceful settlement of differences.

The proliferation of channels and information sources represented by cable TV and the World Wide Web will remove this effect. It will increase the factionalization of the US. Not necessarily a bad thing but potentially dangerous when it involves large relatively equal factions.

If you add 80 years to 1950 you get 2030. The title of this essay is Chances of Revolution 2025-2060. The causes of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 started earlier than that. Abraham Lincoln was a Revolutionary leader and the causes of his election began before the Civil War.

This period 2025-2060 should be another Revolutionary period in US history, but it will be a period missing the moderating effects of WWII. When you consider that, and add to it the current existence of all the pre-cursors of Revolution in the US today it becomes a picture which the Historian or Political Philosopher cannot observe without some apprehension.

It would be wise to address the issues likely to produce Revolution now, while they are relatively small and undeveloped. If we wait until they reach full development at the same time that a Revolutionary period takes the stage in history we may see a repeat of the Civil War rather than a repeat of the relatively mild liberation movements of the 1950s and ‘60s. If we are successful in moderating or eliminating the causes of Revolution, it may be a relatively peaceful idealistic period of peaceful change. Period is probably a better descriptive term than generation. The periodicity of history is relatively clear, its relationship to generations is not.

The article on abortion in this book addresses that issue. The article on a practical proposal for a right to work addresses the economic issues. Other articles discuss the importance of our traditional moral inheritance. This article simply provides what may be termed descriptive speculation. It is sufficiently plausible to be of concern, but certainly cannot be called science.