NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm reading a book in which there's this paragraph and I'm just wondering if anyone can guess which city it's describing:

The old communal spirit had been torn apart by the market economy, which depended upon ruthless competition, greed and individual enterprise. Familes now vied with one another for wealth and prestige. The less successful [people] felt they were being pushed to the wall. Instead of sharing their wealth generously, people were hoarding their wealth and building private fortunes. They not only ignored the plight of the poorer members of [society], but exploited the rights of orphans and widows, absorbing their inheritance into their own estates. The prosperous were naturally delighted with their new security; they believed that their wealth protected them aginst the destitution and misery of [subsistence]. But those who had fallen behind in the stampede for financial success felt lost and disorientated. The principles of [their culture] seemed incompatible with market forces, and many of them felt thrust into spiritual limbo. The old ideals had not been replaced by anything of equal value, and the ingrained communial ethos told them that this rampant individualism would damage the [culture], which could only survive if its members pooled all their resources

I've replaced certain descriptive words with substitutions - bracketed - that are true homonyms. I will say that this is not in the Americas, nor Australiasia or the Far East.

In the interests of honesty, this account is, to some extent, disputed because it justifies the set up of an explanation of an occurence that changed the world.

I've also, as a precaution, googled already.

I'll add a poll with timeframes and maybe that will provide a further clue.

The old communal spirit had been torn apart by the market economy, which depended upon ruthless competition, greed and individual enterprise. Familes now vied with one another for wealth and prestige. The less successful [people] felt they were being pushed to the wall. Instead of sharing their wealth generously, people were hoarding their wealth and building private fortunes. They not only ignored the plight of the poorer members of [society], but exploited the rights of orphans and widows, absorbing their inheritance into their own estates. The prosperous were naturally delighted with their new security; they believed that their wealth protected them aginst the destitution and misery of [subsistence]. But those who had fallen behind in the stampede for financial success felt lost and disorientated. The principles of [their culture] seemed incompatible with market forces, and many of them felt thrust into spiritual limbo. The old ideals had not been replaced by anything of equal value, and the ingrained communial ethos told them that this rampant individualism would damage the [culture], which could only survive if its members pooled all their resources



My first thought would be Rome, since I believe it went through serious financial problems since it's economy was essentially built on conquest. Once they stopped being able to conquer, they couldn't support the armies to keep the territory they had already conquered.

My first thought would be Rome, since I believe it went through serious financial problems since it's economy was essentially built on conquest. Once they stopped being able to conquer, they couldn't support the armies to keep the territory they had already conquered.

Hm. Rome, at some point between 200 and 400 AD?

Yeah, that would be the first thought I'd have on seeing this.

It's a little more surprising - it has some relevance to nowadays given current world events.

Hm. Rome, at some point between 200 and 400 AD?

Yeah, that would be the first thought I'd have on seeing this.

It's a little more surprising - it has some relevance to nowadays given current world events.Hm. Upon rereading your geographic limiters, I'll guess Jerusalem, during the same period.

London, Amsterdam during the birth of mercantilism? Say...1400-1600?

Perhaps Venice or another heavy italian merchant city during the renaissance?

My reading of it suggests that it is a culture that has faced profound external stresses.

Also, given your exclusions (America, Asia, Australiasia) Africa is conspicuous by its absence. Though I suppose Europe and Asia minor could qualify.

I’d still guess Africa though, given my first suspicion.

Also a culture that is settled and presumable recently agrarian (from the point of the view of the text).

Am I at all close? Probably not.

I have absolutle no idea, and if you think I'm grasping at straws you'd be right :)

London...after the industrial revolution?

London, Amsterdam during the birth of mercantilism? Say...1400-1600?

Perhaps Venice or another heavy italian merchant city during the renaissance?

I was thinking something like this.

New York, 1920s. :p

i'll stake a stab in the dark and say it's a piece of Karl Marx writings. It looks like it. so 1800-2000Ad is my guess

EDIT: Now that i look at it, i could justify my guess by pointing to words like "Communal spirit" and "market economy", i also thought estates didn't come about until after the medieval period."Estates". and " which could only survive if its members pooled all their resources" sounds suscpiciously like Marxism.

My first thought would be Rome, since I believe it went through serious financial problems since it's economy was essentially built on conquest. Once they stopped being able to conquer, they couldn't support the armies to keep the territory they had already conquered.

My thought too, although it can apply to many other civilisations.

I've replaced certain descriptive words with substitutions - bracketed - that are true homonyms. I will say that this is not in the Americas, nor Australiasia or the Far East.

The description *is* consistent with the effects of foreign aid in Latin America during a large part of the previous century though...

London...after the industrial revolution?

I thought that a moment, but on second thoughts that was a time when a more prosperous middle class started appearing, which seems counter to much of the description.

Also a culture that is settled and presumable recently agrarian (from the point of the view of the text).

The text does talk of 'protected them aginst the destitution and misery of [subsistence]', which would suggest a fairly recent rise for this city.

Am I at all close? Probably not.

I have absolutely no idea, and if you think I'm grasping at straws you'd be right :)

You did ok. Africa is conspicuous I suppose but it's more an indicator of the earlier periods in terms of timescale rather than later periods.

1400 - 1600 France?

Hm. Upon rereading your geographic limiters, I'll guess Jerusalem, during the same period.

Geographically closest among guesses certainly.

Geographically closest among guesses certainly.Ah. Well, I'm tempted to guess again, but I'll let other people play.

i'll stake a stab in the dark and say it's a piece of Karl Marx writings. It looks like it. so 1800-2000Ad is my guess

EDIT: Now that i look at it, i could justify my guess by pointing to words like "Communal spirit" and "market economy", i also thought estates didn't come about until after the medieval period."Estates". and " which could only survive if its members pooled all their resources" sounds suspiciously like Marxism.
That's what I was thinking too.

This isn't referring to Palestine after the creation of Israel? Or something thereabouts?

Hmm, I think that the term "market economy" didn't exist as a distinct theory until Adam Smith brought it to light in 1776, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." That would lead me to conclude that it is post-18th century.

London, Amsterdam during the birth of mercantilism? Say...1400-1600?

Perhaps Venice or another heavy italian merchant city during the renaissance?

1400-1600AD Europe, with the rise of the merchant class forming guilds and unions seeking to hold their own against the titled/landed ruling class?

As to exactly where, I'm not even remotely sure.

Sounds like a place recovering from communism.

1400-1600AD Europe, with the rise of the merchant class forming guilds and unions seeking to hold their own against the titled/landed ruling class?

As to exactly where, I'm not even remotely sure.

I think Barry already said it is the Middle East.

I'd go now with the Turkish Empire, or something related with the Islamic world.

Teheran in the years before the revolution in 1979?

I would guess somewhere in the Mesopotamian region after oil became a world wide commodity. Heavily agrarian society suddenly with the world demand of a commodity. Only a few families acually reap/ed the benefits.

Time frame: last 100 years
City: haven't a clue really maybe Mosul or Baghdad


Just guessing.:p

Cairo?

This has happened hundereds of times thruout history, any time a society becomes comlicated enough for a few people to control market forces.

*throws dart at a map of the middle east*

umm...Cairo?

This thread is awesome, got me thinking.

We should do more of this kind of stuff...

This thread is awesome, got me thinking.

We should do more of this kind of stuff...

I suppose whoever gets it right can do another one.

As for this one, are we allowed to wiki major trading centres in the middle east in which timeframe we think it is?

*OP*

I've not read the rest of this thread... or most of the quote actually, but it looks like the 15th-16th century in Britain, concerning the introduction of the enclosures.

I think Barry already said it is the Middle East.

I'd go now with the Turkish Empire, or something related with the Islamic world.

I'll go with Riyadh, Baghdad or Tehran, then. Post-Ottoman Middle East.

This answer is set out in the order I think is most likely (i.e. the most likely answers are first, least likely last).

I'm thinking if not Rome then Constantinople/Byzantium in a similar period - going by the poll, probably 200-400 AD or maybe 600-800 AD as I think that was around the time the city had a marked resurgence. Unfortunately I don't know enough about it to fully justify the answer.

Alternatively, could be, as Saxnot said, sixteenth century England, although I think Barringtonia already said that Jerusalem was already the closest guess geographically (another reason for my original suggestion). Problem is, it could be practically any major European city/city state of the period.

Finally, finally (as I've only just thought of it and decided to put it in here (see the first sentence of this post)), it may be an Indian city in the eighteenth/nineteenth century feeling the full effects of the arrival of the English/British in the preceding couple of centuries.

Finally, the obvious guess would be a city in a recently industrialised nation in the nineteenth century, but then it would be very difficult to pin down without a number of clues.

So far, one person has voted the right era, which is 600AD - 800AD.

I suppose whoever gets it right can do another one.

As for this one, are we allowed to wiki major trading centres in the middle east in which timeframe we think it is?

Any means is ok, I only googled to see if the actual text was online, Chapter 6 of this book is online but not this chapter - given the parameters, I think someone with good history should get it.

It's a city.
It became very rich in the above time period
It's in the Middle East
Something happened in the time period that has relevance today, something that changed the world.

It has not been guessed at yet, so it's not Jerusalem, Cairo, Baghdad. Riyadh or Tehran, nor is it Constantinople.

This thread is awesome, got me thinking.

We should do more of this kind of stuff...

Thank you, you're close to getting my vote :)

I actually have a reason over and above the guessing for this, it made me think of things.

So far, one person has voted the right era, which is 600AD - 800AD.



Any means is ok, I only googled to see if the actual text was online, Chapter 6 of this book is online but not this chapter.

I will still guess it is Baghdad. Commerce was emerging in that region during this time frame.

When you give the answer, please also the book title, you are making me want to read it. :p

Apologies, I was editing in some answers as above - not Baghdad.

No problems giving the book and title, it's more about a specific person actually, which is another clue :)

I will hold off anything else at this point it would all be pure guess work anyway. But you have certainly roused my curiousity. ;)

I will still guess it is Baghdad. Commerce was emerging in that region during this time frame.

When you give the answer, please also the book title, you are making me want to read it. :p

Apologies, I was editing in some answers as above - not Baghdad.

No problems giving the book and title, it's more about a specific person actually, which is another clue :)

I'd guess Mecca or Medina, with Islam forming

I'd guess Mecca or Medina, with Islam forming

Apologies, I was editing in some answers as above - not Baghdad.

No problems giving the book and title, it's more about a specific person actually, which is another clue :)

Is it about Muhammad?

I'd guess Mecca or Medina, with Islam forming

My thought too. Probably Mecca.

To me, that sounded very strongly like the post-Civil War United States, when big business became a hit. But the Americas are among your exclusions, so I really have no idea. :(

I'm reading a book in which there's this paragraph and I'm just wondering if anyone can guess which city it's describing:

The old communal spirit had been torn apart by the market economy, which depended upon ruthless competition, greed and individual enterprise. Familes now vied with one another for wealth and prestige. The less successful [people] felt they were being pushed to the wall. Instead of sharing their wealth generously, people were hoarding their wealth and building private fortunes. They not only ignored the plight of the poorer members of [society], but exploited the rights of orphans and widows, absorbing their inheritance into their own estates. The prosperous were naturally delighted with their new security; they believed that their wealth protected them aginst the destitution and misery of [subsistence]. But those who had fallen behind in the stampede for financial success felt lost and disorientated. The principles of [their culture] seemed incompatible with market forces, and many of them felt thrust into spiritual limbo. The old ideals had not been replaced by anything of equal value, and the ingrained communial ethos told them that this rampant individualism would damage the [culture], which could only survive if its members pooled all their resources

I've replaced certain descriptive words with substitutions - bracketed - that are true homonyms. I will say that this is not in the Americas, nor Australiasia or the Far East.

In the interests of honesty, this account is, to some extent, disputed because it justifies the set up of an explanation of an occurence that changed the world.

I've also, as a precaution, googled already.

I'll add a poll with timeframes and maybe that will provide a further clue.

I honestly think you are referring to Rome, right before the fall. Circa 300 A.D. The fall of traditional Roman morality and the traditional Roman character was perhaps the single most important factor in the fall of the Empire. An austere, moral, powerful society turned decadent, weak, stagnant, and aristocratic. Am I right?

So far, one person has voted the right era, which is 600AD - 800AD.



Any means is ok, I only googled to see if the actual text was online, Chapter 6 of this book is online but not this chapter - given the parameters, I think someone with good history should get it.

It's a city.
It became very rich in the above time period
It's in the Middle East
Something happened in the time period that has relevance today, something that changed the world.

It has not been guessed at yet, so it's not Jerusalem, Cairo, Baghdad. Riyadh or Tehran, nor is it Constantinople.



Thank you, you're close to getting my vote :)

I actually have a reason over and above the guessing for this, it made me think of things.

Oh. If that's the case, then it must be Mecca, prior to the advent of Islam. If not Mecca, then Ctesiphon. But I doubt it.

Is it about Muhammad?

It is - the book is Karen Armstrong's 'Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time', which is a fairly contentious account.

The paragraph in question is part of setting up the idea that Muhammad was fighting for the oppressed but certain things struck me.

I'd read an IHT article, which I'll try to dig up, about how the middle class was being screwed in America, wages haven't risen, service sector jobs were being outsourced (IT) and, now that the workers (unions, Detroit, etc.,) are effectively gone, it was naturally the turn of the middle class.

I felt there was some corollary in terms of mercantile political systems and how they inexorably funnel money to the top. We talk of this growing rich-poor divide and I just wondered at the unrest that always comes with this. The poor will always be oppressed but there's a tipping point in terms of the middle class where revolutions come. Where any instability seems imminent, the rich tend to hoard money rather than share it, which would actually be the sensible thing to do (i.e. sharing).

Not that I'm predicting a revolution in the US but I do feel something's going to have to give soon.

Another thought was how, in these periods, we look to an inspiring figure and it made me think of Barack Obama to some extent - we start to credit him with superhuman abilities to change the political system of America.

Then I thought of the difference between when we look to religion and when we look to philosophy and I thought about religion comes from turmoil and philiosphy comes from stability.

All these thoughts may be very tenuous but overall, I'd never thought of the context in which Muhammad rose, nor have I thought too much about the political context in which Jesus rose.

So it caught me on politics, religion, psychology and more.

Possibly just interesting to me, I will try to refine my thoughts if any form of discussion occurs.

It is - the book is Karen Armstrong's 'Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time', which is a fairly contentious account.

Have you read A History of God by Armstrong? It's a fairly objective look at something which is almost always subjective. The fact that it's well-written and researched only makes it better.


Then I thought of the difference between when we look to religion and when we look to philosophy and I thought about religion comes from turmoil and philiosphy comes from stability.

All these thoughts may be very tenuous but overall, I'd never thought of the context in which Muhammad rose, nor have I thought too much about the political context in which Jesus rose.
Hmm, yes. Interesting...
I would now like to formally announce that I am God. Stay tuned for more details, and how you can save your life.


Possibly just interesting to me, I will try to refine my thoughts if any form of discussion occurs.
No no, I find it very interesting.
Another book I would recommend, which has little to do with religion, is The Cycles of American History by Arthur Schlesinger. The first two chapters describe how revolution and reaction, progress and conservation, come in waves in American history. (I think this is where Obama would fall. Not so much the leader of a new faith, but riding in on the crest of a new political wave.) People such as Jesus or Muhammad could be thought of as waves in a much larger, world history.

...oh, and sorry, yes, Mecca.

It is - the book is Karen Armstrong's 'Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time', which is a fairly contentious account.

The paragraph in question is part of setting up the idea that Muhammad was fighting for the oppressed but certain things struck me.

I'd read an IHT article, which I'll try to dig up, about how the middle class was being screwed in America, wages haven't risen, service sector jobs were being outsourced (IT) and, now that the workers (unions, Detroit, etc.,) are effectively gone, it was naturally the turn of the middle class.

I felt there was some corollary in terms of mercantile political systems and how they inexorably funnel money to the top. We talk of this growing rich-poor divide and I just wondered at the unrest that always comes with this. The poor will always be oppressed but there's a tipping point in terms of the middle class where revolutions come. Where any instability seems imminent, the rich tend to hoard money rather than share it, which would actually be the sensible thing to do.

Not that I'm predicting a revolution in the US but I do feel something's going to have to give soon.

Another thought was how, in these periods, we look to an inspiring figure and it made me think of Barack Obama to some extent - we start to credit him with superhuman abilities to change the political system of America.

Then I thought of the difference between when we look to religion and when we look to philosophy and I thought about religion comes from turmoil and philiosphy comes from stability.

All these thoughts may be very tenuous but overall, I'd never thought of the context in which Muhammad rose, nor have I thought too much about the political context in which Jesus rose.

So it caught me on politics, religion, psychology and more.

Possibly just interesting to me, I will try to refine my thoughts if any form of discussion occurs.

I'm reading a book on the history of the Modern Middle East, and it has something very relevant to what you're talking about with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The book makes it a key point that in the late 1500's the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful empire on Earth (yes, even more powerful then Spain or the Moghuls), and the question is, how did such a massive Empire fall?

Most historians trace the beginning of the decline to the failed siege of Vienna, but a single battle rarely breaks an empire, and an empire as massive as the Ottomans could have and did recover.

So what killed the Ottomans? Essentially, it was free trade. That's not the word that the book used, but that's essentially what it was. European manufacturing surpassed Ottoman manufacturing in regards to quality and price during this time. European merchants began to enter the Middle East and trade their goods.

European manufactured goods rapidly undercut the traditional Ottoman economy. It made the merchant class of the Ottoman Empire fabulously wealthy, but it did nothing but harm (and harm extremely) other elements of society. This economic decay brought about by trade with Europe eroded away at the Empire, leading to plethora of other problems that ultimately brought down the empire three centuries later.

My point? I find a connection in what your saying (especially about the problems of a mercantile political system) in this example as well as one to our modern situation. We right now, are giving away a lot of jobs and money to nations like China. The merchants (i.e. the CEOs and other high-ranking business executives) sell away the economy to a foreign land to become phenominally wealthy, to the detriment of the workers in the US and to the US as a whole. I feel that unless we do something about this, our future will be very bumpy and our route could be just as bad as the Ottoman Empire's.

Just a thought.

Have you read A History of God by Armstrong? It's a fairly objective look at something which is almost always subjective. The fact that it's well-written and researched only makes it better.

I haven't though it's on my list - I'm actually reading the 1989 version of this book, which was written as a reaction to the Fatwah on Salman Rushdie and has now been updated to include the impact of 9/11 - I wanted to read the original version as I thought it would be..ammm..more objective to some extent.

Hmm, yes. Interesting...
I would now like to formally announce that I am God. Stay tuned for more details, and how you can save your life.

Indeed - actually I was also thinking about how the golden version of America is being lost, religion is no longer absolute, the prairie image of 'the good old days', the values of which I feel are fundamental to America's idea of itself are also very much called into question.

Let me know where to send the donations.

No no, I find it very interesting.
Another book I would recommend, which has little to do with religion, is The Cycles of American History by Arthur Schlesinger. The first two chapters describe how revolution and reaction, progress and conservation, come in waves in American history. (I think this is where Obama would fall. Not so much the leader of a new faith, but riding in on the crest of a new political wave.) People such as Jesus or Muhammad could be thought of as waves in a much larger, world history.

Yes, I'm thinking about the circumstances in which hugely inspirational figures arise.

*snip*

All very relevant to what I'm thinking about.

Actually, you've helped me remember the article better, it's about people questioning free trade as an unquestioned good, something that's been the mainstay of America's foreign policy over the last 40 years in reaction to the USSR, and whether we need to look closely at it as the best system going forward.

I might be able to find it now.

Here we go:

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/22/business/dprotect.php)

I'll edit in some relevant passages:

DAVOS, Switzerland: Is economic history about to change course? Among the chieftains of politics and industry gathering in Davos for the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, a consensus appears to be building that the capitalist system is in for one of those rare and tempestuous mutations that give rise to a new set of economic policies.

When students of economics open their history books in 2030, they might read about 2008 as the year when the groundwork was laid for a re-regulation of certain markets, a more redistributive tax system and new forms of international policy coordination, economists say.

In theory, [Stephen] Roach [Chief Economist for Asia for Morgan Stanley] said, wages increase with productivity growth and all economies have a comparative advantage in the production of something. But real wage stagnation in some of the richest economies and increasing fears that China and India combined will eventually be able to make just about everything the West can, only cheaper, were turning that theory on its head, he said.

Fifty-four percent of Western Europeans and 43 percent of Americans now believe their children will be worse off than they are in economic terms, according to a Gallup International poll in the last quarter of 2007 across 60 countries.

"Economic theory tells us that globalization is a win-win, but it isn't, at least not in the West," Roach said. "The theory was written for another era. We have to ask some hard questions about unfettered capitalism. We need a new script."

The risk is that Western governments, mindful of the growing backlash among voters, will be tempted to rewrite the script by engaging in old and new forms of protectionism.

Highly edited and I've cherry picked the parts relevant to my thoughts but interesting all the same.

I'm gonna take a shot and say Rome because it seems like a trick question. Failing that, sometime around 800-1600 Europe. Failing that, 1600-2000...

EDIT: Oh, it's Mohammed. Why do I always miss these threads...

It is - the book is Karen Armstrong's 'Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time', which is a fairly contentious account.

The paragraph in question is part of setting up the idea that Muhammad was fighting for the oppressed but certain things struck me.

I'd read an IHT article, which I'll try to dig up, about how the middle class was being screwed in America, wages haven't risen, service sector jobs were being outsourced (IT) and, now that the workers (unions, Detroit, etc.,) are effectively gone, it was naturally the turn of the middle class.

I felt there was some corollary in terms of mercantile political systems and how they inexorably funnel money to the top. We talk of this growing rich-poor divide and I just wondered at the unrest that always comes with this. The poor will always be oppressed but there's a tipping point in terms of the middle class where revolutions come. Where any instability seems imminent, the rich tend to hoard money rather than share it, which would actually be the sensible thing to do (i.e. sharing).

Not that I'm predicting a revolution in the US but I do feel something's going to have to give soon.

Another thought was how, in these periods, we look to an inspiring figure and it made me think of Barack Obama to some extent - we start to credit him with superhuman abilities to change the political system of America.

Then I thought of the difference between when we look to religion and when we look to philosophy and I thought about religion comes from turmoil and philiosphy comes from stability.

All these thoughts may be very tenuous but overall, I'd never thought of the context in which Muhammad rose, nor have I thought too much about the political context in which Jesus rose.

So it caught me on politics, religion, psychology and more.

Possibly just interesting to me, I will try to refine my thoughts if any form of discussion occurs.

I'm pretty much agreed that something big's brewing up.

To apply the good old Hegelian "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" dialectic, the end of the cold war saw a conclusion and synthesis to one chapeter of history, and we are coming to the start of the next. I'm not exactly sure what the new antithesis to the new thesis of the modern corprate-capitalist welfare state democracy will be... Speculation?

1800AD - 2000AD for me.

I'm pretty much agreed that something big's brewing up.

To apply the good old Hegelian "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" dialectic, the end of the cold war saw a conclusion and synthesis to one chapeter of history, and we are coming to the start of the next. I'm not exactly sure what the new antithesis to the new thesis of the modern corprate-capitalist welfare state democracy will be... Speculation?

Well, the other thought that struck me is, and it's been underlined here where people have said that this could be many places in many eras, that history repeats.

Fall of Empire's post is informative on this and I wonder whether we're going to see similar play out.

Nothing will change without some sort of revolution, and even then the pigs tend to become human, so it may well be just another cycle.

You'd hope a government would be strong enough to stand up to greed, a population would be brave enough to weather some tough times, an individual would be wise enough to see that he stands in a community, which needs to survive for him to prosper.

Call me a cynic but I doubt it.

1800AD - 2000AD for me.

I should really put a note on the first post to say this has been answered but I'd rather see who doesn't read the thread.

Well, the other thought that struck me is, and it's been underlined here where people have said that this could be many places in many eras, that history repeats.

Fall of Empire's post is informative on this and I wonder whether we're going to see similar play out.

Nothing will change without some sort of revolution, and even then the pigs tend to become human, so it may well be just another cycle.

You'd hope a government would be strong enough to stand up to greed, a population would be brave enough to weather some tough times, an individual would be wise enough to see that he stands in a community, which needs to survive for him to prosper.

Call me a cynic but I doubt it.



I should really put a note on the first post to say this has been answered but I'd rather see who doesn't read the thread.

Interesting no doubt. One item to possibly consider when pondering the settings of revolutions. If I am not mistaken no society that has universal sufferage and free elections has ever had a revolution. Allowing all citizens a voice in their government leaves the laws and direction of the country in all citizens hands. Their freedom to exercise the vote (or not) excludes them from any real reason to revolt...they have the government they chose.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I am drawing on something I vaguely remember from my college days and that has been awhile back. :p

Interesting no doubt. One item to possibly consider when pondering the settings of revolutions. If I am not mistaken no society that has universal sufferage and free elections has ever had a revolution. Allowing all citizens a voice in their government leaves the laws and direction of the country in all citizens hands. Their freedom to exercise the vote (or not) excludes them from any real reason to revolt...they have the government they chose.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I am drawing on something I vaguely remember from my college days and that has been awhile back. :p

Mmm, I'd know the McDonald's theory but I wasn't really aware it extended to universal suffrage and free elections overall. I would note that we've only really had universal suffrage in the West for what, 100 years, having disenfranchised women and blacks beforehand.

I don't really think revolution, in the form of an uprising, is at hand and I think I wrote that earlier but your post has made me focus my thoughts a little.

I have grave doubts over the sustainability of open capitalism, free trade and the mercantile state. I feel we're getting to the point where the rich-poor divide is becoming too broad in that even the higher echelons of the middle class, upper management as it were, is beginning to feel threatened by the current system.

Where this happens, things happen, what that might be I'm not sure.

I'm quite heartened by the actions of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, on the assumption that I genuinely feel they want real change, responsible wealth.

If the wealthy are not responsible, if they continue to try and protect themselves and their own wealth to the detriment of society, it leads to trouble.

Previously this has resolved itself in the form of insurrection and, where people feel lost and disorientated, the rise of powerful symbolic figures of struggle.

I'm wondering how it will resolve itself this time and, more, with the level of open education - which despite dumbing down claims, I think is at a greater level through all classes than ever before - and open source knoweldge in terms of the Internet, there may be a chance to break the cycle of history.

People may point to China and India but, to be honest, I think the sentiment is not too different there either among influential people in society. I don't like cites of a personal nature but I am in India a fair amount and I've lived in China for 8 years despite being in Hong Kong now.

I should get stoned, find a quiet place, put some good music on and think this all through a little better at some point.