Blog written by Charles Hugh Smith (FB Page) August 20, 2017
Governments and corporations cannot restore social connectedness and balance to our lives.
In the conventional view, there are two kinds of revolutions: political and technological. Political revolutions may be peaceful or violent, and technological revolutions may transform civilizations gradually or rather abruptly—for example, revolutionary advances in the technology of warfare.
In this view, the engines of revolution are the state–government in all its layers and manifestations—and the corporate economy.
In a political revolution, a new political party or faction gains converts to its narrative, and this new force replaces the existing political order, either via peaceful means or violent revolution.
Technological revolutions arise from many sources but end up being managed by the state and private sector, which each influence and control the other in varying degrees.
Conventional history focuses on top-down political revolutions of the violent “regime change” variety: the American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution (1789), the Russian Revolution (1917), the Chinese Revolution (1949), and so on.
Technology has its own revolutionary hierarchy; the advances of the Industrial Revolutions I, II, III and now IV, have typically originated with inventors and proto-industrialists who relied on private capital and banking to fund large-scale buildouts of new industries: rail, steel manufacturing, shipbuilding, the Internet, etc.
Written by Charles Hugh Smith
It’s Time To Take Our Future Back
In Part 2: Rescuing Our Future, we focus on the self-evident truth that governments and corporations cannot restore social connectedness and balance to our lives. Only a social revolution that is self-organizing from the bottom-up can do that.
This essay was first published on peakprosperity.com, where I am a contributing writer.
COMMENTS from FB Page
- “the nation’s economic mode of production has changed, requiring two incomes where one once sufficed,”
I think this needs just a slight revision. Two incomes are required to meet the increased material demands of American women.
I know this is very, very un-PC to say… but it is a settled fact that women drive 70 to 80% of consumer purchase decisions. The “need” for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th bathrooms and cars among other large consumer commitments are what drove the need for “two incomes”.
I put that in quotes because households ALWAYS had 2 incomes! Women ran a productive operation in the “House and Garden” (which is why there is a magazine so named) but have opted out of that for a financial income (most of which ends up going to pay for all of the things women once produced in the houses and gardens).
- And I make no assertion as to whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Frankly, it is none of my business what other people do. But analysing is a perfectly reasonable pastime.
- If couples “needed” only the house and cars that my parents’ generation needed, contemporary couples would have no need for 2 incomes