the Industrial Revolution led democratic revolutions--what kind will the internet age give us?

[yurbud]

It is clear that whatever is going on in Egypt, it discomfits the degenerate, sociopathic trust fund babies of Wall St. in power today the way the French Revolution did the powdered wigged fops of Versailles and their ilk across Europe two hundred years.

However imperfect that and the revolutions that followed were, they swept away the last remains of feudalism and inherited political power, and gave us a degree of democracy but still hierarchy topped by a moneyed ruling class, still mostly inherited but fluid enough to accommodate a meritocracy (of sharp businessmen at least).

Unlike the feudal aristocracy that could largely sit on their asses for centuries and have a steady source of income from their tenant farmers, the newer ruling class had to be able to plan the efficient us of people, money, and materials in the span of months or years or lose it.

More people had to know how to read to be able to run the machines and keep the books of the factories, but that same ability made them ever more aware that those at the top were skimming more than a fair share, not just of profits but political power.

Fascism of the 20th century was that moneyed class's attempt to stop further evolution toward real democracy, and the Soviet and Chinese descent into totalitarianism must have led to a sigh of relief among those bankers and brokers bracing for society to take the next step and put them in their place.

The information age is inevitably going to change society radically again.

For most of the 20th century and even most of my forty some odd years, information came through a very range of sources: newspapers, printing presses, radio stations, and a handful of TV networks. The common denominator was that it took a good chunk of change to buy or build any of those, which limited free expression to those who could afford it. It also created the subtle belief in the rest of us of a meritocracy of opinions--if that person I disagree with got published or on TV, they must at least know more than me, have access to more information, and be uniquely talented as a communicator.

The internet has blown that to shit.

Not only through geometric increase in sources of information, but by destroying the illusion of a meritocracy of opinions. Anyone with half a brain who can spell Google can fact check a columnist or TV commentator and see when they are lying or glossing over important details. More importantly, bloggers who post their work for free often match and even exceed the depth of research and writing ability of paid pundits. I have noticed this even with newspaper columnists I agree with. This is especially glaring with TV talking heads, who, with some cable exceptions, appear to be parroting a handful of vapid talking points someone faxed them that morning,and repeating them ad nauseum. Would anyone bother to READ a blog as vapid as the Sunday morning news talk shows? If someone posted that inside the beltway wisdom to any discussion board without support of any kind, would it sway opinions or even be read?

By contrast, there are some writers I only know through their work online and I don't know if anyone pays them to do it--nor do I care. That makes the old meritocracy of opinions look more like a meritocracy of going to school with the right people, being invited to the right parties, and not ruffling the feathers too much of the person who has enough money to pay you to write for their paper or talk on their TV network.

I do not believe that anyone who writes for the New York Times is better or smarter than me. And after having a good long look at George W. Bush, I do not believe that the moneyed class hold onto power because they are smarter, harder working, or more moral.

This democratization of information is bound to lead to political revolutions as surely as the industrial revolution did, but probably with even more profound and lasting effects. Those with the most to lose seem to know this which is probably they are cashing in their chips, and trying to figure out how to wring every last penny out of the middle and working class they can while they can and squirreling it away to some tax haven or Third World country that doesn't allow extradition. They have even given up on investing in making things and delivering services in favor of ever more elaborate ponzi schemes and bubbles that destroy rather than build the real economy.

In the long run, it doesn't matter. They will be gone, and the world will belong to the rest of us. But what kind of political system can we build that fits the new freedom of information?

[HopeHoops]

1. "You wants that I should supersize them fries for ya?"

[yurbud]

4. Ross Perot said it best: you can't have a whole economy based on giving each other haircuts

somebody has to do something that creates some wealth or no one will have any money for fries or haircuts.

[villager]

2. good and thoughtful post, Yurbud. But what kind of world will they leave us...

...when they're done cashing out and fleeing the coming changes?

A trashed climate, for example, is going to make the rebuilding much harder...

[yurbud]

3. what other choice do we have?

[villager]

5. none, actually. I wonder why the rich think they'll be exempt from the coming eco-consequences?

I guess because they have no history of having been held accountable previously, from which to draw upon...

[yurbud]

6. they'll build a biosphere over their country club

[cali]

7. k&r that is a very interesting question.

[pampango]

8. For centuries most people worked in agriculture. Many probably thought

the country and economy couldn't survive without a dominant farm employment sector. Then the Industrial Revolution massively shifted employment from farms to factories. The dislocation associated with such a massive change in employment expectations and realities did, indeed, led to social upheaval.

Now the Information Revolution (as you seem to be calling it) will have to employ people in some manner. Farms - to factories - to ? If farming and manufacturing grow and make most of what we need with relatively little labor (unlike in the past) do we not have to construct a society in which we do things for each other rather than grow or make basic stuff?

It may be hard to envision, but in the Age of Agriculture, I imagine that no one could have envisioned a healthy society in which 90% of the people didn't work at growing food. Now about 1% are involved in agriculture and we have survived. The drop off in manufacturing employment is not that dramatic, but has occurred in every developed economy which has had to adjust to the "new reality" that manufacturing employment continues to shrink (even as output grows) as agricultural employment did in earlier times (even when food production continued to grow).

You are right that the transition from the Age of Agriculture to the Industrial Revolution was a time of revolution. Now the transition away from the Industrial Age to the Information Age (or whatever the new "age" turns out to be) which we are living through now is equally traumatic and seems even worse because we are living through it instead of reading about it in the history books. It is a time of revolution again. Let's hope that it is democratic. There aren't any guarantees.

[yurbud]

9. I hadn't thought of that parallel of reduced need for labor.

But it's very relevant. George Orwell and Jack London wrote about how worker productivity went up so dramatically in the industrial age that if their share of the fruits of the labor had remained constant, they could have made a comfortable living with much less work, and had time for leisure and civic engagement. Instead, the excess wealth is skimmed off by those at the top and the rest of us just hold on no matter how productive we are.

[yurbud]

10. .

[MadHound]

11. Umm, the industrial revolution didn't lead to democratic revolutions

For instance, the industrial revolution didn't come to America until the early nineteenth century, yet we revolted against England anyway. And even when the industrial revolution did come to these shores, millions still remained in feudal bondage, ie the slaves.

Nor did the industrial revolution spark the French Revolution. That cause of that can actually be laid at the feet of American Revolution, not to mention massive hunger and autocratic indifference.

To posit that a revolution in production led to a revolution in political thought is simply wrong.

[yurbud]

12. in the US, economic reality didn't match the political reality, which led to the revolution

the farmers and businessmen who were the top strata of American society did not possess political power commensurate with their economic power and seeming independence from the old country.

[malaise]

17. I disagree

from Martin Luther translated the bible Rome no longer controlled thought and the printing press was for books and ideas what the internet and social media are for today's generations.

[Boojatta]

22. I don't think you are disagreeing ...

... unless you are quite confident that the Industrial Revolution began with printing presses.

[Boojatta]

13. Kick

[RagAss]

14. Cheetos induced constipation.

[Boojatta]

15. We can accept that on trust, but we still need to verify.

[Rex]

16. The Information Age.

[malaise]

18. Excellent post

This democratization of information is bound to lead to political revolutions as surely as the industrial revolution did, but probably with even more profound and lasting effects.

We shall see since they still have the weapons

[yurbud]

19. they can give the order, but who literally pulls the trigger? When soldiers and cops realize they

are oppressing people like themselves for the sake of a handful of degenerate trust fund babies, they will refuse to fire and the revolution will be won without a shot being fired.

[malaise]

21. Well as more and more elites refuse to allow their children

to join the armies you may well be correct.

[yurbud]

23. I was shocked when I went to grad school with kids who had gone to Ivies. when I mentioned being in

the Navy, one of those kids looked at me funny and said, ''Are you sure that's something you want to TELL people?'' like I had just said I have a vestigial tail or eat my own poop or something.

Some at the very top of the officer corps see it as a means of upward mobility, but unless they work at the Pentagon and are bird colonels or above, they likely have more sympathy with the rest of us than the privileged few.

[ReggieVeggie]

20. we will eventually end up with one world government

the only question is what form that government will take

One thing the internet and instant world-wide communication has done is to prevent suppression of these movements like I'm sure has happened many times in the past. If some group of people are thinking about a revolution, you know about it in the next twitter post.