Ain't Enough

So.

The "big" protest of October 15th led to massive action erupting from thousands of dissatisfied people that has the Fools trembling in their diapers, has rocked the dark underbelly of Our Society and has flung open the long-closed Door to a Better Future.

Uh-huh. In your dreams.

What was the general remark after October 15th?: "Let's see what happens on November 6th." The day the government firings were supposed to take place. And didn't.

No, "the people" and "their protest" can't take the credit for the non-firings: I've already made a case for the real reason and over time, as the evidence mounts, We will get the chance to evaluate the events in their proper perspective and We will all see that I am right.

So.

Given the economic depression and government decadence We are simply awash in, like a long-standing cesspool, where's the massive uprising, the revolutionary spark, the "Tear down the oligarchy!" passion that so many of you--of you, My Brethren--have spouted so much mouthgas about?

Ain't none. Or more acurately, ain't enough.

According to the theory defined in the Logic of Political Survival, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson and James Morrow, revolutions--and that is what We are talking about--depend greatly on the amount of public goods and the perceived risk of their success or failure to come about. In brief:

---If public goods decrease, the risk of revolution increases, but the success of the revolution decreases.

---If public goods increase, the risk of revolution decreases, but the success potential of a revolution also increases.

Why is this? The amount of public goods (services, money, infrastructure) is a key component for a revolution's success: the greater the amount and quality of public goods, the easier it is to "take over" those goods because they are organized and readily available, although obviously, because of their widespread access and quality, the motivation to do so decreases.

This seems counter-intuitive, since the image of revolution is the romantic notion of a passionate group of freedom fighters (or reformers or blockheads or thugs) storming the Establishment and overthrowing the powers that be by dint of righteousness and a few well-placed weapon caches. That's the romantic notion. And it is wrong.

A revolution need not be violent, but it must be swift and decisive. A revolution by definition is a radical change, happening quickly and that fundamentally alters the status quo. It isn't the sweeping away of what exists: it is the forceful redirection of what exists.

So.

If there are few public goods, destroying them is easier than redirecting them, but destroying these public goods dooms a revolution to a seriously uphill climb. Trying to destroy widespread, quality public goods is a hugely difficult task, but redirecting them is much easier.

Now the questionnaire before Us is:

Do We have increasing public goods or decreasing public goods? I think it's safe to say We have decreasing public goods and have for some time.

Is the quality and access of these goods limited-easier to destroy--or widespread and adequate--thus easier to redirect? The answer is clearly that the public goods We have are widespread and adequate. Don't agree? Some 64% of Our people are on government dole. Case closed.

Is the risk--to the Fools in their diapers--thus higher now than it was before? Yes, it most certainly is. Giving this much thought and seeing how We've reacted after the October 15th MiniMarch on the Mall, I'd say that on a scale of 1 to 100, with 80 being "The Revolution is On! Fire Tweets at Will!" I'd say the risk of the revolution happening went from 4 to 6.

Maybe 7.

The Jenius Has Spoken.