No I haven't made an error in the title of this blog. It could be a personal reference or a more significant worldwide occurrence.
The concept of change is a thorny issue for many people but it is my contention that ordinary folk who are uncomfortable with change, can be motivated to revolt when they perceive that the direction in which their lives are being controlled is not heading in a direction with which they are comfortable.
Russian Revolution 1917
One hundred years ago this year the Russian Revolution took place and changed the country.
The Russian Revolution was a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the eventual rise of the Soviet Union. The Russian Empire collapsed with the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, and the old regime was replaced by a provisional government during the first revolution of February 1917 (March in the Gregorian calendar; the older Julian calendar was in use in Russia at the time). In the second revolution that October, the Provisional Government was removed and replaced with a communist state.
The revolution happened because the ruling classes were getting it wrong.
"English Revolution" has been used to describe two different events in English history. The first to be so called—by Whig historians—was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, whereby James II was replaced by William III and Mary II as monarch and a constitutional monarchy was established.
In the twentieth-century, however, Marxist historians introduced the use of the term "English Revolution" to describe the period of the English Civil Wars and Commonwealth period (1640–1660), in which Parliament challenged King Charles I's authority, engaged in civil conflict against his forces, and executed him in 1649. This was followed by a ten-year period of bourgeois republican government, the "Commonwealth", before monarchy was restored in the shape of Charles' son, Charles II in 1660.
The reason that there were two revolutions within thirty years was because the ruling classes were getting it wrong.
The current war in Syria is in fact a revolution, or a civil war and it is also because the ruling regime, President Assad, is getting it wrong. Of course the situation has now become a world political football.
So what happens next?
That question is the scary one for people who like to maintain the status quo.
The symptoms I perceive that there is a growing problem will have been picked up on by the powers that be and more. So what are they?
1. Extreme political groups.
Across the western world there has been a rise in extreme political parties and increasing public support for those groups. The obvious example in this country is UKIP. It's popularity rose and supplanted that of the more violent Britain First etc probably because most people were looking for alternatives to the current political system but in a non-violent scenario. There are similar groups in most major countries across Europe and of course there was the election of Donald Trump in the USA.
2. Strike action.
The number of strikes that take place tend to be an indicator of public dissatisfaction with their lives. Before Christmas there was a flurry of such actions.
3. Hung parliaments.
There have been a number of instances of surprising election results in what are considered to be the more westernised countries. We had our own hung parliament from 2010 - 2015 and the current conservative party only has a majority of a dozen or so.
Just three examples of public dissatisfaction with the system.
I'm not suggesting that there will be any kind of violent overthrow of our government, or that of any other country in the supposedly civilised west, more an apathetic overthrow. Consider the introduction of elected Police Commissioners. An American idea imposed on the British people without adequate preparation or information. The result, electoral turn outs of around 10% - 15% with no more than 7% - 9% voting for the winner - hardly a representative sample of the voting population.
I believe the voting in France and Germany this year will be an indicator of how far the anti-establishment feelings among the public has fallen in relation to the status quo.
Obviously, no easy fix. The people in power control the money and it is only their fear of losing their ill-gotten gains that will bring about change.
At the moment there are far too few controlling vast wealth and far too many suffering in poverty a situation that always ends up in revolution. The wealthy need to understand the unfairness and act to change that situation if they wish to keep their cash.