I find somewhat hilarious that the supposed harbingers of this "collapse" are staunch members of said "oligarchy" (an elitist billionaire and a career politician).
Of course they're coming from within the oligarchy. How is an "outsider" going to succeed, when you need massive campaign funding to even make an impression in the primaries?
We might see a more diverse background in revolution leaders if people take it one step further and ignore the democratic process.
I think even within the oligarchy there are people who are not amused to see the wife of a former president competing with the son and brother of two other former presidents. You don't have to be out to dislike this system.
That wasn't my point. I'm not saying that all oligarchs are in line with current policy. In fact, quite the opposite: Trump is clearly an oligarch, and Sanders is at least upper class.
Obama was an "outsider". It's been a while since campaigns are not won by just money. My theory is the rich elites don't want to wield their power through governments anymore.
The campaign raised much of its cash in small donations over the internet, with about half of its intake coming in increments of less than $200.[53] Both major party campaigns screened regularly for patterns of abuse and returned or rejected donations in excess of legal limits, from overseas, from untraceable addresses, or from fraudulent names
and his second campaign had 3 times larger user base.
Marie Antoinette would disagree, if she could only find her head...
Certainly many so-called "revolutions" are really just one group of elites fighting another, but "always" is just wrong. Do you think ISIS was formed by elites?
I have absolutely no idea. But I'd venture a wild guess and say there are probably a lot of Ba'ath Party people and ex-Saddam Hussein cronies running ISIS behind the scenes. Those people used to be "elites" back when Saddam ruled.
> Marie Antoinette would disagree, if she could only find her head...
Not really, the Jacobins that were the main leaders of the French Revolution were elite politicians both from the formal aristocracy and the high ranks of the mercantile/intellectual class.
Trying to do what his limited view of the right thing is. There's a lot of good stuff there, but a blanket "make everything better for everyone" ignores a lot of the nuanced problems of inequality.
For example: free healthcare and college — great, that's what a civilized country should have... but while that reduces an economic burden on the poor, it also keeps dollars in the pockets of the rich and our tax system is so broken that it doesn't necessarily mean you can recover that money.
While much less appealing, Clinton's criticisms of Sanders for giving free college to the rich seems fundamentally rooted in the reality that while yes, eventually al“l of these things should be public services — but in the immediacy it's not really helpful to help everyone out the same amount because that's keeping everyone in the same place.
He's taken his fair share in corporate and special interest money e.g. agriculture, has a notable record of pork barreling for his home state, is one of the few candidates in recent history not to release a reasonable number of tax returns and his campaign has a very concerning amount of illegal donations.
Every candidate is incredibly weak and flawed this election including Bernie.
Actually, most revolutions are led by disaffected members of the elites that rally the masses, not by the downtrodden masses. There are exceptions, of course, but generally its the elites that have the material resources, the leisure, and the social networks to plan and mobilize revolutionary forces.
We might see a more diverse background in revolution leaders if people take it one step further and ignore the democratic process.