[dmix]

Wow, I wonder what effect this has on politics?

It was noted that the Arab Spring was largely not the result of political discontent but the fact food prices were becoming very high [0]. It might be the case that unless the basic livelihood of people is consistently threatened - such as not being able to eat - that they will always put up with the political status quo.

As we're seeing now with the non-existent political reaction to mass surveillance.

[0] http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html

[akirarei]

For a revolution you need a revolutionary situation in a society, Lenin described two conditions "The bottoms don't want and the tops cannot live in the old way".

It is often connected to food or another word necessity's. That was the case during the "arab spring" and was also the case in 1917 Russia, the main slogan for the Russian revolution being "bread and peace". The Russian people had nothing left to lose and the ruling class had nothing left to give(to sustain their power) thus fulfilling the two conditions.

All you need then is a catalyst. Which in the case of the "arab spring" was when Mohamed Bouazizi set him self on fire.

When it concerns America and mass-surveillance I would see that as a possible catalyst that lacked a revolutionary situation.

[JoeAltmaier]

Somebody said something about never being more than three meals away from revolution? Makes sense.