It's interesting to know about some of the historical strategies for preventing revolution. There were basically two strategies to protect the institution of monarchy.
Metternich believed that brutal repression was the only answer: censor the press, monitor communication, create a coalition of kings and persecute revolutionaries wherever they could be found. Giving even an inch, he believed, would open the door to revolution.
But there was another approach: concession. By giving a little bit - create a constitution (even if it's meaningless), allow people to vote (even if the people they vote for have no power), etc - could offer a release and prevent revolution. There are still monarchies in Europe. They're no longer absolute, but they still hold a lot of power (even if people *think* of them as being decorative). They held that power by giving up a little bit at a time to slow down progress.
The fact is, they were both right.
The US has kept their regressive oligarchy stable by oscillating between the two. We are in the brutal repression phase, where concessions are stripped away and radicals are suppressed. This phase breaks up the progress made and pushes back the clock. The next phase, if the US makes it that far, if the fascists are smart enough to let go, will be concession. They will give a few inches to keep everything from collapsing. They'll give just enough room to get people back to brunch.
While they're at brunch, the next phase will be planned.
This is not really conscious, but an emergent behavior of the two party system. It's just kind of how the dichotomy of liberalism and conservatism works. Government is a fundamentally oppressive entity. The question is really, how long will we let the pendulum swing? How small of a concession will we accept, or will we demand everything now?
@cdarwin@c.im
