It also seems to me that the possibility of a revolution, in any sense of the word, is getting more and more miniscule, no matter which angle you look at it, whether it's because many people simply don't care or are happy to voluntarily give up private information for diminishing doses of dopamine hits.
The thing about any major revolutionary change is that the initial seed is planted through breaking some kind of law. And if we get to the point where breaking simple laws is impossible because of the near-complete information the state actor has on it's people, things are likely to get worse.
The revolution needed is for people to quit letting the politicians and press to set their world view. One must remember that political parties extensively use market research to craft their message and through sycophants in the press will float trial balloons of upcoming campaign statements to see what will work.
Using fear, uncertainty, doubt, and jealously, the convince you to not only put them in office but to stand up for you by "taking care" of those they have taught you to dislike to the point you are now voting people in to punish others.
How we fix that I don't know. However remember one thing. A religious leader demanding action on a moral backing is many many times less dangerous than a politician using a moral stance because theirs changes on a whim
“Politicians need religion even more than a hermit in retreat. If a hermit acts out of bad motivation, he harms no one but himself. But if someone who can directly influence the whole of society acts with bad motivation, then a great number of people will be adversely affected.”
The day I discovered this quote was a rather striking moment. I find it continues to be relevant. Especially when one considers the demagoguery and celeb - I don't just mean TV, note how certain politicians/bootlickers are treated right now - worship that we are effectively replacing establishment religion.
Also important to note that they both use religion. Who puts money in the tithe plate? Not the megachurch preacher. I am a former christian and I struggle to see many differences between a preacher and a politician. Especially celebrity evangelists.
Three, revolutions have always led to counter-revolutionary movements, that almost always attain some degree of power in the new system too. Bloody vicious cycles of purges and counter-purges follow. With a new system and the very same megalomaniac people in power, not much changes -- except for one or two key-issues the revolution wanted to tackle initially.
A window will re-open (maybe permanently) when the majority of humans live in space habitats. Because of the long distances between habitats[1], the relatively small populations of each[2], and the fragility of the habitat[3], I expect local governments to be more responsive to their citizens.
[1] parent nation takes longea to respond with overwhelming force/more time for local rebellions to solidify control
[2] not enough population to sustain a large garrison but also easier to get a significant portion of the population engaged.
[3] catastrophic sabotage is easier so discontent must be addressed more proactively. Also external applications of force may be limited to massacre or siege since boarding a hostile ship becomes very dangerous.
W re: space habitats (extremely fragile living environments), that’s difficult.
When picking astronauts or cosmonauts they test and screen against negative psychological indicators.
In these environments discontent is a separate issue form psychological issues. Regular discontented people are generally not suicidal. Given that, unless what these people are responsible for is ultra valuable, I think this condition works against them. Unless they have complete independence, they are reliant on the dominant organization who could take advantage of this weak position.
According to research I’ve read revolutions grow more likely only when food prices exceed the average income of the population. That is - populations only revolt when starving. That would explain why we see so little of them - starvation level poverty is perhaps becoming less common? This would be a good thing.
Only well-funded revolutions historically succeeded. The only way might be crypto-based revolution, but I doubt that. Another way is a disorganized chaos when a society implodes, but that rarely brings better things.
The thing about any major revolutionary change is that the initial seed is planted through breaking some kind of law. And if we get to the point where breaking simple laws is impossible because of the near-complete information the state actor has on it's people, things are likely to get worse.
I do see a bleak future ahead. And grim.