Actually it does - history is full of examples of just that. As the middle class grows in economic terms, it grows in political influence and the overall values of the society changes to accommodate that class. Introduction of democracy and women’s rights in Europe are good examples.
China may be different. Their planned social credit reputation system, coupled with ubiquitous surveillance, may make it impossible for public opinion in China to force the Chinese government to liberalise.
In the past, the West has had a massive advantage because: (1) their econpomic system was better than everyone else's, and (2) in order to modernise, other cultures have had to adopt some of the West's characteristics, including a greater level of freedom of speech/thought than in other societies. The combination meant that the West had few serious ideological competitors.
But if China becomes the world's biggest economy, if it continues to increase its economy so its per capita GDP is the same as in the USA and western Europe, and it does this while still being an autocracy, things will get very very serious.
The future may well be a jackboot stamping on a human face forever.
Maybe. But china’s overall path is towards more democracy and civil liberty. Compare tianamen square 30 years ago with the handling of the Hong Kong protests.
After both Chicago '68 and the Kent State shooting, there was immediate, extensive blowback in the American press and public. Quite the opposite happened in China after Tiananmen Square.
(Of course, all of the above were decades ago, so we need to keep an open mind about the condition today in the respective countries.)
>After both Chicago '68 and the Kent State shooting, there was immediate, extensive blowback in the American press and public. Quite the opposite happened in China after Tiananmen Square.
I'd say after those it was business and usual, and those involved didn't get even a slap on the wrist. If anything, venting through the press merely let people get steam out and forget more easily....
> If anything, venting through the press merely let people get steam out and forget more easily....
But we didn't get a repeat of either episode. That raises the possibility that people learned lessons, albeit imperfectly, from those experiences of others, which is something for which humankind (not uniquely among the species) has at least some talent.
That's a benefit of a free press. It can be aggravating to see some of the shadier so-called journalists go shamelessly whoring after eyeballs. Still, journalists' collective, competitive desire for attention helps to bring "training cases" (in NN terms) to a broader societal audience. That seems to influence at least some people's behavior. Over the long term — and not without exceptions, some catastrophic — that influence, on balance, is usually for the good.
Why? These things are not even remotely on the same scale. How are you going to reconcile an event that caused ~20k some odd deaths (recent foreign consul leaks during the time) that was nearly 100% covered up by the government vs. Kent State? That's a bit ridiculous imo.
Well, one event threatened a whole regime (and the country's stability) the other was some hippie students protesting at their university.
And still, "twenty-eight guardsmen fired approximately 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds" -- killing 4 and injuring many more.
Which begs the question, if there was major potentially elite affecting / government toppling issue instead of a small scale anti-war protest at a local university, what would be the response?
Interesting question. I do think you are trying to take Kent State out of context though - it wasn't a single event. It was the culmination of anti-war protests in the US, and caused massive and very quick social change once it happened.
These what-ifs of history are certainly interesting though!
Many of the rights we consider intrinsic to modern society, due process, etc., didn’t arise in Europe in respond to the rise of a middle class. In the Anglo tradition, they date back 800 years to the Magna Carta.
> Introduction of democracy and women’s rights in Europe are good examples.
Which is why I said “religious” and “sexual preference”.
Jews were widely discriminated against even a few years after WW2; Muslims are a current whipping-boy; I’m not sure if Catholic-vs-Protestant is as big a divide in Northern Ireland as it looks from the outside, but it does look big; In the USA, Atheists are almost as disliked as Muslims.
Then there’s sexual preference. You’re fine if you’re gay (finally!), but not so much if you’re into BDSM or have any fetishes more complicated than underwear. Also, I have a friend whose sexuality was previously legal, but which was outlawed in half of Europe and half of the USA this century. I invite you to guess what that might be.
5-10% of the population are “into” BDSM, although sex surveys are notorious for underestimating things. Atheism is a curious thing to call a “bizarro religion”; likwise for different reasons Islam, given the latter has ~1.8 billion followers worldwide.
I seriously doubt that. 5-10% of what? the _US population_? I'm pretty certain that 5%-10% of the population have more serious and pressing matters than worrying about their sexual preferences.
USA survey, though I would be surprised if it varied by nation.
People have rioted over the legality of their sex lives, and people have gone to prison because consenting to certain acts was deemed to be conspiracy to some form of serious assault (against themselves) — so I’m inclined to think it’s both significant concern and a major part of personal identity.
And as far as "enjoying life" goes, it's an ever sadder view to place it anywhere aside from luxuries on a society were people are homeless, without healthcare, without steady jobs, working 2-3 jobs, and so on. Not to mention the huge loneliness and depression epidemic, with actual tangible effects on mental and physical health, and wether one can openly smack their partner and electrocute their body parts is quite far from a priority.
It's closer to the "right" to enjoy champagne and oysters than anything fundamental...
> Not to mention the huge loneliness and depression epidemic, with actual tangible effects on mental and physical health, and wether one can openly smack their partner and electrocute their body parts is quite far from a priority.
I don’t claim to understand BDSM, but I do know a fulfilling sex life helps with depression, and that being outcast for your sexuality can cause depression and loneliness.
Sex can be one of the few things left for the homeless and the dispossessed, and has been part of human culture since before the invention of medicine and money, never mind health insurance. Dismissing it as a luxury makes you sound like a French aristocrat (ironically, given where the ‘S’ comes from).
