Reply #42: Exactly. The term is "relative deprivation" - sociologists say that revolutions occur not because

[leveymg]

people are deprived, but when they realize they can do better under an alternative regime. The tipping-point for revolution comes after mass mobilization, not before. The creation of a seemingly viable "dual sovereign", a party or para-state structure that appear capable of ruling, is also a prerequisite for a revolution. Revolts may occur without this sort of political organization, but they don't lead to state transformation.

The revolutionary process was closely examined during the Cold War as part of counter-insurgency doctrine. The most valuable theorists, in my view, are political scientists such as Chalmers Johnson, Jack Goldstone, Theda Skocpol, and the Tillys.

The place to start reading is James C. Davies, who came up with a theory about the "revolution of rising expectations" and the likelihood of armed civil conflict. His idea came out of development theory and ideas about the dynamic and effects of modernization on traditional societies. In the 1960s this became known as the Davies J-curve: http://www.fragilecologies.com/jun27_03.html

Here is how it works: for a given individual, life is getting better in real terms: increasing salary and benefits, improved nutritional status, the ability to purchase better modes of transportation, among other items well beyond his or her basic need. However, the individual wants more than s/he can afford. S/he thins that his or her standards of living should be getting better at a faster rate than it is. In other words, the pace of reality is not keeping up with his or her expectations about how much better it should be. Nevertheless, while it may be frustrating to the individual not to have his or her reality keep up with his or her rising expectations, the individual's situation is not so bad that it leads either to conflict or to frustration. That's the situation in an era of rising expectations, as it was, say, in the 1960s."