A mathematical model that looked at the sudden collapse of empires or states was created, with an intent to look at why social disorder can appear from an apparently stable state (an example cited is the Arab Spring in 2011). Factions within a state make choices described by game-theory about whether to accept the political status quo, or to attempt to better their circumstances through costly rebellion.
We find that a small amount of dissatisfaction is typically harmless to the state, but can trigger sudden collapse when there is a sufficient buildup of political inequality. Contrary to intuition, a state is predicted to be least stable when its leadership is at the height of its political power and thus most able to exert its influence through external warfare, lavish expense or autocratic decree.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 14 2014, @04:53PM
Sounds a lot like that basic physics concept of unstable equilibrium - stand on top of a mountain and just a small push will knock you off your perch, but stand at the bottom of a valley and it is practically impossible to force you out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2014, @04:56PM
In other words, we are all fucked.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:33PM
History has also told us that the guy making mathematical models for the fall of the empire doesn't get invited to the orgies.
His skill set does not make him one of the survivors either.
Pick your own conclusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:03PM
A much simpler way to tell if a revolution will succeed consists of looking at the military. If it is on the side of the government, no amount of turmoil, protests and uprisings will result in change (prime example: Syria). In the history of the world, no revolution has been successful without the military being on the revolting side.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:09PM
This isn't about revolutions being "successful", it's about social order. Syria is not in an orderly and stable state right now. The final outcome really doesn't matter; there's been a lot of change there, called "violence", and it's affected all the citizens there. If you, a normal citizen, is on the side of the government, it's pretty cold comfort that eventually your side will win (because the military is on your side too) when the fighting has killed your family and bombed out your hometown and left you with missing limbs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:21PM
Oversimplification.
"The Military" is never a fully unified entity - when a revolution occurs, many members will be loyal to either side, while often many will remain neutral until the end is near, when they can join up with the side that's assured to win.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by githaron on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:30PM
At least until the "The Military" is comprised almost completely of robots that take commands directly from the monarch, dictator, president, etc. At that point, the only way the people win is if the leader has a heart attack or they find some bug to exploit in the robots' software.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:50PM
Carried to its extreme, the leader is only safe when imprisoned in a cell in a bunker.
And once he's imprisoned he's a fixed high value target (whoops, sucks to be him) or his underlings can rebel by feeding him a stream of pure refined BS, at which point as long as the cognitive dissonance holds everyone not locked up in the bunker is free.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:29PM
That reminds me of a Far Side cartoon.
"Sorry, your highness, but you're really not the dictator of Ithuania, a small European republic. In fact, there is no Ithuania. The hordes of admirers, the military parades, this office - we faked it all as en experiment in human psychology. In fact, your highness, your real name is Edward Belcher, you're from Long Island, New York, and it's time to go home, Eddie."
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by gman003 on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:05PM
Ha! We should be so lucky.
Most politicians are HORRIBLE military commanders. Absolutely horrible. That's because politicians, even dictators, are all about organizing consensus, getting people to agree on high-level goals, while military command is about management - supply lines, logistics, manpower, artillery barrages, combined-arms assaults, etc. There are very, very few people who have been able to combine both, and all the examples that come to mind (Caesar, Eisenhower, Napoleon) are ones who started on the military side, and migrated into politics, rather than vice versa.
If we ever get a President in direct control of the military, with no officers between him and the grunts, we'll be set for a revolution. And well-staffed for it, too, with all the soldiers who recently lost their jobs.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:14PM
Caesar started as a politician and an aristocrat. Eisenhower wasn't a great general, though he was a decent organizer of other generals.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:05PM
Eisenhower wasn't a great general, though he was a decent organizer of other generals.
That is what a good military leader does, particularly at Eisenhower's level. It's called the chain of command - you do not micromanage the people below you unless you're an NCO. You give them objectives, give them the personnel and materiel to do their job, and keep everyone working in unison.
The general who wins the war isn't the one who commands the troops into battle. The general who wins the war is the one who makes sure his soldiers have more food, fuel and firepower than their opponents. Eisenhower understood that.
The military bureaucracy is infamously horrible, but as far as actual management techniques, most corporate managers could learn something from the great generals. Give your people what they need, give them an objective, keep them informed and protected, then stay out of their way while they do their job.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday May 15 2014, @06:42PM
Paton and McArthur were reasonably great generals. Eisenhower was a good coordinator. Not the same, though I agree that coordination is an important part of a general's toolkit.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:59PM
Most politicians are HORRIBLE military commanders
It seems like now would be an apt time to quote Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA-12) aka Bird Colonel John Patrick Murtha, Jr. USMC Retired.
"I like guys who got five deferments and [who have] never been there and [who] send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
He was referring, of course, to the chickenhawks in the Dubya administration (y'know, the Deserter-in-Chief). [texasmonthly.com]
There is still a $10,000 reward [google.com] for anyone who can provide proof that George W. Bush showed up and served in the Alabama National Guard during, y'know, "a time of war" as the never-served warmongers like to call those.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:28PM
I think you need to refresh yourself on the history of the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and the Roman Empire, for starters.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:51PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:18PM
Washington was a Colonel before the revolution. Most of the other leaders of the revolutionary military were also military leaders before the revolution. Britain has horribly long supply lines. And the Continental Congress still would have lost if it weren't for support from the French, both in North America and in Europe. Even as it was it was a very close thing.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:38PM
Ah, and i suppose other countries don't have any retired military (rhetorical)? Are revolutions so dependent on Veterans to change the government? Makes you wonder about Nations post-conflict. They probably have a lot more Veterans walking around just trying to find a job.
I totally agree with external support being required.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Wednesday May 14 2014, @08:09PM
Sounds like somebody is trying to form a theory to fit the facts after the fact ...
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:19PM
Sounds like the USA is at the most-unstable state.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:27PM
I suspect Russia may also be in that group. China too. One can see a pattern here. Big states with powerful military. I would say coherence built by force means built in momentum that can wreck things at the slightest mistake. And humans do fail.
The real question is when and where. And what will the consequences be? if more than one event collude by the nature of universe. Then things may take unpredicted turns out of control for anyone.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:08PM
Sounds like you didn't read TFA.
The gist of the paper is summed up in the second and third Paragraphs of the "Discussion" header.
The thing is that Governments that operate with some semblance of democracy, which includes most European governments, US, Canada, India, etc., have essentially removed the penalty for defection.
People living in functional democracies can switch political affiliation at will, and that makes a HUGE difference, even when the choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Monolithic states like Egypt were set up to give the appearance of democracy without any real democracy.
Britain, US, Canada not unstable, (in the sense portrayed in this paper), because stability was never built into the structure of government. Intentional, frequent, and scheduled CHANGE was built in. The more opportunity for real change, without tearing everything down and starting again, the more stable the country.
When you defect from one political party you pay no lasting penalty, EVEN when your newly adopted party loses the election. When your party wins, you gain no lasting benefit.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by gidds on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:14PM
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by turonah on Thursday May 15 2014, @08:56AM
So in light of another recent study that essentially labelled the US as an oligarchy (http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/04/17/02 37218 [soylentnews.org]), would that not support Grishnakh's claim? Especially when you look at what the cost for "defecting" is (anecdotally: anyone who spoke out against the war in Iraq; the manhunt for Snowden). As far as my (admittedly limited) knowledge goes, there's also a fair amount of backlash from friends and family if one "defects" from either of the two major parties.
Combine everything, and I'd say that unless the status quo changes the US will end up unstable as well.
That all being said however, maybe trends are moving toward positive changes?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:48AM
That is only true so long as the people believe there is a significant difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. As soon as the populace becomes convinced it doesn't matter which one they vote for, the democracy advantage goes away.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 15 2014, @06:07PM
Or third parties appear.
Its happened already in Europe, and its slowly happening in the US. Not yet successful in getting a lot of people elected, but already forcing the dialog to change.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Theophrastus on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:34PM
...to the model for your 'grains of sand'. The thing which really starts the revolution rolling is when it's "discovered" that a large percentage of your populace has already been stiff-upper-lipping notable dissatisfaction with their lot, (sound familiar 99%ers?). Given that hidden tinder (to overload the metaphor) all it takes is a few very brave folks to stand on the barricades and shout "Who's with me?!" They're 'brave' precisely because they also don't know the width of the secret dissatisfaction factor.
(Score: 1) by VLM on Wednesday May 14 2014, @05:59PM
Its soft science physics, where power is measured in height. Makes it all sound science-y and stuff so it must be correct.
More likely something physics-sensible like unwise exertion of political power depletes rather than increases potential political energy, and when you run out of potential political energy such that you can't afford to exert power to enforce your will on keepin' the man down, you get a revolution and possibly replaced with new leaders who might be more successful.
Stereotypically you run out of political potential energy by unwise wars, dumb policies, but can also run out because of drought or climate change (when hasn't the climate changed?). Either way once you lose internal control you're toast.
Why do dumb politicians keep doing this? Its a statistical game and increased volatility sometimes results in a small net positive growth in potential political energy. When it doesn't, business as usual leads to collapse.
So, where's my honorary sociology PHD?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:19PM
The human brain is riddled with flaws. And that's why most people do wrong things despite knowing better.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:24PM
Actually it sounds like a reasonable piece of work. It is, of course, VERY oversimplified even in the original, much less in the popular report. E.g., to what extent does having a real choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum increase stability? Does this change as people become more aware of the identity of the two choices? In what way, and to what degree? (How do you quantify this?) Etc.
This may actually be included in their computer model, but I'd be extremely shocked if they got it right at this point. And measuring the significant data, or even defining it precisely enough to get accurate measurements, is not now to be expected.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.