economic factors during social upheaval

[chimx]

When I was in college I recall discussing with a polisci professor a phenomenon that social upheaval has a stronger tendency to occur during periods of economic growth. Could any students point me towards stats or studies on this?

[tolstoyevski]

well, latin america is the most suitable case study for these kind of "capitalist growth - social upheaval" correlation. Same for Iran, Turkey and Greece.

in fact the roots of this correlation is found, of course, in Marx, beginning with the communist manifesto.

the logic is simple. liberal capitalist and imperialistic capitalist development turns the petit-bourgeoise, farmers, peasants into semi-proletariat or proletariat (the process of proletarianization). In the beginning the mass organizations of the labourers are so weak that, bourgeoisie can easily enslave the workers with very low wages. this creates enormous poverty (low wages + the workers taken from their old environment come into the city + bad living conditions + socialization of the production).

what's next? the revolutionary consciousness enters in and it's easier to fight against the inexperienced bourgeoisie in the beginning.

I read the books from
- Misagh Parsa- State, Ideology and Revolution
- Mark Everingham- Revolution and the Multiclass Coalition in Nicaragua

which tell these primitive accumulation and capitalistic growth process with its effects on the social structures of the society. They are not Marxists but, at least, just.

[ComradeOm]

The two obvious examples that spring to mind are Mexico and Russia. Both are examples where the social products of intense modernisation/industrialisation programmes led to major social upheaval. Unfortunately I can't point to any papers or books that deal exclusively with this economic aspect

[Marsella]

I'm not sure about this Chimx.

One could point to Stalin's Russia which had phenomenal levels of economic growth, yet there was no mass 'social upheaval' (although tolstoyevski makes a good point about the kulaks etc)

I think the opposite is true; when there is lack of economic growth there is social upheaval. Poverty breeds discontent. But I am not sure what you mean by social upheaval, do you mean a rise in class consciousness?

On the other hand, you could point to countries effected by the depression - lack of economic growth which resulted in social upheaval.

[ComradeOm]

One could point to Stalin's Russia which had phenomenal levels of economic growth, yet there was no mass 'social upheaval' (although tolstoyevski makes a good point about the kulaks etc)

The industrialisation of the Soviet Union saw massive discontent as the CP effectively waged a war on the resisting peasantry. That the state ultimately prevailed should not belittle the scale of this unrest

[Die Neue Zeit]

The two obvious examples that spring to mind are Mexico and Russia. Both are examples where the social products of intense modernisation/industrialisation programmes led to major social upheaval. Unfortunately I can't point to any papers or books that deal exclusively with this economic aspect

Before Stalin, you should look up one Sergei Witte.

[ComradeOm]

Before Stalin, you should look up one Sergei Witte.

Exactly who I was thinking of (in a general pre-Revolution way). For Mexico the name of interest is Porfirio Díaz