Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan (?).... Who's next to fall to the people?

[NightWatcher]

Are the Saudi Royals getting nervous?

And a second question: Is the growing disparity between the rich, middle, and poor one of the bigger motivating factors behind this change?

IMHO, the young, secular, educated, former middle class who now find themselves being pushed down by a small, rich, minority have simply had enough.

[Catherina]

1. My money's on Jordan. n/t

[mod mom]

2. Jordan's King Abdullah Dismisses Government

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/new-jordan-government-king-abdullah-ii_n_816755.html

[Catherina]

3. Rinse lather repeat. Didn't work for Ben Ali, didn't work for Mubarak

and it's not gonna work for old Abdullah.

Does anyone here like to play dominoes? I think it's going to be my new favorite game.

[happyslug]

4. Marx, observed that history teaches when a revolution occurs

First, Karl Marx noted that revolutions occur not as things get worse, but as things bottom out and start to improve. The French Famine of 1787 did not cause a revolution, but as things improved by 1789 you had a revolution. The Worse Russian defeats were in 1916, things were looking better on the front in 1917 when you had BOTH Russian Revolutions.

Second, Marx commented that when the "Petty Bourgeoisie" i.e "secular, educated, former middle class" find themselves force by the economic system into the working class "The proletariat" then you have a Revolution.

Please note the American Revolution was NOT a revolution, most of the people in charge of the Colonies were in charge of the States after the American Revolution. You did see some radical changes, but the leadership stayed about the same, unlike true revolutions, as was the French Revolution, when the leadership BEFORE the Revolution is overthrown by new leadership. The American Revolution was more like a war between former allies, as one ally try to use force to get another ally back into the Alliance. The Spanish Armada is a classic case, Spain and England had been allied against France for Centuries before the Armada. When Elizabeth embraced Protest ism also included breaking with Catholic Spain. Spain did no want that so sent the Armada more to force Elizabeth back in an alliance with Spain against France, then to replace her as Queen of England. The New English-French relationship would survive well into Stuart times of the 1600s, it would not end till England kicked out James II in 1688. It took another hundred years for England to re-enter her alliance with Spain, but had done so fully after Napoleon invaded Spain after 1800. Spain would remain a English Ally for the next 200 years.

I bring up Spain and England for it shows that some alliances are driven by geography, but the break between Spain and England during the rule of Elizabeth shows it what it was, a break up of a long time alliance. The same with the American Revolution. The American colonies had been de factor independent since the English Civil War of 1640-1650 (Some colonies were formed after that date, but quickly became independent as had the earlier colonies). On the other hand all of the Colonies feared the French and thus formed a Strong alliance with England. With the French driven out of Canada in 1759, that fear disappeared and the various requirement of that alliance imposed by England on the Colonies were no longer acceptable so the alliance was broken. Technically because the Colonies were not legally independent states, it was a "revolution" but it was more a break up of an old alliance then any move to change the way things were.

I bring this up for that is happening in Egypt is more like the French and Russian Revolutions then the American Revolution and thus Marx's rules apply.