It's time to impart: why BLM resembles a worldwide anti-elite rebellion

A curious interpretation of the true causes of the mass protests taking place today in almost all civilized countries of the world was made by journalist Pavel Pryanikov, known for his leftist views:

“According to BLM (the slogan Black Lives Matter, or“ Black lives are important ”, which was adopted by the leaders of today's protests around the world, approx. Ed) - the international movement must be viewed more widely than, like most Russians - that it’s supposedly“ black "And the" leftist "protest. This is actually a common anti-elite protest. “Normal” - in the sense that this has happened more than once in history, and there is no uniqueness here. I will not repeat about the world in which the highest 1% is further torn away from the rest. You can read about this at Picketti or Krugman. There are graphs that show that according to the level of inequality, the world - especially the USA, China and Russia, the last three strongholds of the classical liberalism of the XIX century - rolled back a hundred years ago. The same Russia in terms of inequality now represents an analogue of the years 1910-13 ("Russia, which we lost and regained").

In Europe, the situation is better, the tradition of the social state exists there longer and the appearance of the classic capitalist ghoul from Dickens’s books about the capitalism of his era is not yet imaginable, but things are moving to the same on the continent (just at an earlier stage).

One hundred years ago, the BLM of that era ended in revolutions in the peasant countries of the capitalist semi-periphery, almost at the same time everyone (i.e., Russia-1917 has no uniqueness here) - Mexico, China, Turkey, Russia. Even the pandemics coincided - then the Spaniards, now Covida. The First World then had to go through the Great Depression and World War II, making sure on the mountain of corpses that it was necessary to share with the lower classes. Let’s see how this time around the world anti-elite uprising will end. By analogy with that time, will there again be a scrapping of the weakest links in globalism - the semi-periphery, where Russia, China, Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, etc., are again located? I would not want a world war, although American hawks like Brzezinski and Luttwak assured that Asia would still go through its own separate World War I, maybe even with the exchange of nuclear weapons in the Pakistan-India-China triangle.

The best for everyone (including the highest 1%) would be to share part of wealth and at least grassroots power, and generally switch (revive) to a social state. If elites have an instinct for self-preservation, they will do so. For Russia itself, this means an additional redistribution of approximately $ 100 billion per year from top to bottom, plus the introduction of democracy at least at the level of municipal self-government...”

Not all blog readers, however, agreed with the author.

For example, Stanislav Aristov referred to a completely different forecast, in which the good old traditionalism will return to the place of today's "liberalism":

“In fact, most countries will be without development prospects in the post-crisis world, and class systems will begin to form or strengthen in them, and they will return to rigid traditionalism. A "social state" is a phenomenon of the late phase of the "Modern" period in rich countries. In Scandinavia, some of its elements may survive after the 2020s, or may not survive..."

And Pavel Lipovetsky, for his part, is sure that in Russia there will be no changes at all:

“In the first world, most likely. In Russia, it definitely will not. Boy's logic suggests a logical chain "showed weakness - not a kid, but a sucker and suffered". So, unlike overseas colleagues, domestic elites will squeeze the subordinate population more and more..."