These countries have the citizenry usually unarmed, while the military is usually highly homogeneous (usually ethnic and class unity within the military, and fiercely loyal to their masters).
Many of the citizens and residents that would benefit from material conditions improvement are also some of the least connected to the land, as they are usually immigrants whose families are elsewhere. They would not be protecting their families in any conflict, and would not benefit from the improvement to the lives of legal citizens.
It just seems that the periphery is better equipped for revolution, and Maoist third-worldism is more correct at analyzing the world. But maybe I am going about this analysis completely wrong, so please feel free to correct and link me to resources. Thanks guys
It's a fair question, we didn't get any revolutions in those places. And after the destruction of revolutions elsewhere it's going to be even less likely in the seats of the empire.
From reading biographies of US presidents, it seems like there was a fairly widespread belief that socialism was just what came next, eventually. At the time people were creating and reading these theories, there was a sense that it was inevitable. Industrialization and pollution were visibly awful, labour laws non-existent.
Ultimately in the West/global north concessions were made to stymie revolution. They were unsustainable as we know - built upon unequal exchange abroad, domestic underclasses in many cases, enforced by militarism and interference. Those concessions also depended on a ruling class which is now largely dead and been replaced with a decent number of true believers who've inherited it, who bought the market mythology wholesale and think it's actually how things were working.
The Paris commune was a short-lived revolution in the imperial core, but that seems to be about as close as it's gotten. I wonder if it'll become more likely as unequal international exchange and western imperialism hopefully dies off.
One of the most significant revolutions in an imperial country was the Carnation Revolution, which dismantled Portugal's colonial empire and made the defeat of South Africa's apartheid regime far more possible. The 'socialist' constitution was undermined and made moderate very quickly afterwards though, but today like Greece it's one of the European countries closest to the cool zone
I mean, my perspective is is that these people really just wanted a revolution at home, in the places they'd known and lived in, and didn't really know what outside of Europe was like mixed in with a ton of yt supremacy.
Even if they were ultimately incorrect and coping, it's understandable that if they were European they wouldn't know other conditions well enough to make any predictions outside their bubble.
