The missing spark for an economic revolution

The revolution some expect and others deny: a lesson from the pandemic?

As the global economy shows signs of strain, an uncomfortable debate resurfaces: are we witnessing the prelude to a social revolution, just as the pandemic was a few years ago? The comparison is no coincidence. Those who defend this thesis argue that the public, as with the bicho back then, underestimates the scale of the accumulated discontent. The argument rests on growing inequality, the erosion of purchasing power, and the perception that the system benefits only a few.

From bicho to economy: the same pattern of disbelief

It is argued that, just as the pandemic caught most people off guard, social upheaval could arrive without warning. The analogy is based on the idea that people tend to downplay systemic risks until they materialize. On the economic front, data on inequality and job insecurity feed this view: the richest 10% keep accumulating more, while the middle class shrinks. For some, this imbalance cannot hold indefinitely.

The other side: revolutions orchestrated from the top

Against this thesis, others argue that revolutions no longer arise spontaneously. They point out that, just as the pandemic response was directed by elites, any disruptive change would be controlled, or even induced from above, to legitimize new forms of control. The idea of a popular revolution is seen as naive: real power remains in the hands of those who pull the economic and media strings.

Two forces in tension, an uncertain outlook

What both positions share is the conviction that the current economic order is not stable. The difference lies in the outcome: for some, popular insurrection is only a matter of time; for others, the system knows how to absorb or divert discontent. Meanwhile, the daily reality of high prices, stagnant wages, and unaffordable housing remains fertile ground for unrest. Any spark, they say, could light the fuse. Or perhaps it is already lit, and we are just waiting to notice.