alexandra said:Very true - that is why there is no possibility at all that a relatively small group can achieve any real change. Thus the need for mass movements to change social structures.
No, that's not true. It only proves that a democracy is not intrinsically unstable (that a relatively small group can initiate a "flip-over") - as I think that an anarchy is.
Social structures can slowly evolve in a democracy, but only under the will of a majority.
But in capitalist societies, where the gap between rich and poor is ever-widening, it will become more and more difficult (if not impossible) to keep most of the people relatively happy (most of the people's living conditions are deteriorating). The state will therefore have to increase its use of repressive measures (army and police and other ways of controlling people, eg. the Patriot Act and similar legislation in the UK and Australia) to control the masses.
Well, I think that if most people are becoming unhappy that they will vote in such a way that things will change. After all, capitalism as such is not part of a democracy ; it is capitalist because people decide so. I know that there are feedback systems so that they vote against their own interest by keeping that capitalist system in place, but if they do so, that means that they are deluded into thinking they are happy. And if you're deluded into thinking you're happy, well, you're happy :-) The same happens with religion.
I don't say that democracy is ironclad protected against everything, but at least I don't see an *intrinsic* instability.