Have-Nots vs. Would-Earns

As John Robb notes, a key issue in Ukraine and elsewhere (including Venezuela, Thailand, and perhaps Turkey again) is the easy which an open source insurgency may be started and continued. If the 20th century and earlier history had the classic dichotomy of haves vs. have-nots, than perhaps the 21st might be the haves vs. the would-earns.

In this case, the underclass is comprised of people simply yearning for an honest day's work, a chance to perform a trade or profession without much interference from the power elites. However, many of the "power elites" are individually not that powerful themselves. The system/organization that employs them restricts their ability to use their individual judgment in certain situations, perhaps compounded by group-think and institutional bias. For example, a corrupt cop shaking down bribes may be given a blind eye (if not encouraged for a cut) by his cash-strapped superiors. However, an individual still effectively set an example that sparked a series of revolts. A fruit vendor burning himself in protest started the Arab Spring.

Even with tools like sock puppet accounts, online censorship/manipulation (even if subtle rather than overt), and plain spinning are deployed (and I believe they were in many such cases), there comes a point where a situation can no longer be contained. In the developed countries, there is less desperation (for now), allowing much of the systems to continue to function. In more desperate circumstances, even a humble fruit salesman or bulldozer operator can help topple a regime. 

Death Throes of the Dinosaurs

"The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

All around the world, larger institutions are fumbling and stuttering to keep pace with forces beyond their control. The problem with this is such groups often resort to brutality, instead of conventional rule of law mechanisms (or even a convincing show trial). There comes a point of diminishing returns, however, when the vampire cannot find enough blood to sustain itself.

Take, for instance, cable TV. Despite a few decent shows, many networks prefer selling conventional subscriptions instead of experimenting with online streaming. They often abused patent and intellectual property laws to squash competition. Despite this, their efforts merely delay the inevitable. If they were smart, they'd shift their focus to streaming, but corporations, like government bureaucracies, take years to readjust.

From erroneous links and takedowns, to companies censoring their own sites from search engines, even the apex predator of the globalized era start showing their age. Swarms of activists, fans, citizen journalists, bloggers, and others increasingly observe the dysfunction, and can join in on some activity. This is not a 'right' nor 'left' activity, but merely the application of open-source insurgency or 4th generation warfare principles to the socio-economic plane (or simpler terms, 'swarm attacks'). Such swarms are comprised of members who may not be the smartest nor the most capable, but they are capable of observing and copying what works.

The future, even with energy shortages and decaying infrastructure, still allows for much to be salvaged. It is possible to put almost anything online, even without power or advanced infrastructure. Despite this, corporations and governments still chase diminishing returns.  Such a system is potent, but so were the dinosaurs. In contrast, certain insects have not changed significantly in millions of years. Swarm logic is a proven principle in nature and economics alike.