Yeah, that's what I think is really still missing today- we have not had any mass protests of real substantial value even though many are upset. Despite what some like to claim (including the article) I don't think Occupy Wall Street was successful at all- ok, they gave us "the 1% vs the 99%" terminology, but there was no agenda or suggestion on how to change things.
So while I think the article has good points, I think it won't get much traction because there's a lot that can happen before "bring out the pitchforks" which implies armed revolution. I mean I grew up a few miles from where the
Homestead Strike happened, when literally armed company mercenaries murdered strikers. Crazy stuff that required thousands of militiamen to end and was the worst labor incident up to then, but the rest of the country didn't dissolve into revolution as a result, nor did it really hurt Andrew Carnegie at all (or Frick, who was a real asshole who many believe would've deserved it).
I guess while I'm happy more people than just Warren Buffet are out there saying "hey fellow rich guys, let's think about this" I don't know how much fighting rhetoric with rhetoric accomplishes. I also frankly don't know if much change can happen before the Republicans become completely marginalized at the rate they're going (remember how Romney reminded them all two years ago how they have to change if they want to win? nothing's changed)... which is one of the points he's trying to get accross.
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.