• DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Americans are too weak to demand what we deserve. Too complacent.

    Worker productivity has skyrocketed over the last century, but we’re still working the same 40+ hour work weeks. What’s the point of advancing technology and increasing efficiency if our lives don’t get easier/happier?

    Healthcare is dogshit and we’re all categorically getting ripped off by it.

    We used to tax rich people appropriately in this country and, surprise surprise, the middle class was way stronger back then.

    Now we’re just pussies that let the useless mega-rich do whatever the fuck they want to us and idolize them for it.

    We’re a bunch of bitches is what we are. Too feeble and uneducated to bring about real change. Even voting against our own best interests because we can’t be bothered to learn anything. We’re honestly pathetic.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    they shaped their culture around anticommunism. you bet they will keep alienating their people further, and will hold off a revolution for as long as possible.

  • UmeU@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I have always said that so long as McDonalds has a hot burger for a few bucks on every street corner, there will not be a revolution in the US.

    Rather than starving to death, we have an obesity epidemic along with an opiate epidemic, which prevents the revolution from getting up off the couch.

    Not trying to claim a conspiracy here, just the way things are.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah, the gap between the wealthiest and everyone else literally does not matter at all, when it comes to ‘motivation for revolution’.

      The overall level/amount/condition of poverty is what matters. And let’s be real, things are not nearly as bad in the US today as they were in France before the French Revolution. Not even close.

      Fact is, if you magically bumped everyone up so that no one was making less than $75k a year, the wealth gap would be essentially identical to what it is now, because the gap between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the gap between 75k and hundreds of billions. But no one would be suffering in poverty, so would anyone care about the wealth gap, then? I seriously doubt it.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      McDonald’s is expensive now.

      A double cheeseburger was a dollar a few years ago, sure. But it’s almost that much for a single nugget these days.

      A hash brown is 3.50 at the one by my office.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Looked it up:

        McDonald’s double cheeseburger hasn’t been a dollar for over 15 years (started in 2002, and in 2008, the McDouble replaced it, which had one fewer slice of cheese). And the McDouble itself stopped being a dollar in 2013, over a decade ago. Bit more than “a few years ago”–I think Covid screwed up everyone’s perception of time more than usual, lol.

        That said, I get lunch at work several times a week at Wendy’s and always pay less than $5, not too bad all things considered imo.

    • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      It only takes about 3% of the population to push effective revolution. That’s still over ten million people. We might be getting close.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Looking at wealth distribution on a country-by-country basis is a mistake.

    Take that US wealth distribution graph and then graph it with the rest of the world; the reason there’s no revolution becomes obvious.

  • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    The “wealth distribution” theory of unrest is so thoroughly debunked its insane to see people who still think in these terms. Smh.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Despite the current wealth inequality a good number of people are still living decently enough.

    I’m waiting to see what happens when Trump starts putting his taxes in place. When people are miserable enough they’ll take to the streets and protest. If we reach a breaking point where living conditions completely break down and there still aren’t protests then it may as well be over for democracy.

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      America is a frog getting slowly heated in a pot of water. The only hope is to turn up the heat fast enough and high enough that the frog jumps out of the pot before it gets cooked

    • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah there is no single explanation for revolution. Looking strictly to wealth distribution is reductionistic at best. I mean, wealth distribution was arguably better in the U.S. in the 1860s than it was in the prelude to Revolutionary France and yet we had a Civil War lmfao. There are endless examples that disprove this rule. The reality is: popular unrest is extremely complicated, and the factors that lead up to it are varied with fluctuating levels of influence at different stages of development. Sure, perception of wealth is a key component… but its hardly an explainer.

  • coolusername@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    yes but have you considered that in nk they have no food and push the trains? (source: CIA) instead of all this radical talk i think we should VOTE harder, especially for progressive like bernie and aoc

  • exopp3333@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Tesla employee count: 140,473

    SpaceX employee count: 13,000

    Elon Musk could transfer $1 million in stock to each of his 153,473 employees,
    which would cost him $153 billion and he would still have a net worth of $302 billion!
    He’d still be the richest man in the world and would still have $56 billion more than Jeff Bezos!

    And some of that money he has came from under-paying factory workers at his Fremont, California assembly plant. For a long time the hourly rate was $22 (not sure what it is now) but auto plants in the Midwest were paying that or better and he was paying $22 per hour in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country.

    Elon is now worth more than Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates combined.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      And some of that money he has came from under-paying factory workers at his Fremont, California assembly plant. For a long time the hourly rate was $22 (not sure what it is now) but auto plants in the Midwest were paying that or better and he was paying $22 per hour in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country.

      All those employees were given stock options as part of their total compensation which those other auto factories did not give to everyone.

      All the early floor workers would be multi millionaires if they kept their initial stock, not counting using the employee program to buy more at a discounted rate or further employee incentives.

      Anyone who joined a little after the Model S was being sold and the early model 3 time up to around mid 2020 would have around a quarter million if they didn’t aquire any additional stock.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Tesla as a company created the most employee millionaires of any recent USA company due to giving every employee stock as part of their compensation.

      Early SpaceX employees are in a similar boat, but it’s harder to get rid of their shares since it’s private so it’s harder to quantify it.

    • rthomas6@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Tbf, if he transfered that stock, the price of it would crash as the employees sold it. He’d have to do some kind of slow transfer over several years.

      • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        All businesses should be worker or consumer cooperatives. Capital shouldn’t be divorced from stakeholders like in our current capitalist system, but rather socially owned by the direct stakeholders like in Mutualism.

    • fartripper@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      This is overall distribution by percentage, so aggregate total represented wouldn’t have an impact. If it were to have an impact, I think we’d have hoped it would mean the slope was more even.

    • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Poverty in 1700 is very different from poverty in 2000, which allows for significant, but not unlimited, skewing.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Really, I think anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

    • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      One could argue that the Church had been extremely efficient at manufacturing consent for centuries. It was still the case for most of French society in the late 1780s. It also led to a civil war between Revolutionaries and traditionalists (including peasants).

  • huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    The reason there isn’t a revolution in the USA is mostly down to atomization. Suburban growth directly leads to insular communities with no sense of responsibility to the rest of their brothers and sisters. Working class families in the burbs have functionally 0 ability to organize.

    To add that on, I like to underscore the gravity of the situation here with details:

    1. The top 10% of earners starts at ~170k/yr
    2. The top 1% start at ~820k/yr
    3. The top 0.1% start at ~3,300k/yr (3.3 million)
    4. If Elon Musk had 100% of his net worth in really basic bonds giving 5%/yr he’d be pulling in 22 MILLION dollars per year, forever.

    If the average person was paid like the 0.1% for 1 year they could retire and live off 65k/yr forever.

    This chart is broken down by quintiles but it illustrates the disparity well imo

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Not sure where you’re getting your income percentiles from.

      This site shows that 90th percentile (top 10%) household starts at $230k and 99th percentile (top 1%) starts at $631k.

      For individuals the same site shows that the 10% starts at $150k and the 1% starts at $430k.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Ok, I see where your source went wrong. Par for the course for Investopedia, which tends to get a lot of little details wrong (and sometimes misses the mark on the applicable scope of data that someone else has reported). But they’ve cited the Economic Policy Institute study of 2021 incomes, which looks at the average (mean) earnings within that group, rather than the actual amount that represents the boundary of that group. So it’s not that it takes $3.1 million to be in the top 0.1%, it’s that all the people of the top 1% average out to $3.1 million per year. Which, for the type of power distribution for household or individual incomes, is skewed heavily by the people who have the highest amounts.

          And looking at the mean within that group can be fine, for certain purposes, but they’ve gone with the incorrect headline of saying “how much income puts you in the top 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%?” So it’s a headline that is wrong, that reports on a different number within the data.

          And your own comment, saying that reaching each percentile “starts at” the reported number, is also wrong.

          Because holy shit does “dqydj.com” look sketchy as fuck.

          It just stands for “don’t quit your day job” and I’ve found that it’s a reliable resource for statistical data that’s widely available (like the ASEC numbers published by the Census Bureau and left to other people to actual turn into data visualization). It’s up to date, and the data matches the summary report on the Census website, so what’s the problem? The summary only reports the 90th and 95th percentiles, though, so I needed to find someone who actually reported on the thresholds for 99 (and not the averages within the top 1%).

    • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Neighborhood politics, social gatherings, community hotspots has massively declined in the last two generations,

      It’s really hard to organize anything face to face?

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        It is and while I don’t think that was Eisenhower’s 5d chess play it is more or less directly from cold war era policies that encouraged Americans to live anywhere besides a city.

        • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yet if you keep the comparison until present times, you can only acknowledge the fact that the French once again rioted very violently and for months back in 2018-20. The “yellow vests” were mostly lower-income workers from far away suburbs and villages. Facebook let them organize and have a real impact on national politics and policy.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            It was also a significant amount of right wing agitprop opposing any reduction to fossil fuel usage…

    • Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      No dude you mixed some numbers up - 5%/yr of 440 billion is 22 BILLION dollars per year.

      Unless you meant he could put 0.1% of his wealth (440 mil) to pull 22 million a year.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        While you were writing this comment I was updating my original comment because I messed up! Correct: 22 BILLION.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Market 10 year average is 11%. 400B at 11% for 30 years left of his life. That’s not 1 trillion dollars, not 2… Not 3… It’s over 9 trillion.

          His money if allowed to be passed down and kept in the market, would make more than 1T dollars a year at that point.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah but his net worth is tied mostly in specific stocks.

            And beyond that broad market withdrawal rates mean you can really only safely pull about 4% without eating into the nest egg.

            But yeah it’s all true - he’s on track to a trillion before he dies.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 days ago

              He doesn’t really need to sell though does he. Like imagine if ceo’s came out to trade and give public announcements beforehand to build trust. For instance an Apple Executive trading directly with Musk equal valued shares and telling the populous it is a good thing as these executives are showing that they believe strongly in these other companies. Next thing you know he’s got his investments varied across every field, and should maintain a portfolio matching the market average whether one field struggles for a bit or not. It “looks” like they are all showing faith in each other’s future gains, but in reality is is diversifying their portfolio to ensure no large setbacks

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      What’s interesting is that this doesn’t even tell the whole picture.

      Because those people earning $170k/year? More than likely their net worth is negative. They owe more than they’re making, and even at that income rate and excluding long term debt, they have just enough in savings to last three months max.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Most people that are making that kind of money are pretty smart. They have multiple investment strategies, multiple places that they store their money, and typically have some sort of easily accessible nest egg (like a mutual fund or crypto). I guarantee about 3/4 of them have enough to last AT LEAST 6-8 months without a job before things started getting a little tight.

        If your living within your means and making that kind of money, you don’t really have to worry about losing a job or things breaking down, or other big issues (short of medical emergencies).

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yeah and those are national statistics.

        You don’t hit the top 10% in New York state until you break 330k

  • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    From what I’ve been seeing throughout the years, I’d say give it time. Change usually takes a bit to get started and things usually hit a low point before a breaking point.

    The next four years of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum running things could trigger something especially if they try to go through with that P-'25 BS. As it is, the indiscriminate mass deportation in it that they are planning (including natural-born) could easily be a bit of a powder-keg for starting a massive protest.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    There are significant barriers in place for revolution in the US. The Proletariat is still under the belief that supporting US Imperialism will benefit themselves more than Socialism. Additionally, theory is frequently coopted by Trots and other impractical forms, resulting in people endlessly seeking to critique society, not change it (your Noam Chomskys and the like). Moreover, labor organization has been millitantly crushed.

    I recommend starting with theory. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you want a place to start.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      i saw someone else try to share a similar message on tiktok yesterday and the overwhelming majority of the american users referred theory as little more than “book clubs for intellectuals” despite the chinese & latin american users trying to defend its usefulness on the same post.

      getting my feed wet with this reading list is making it clear to me that i’m still a heavily propagandized american liberal and some of the tiktokers who called it a book club had seemingly more knowledge of theory that I did, so i wasn’t qualified to speak up; what would your response be to such a criticism?

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        People who denounce theory denounce revolution. It’s plain and simple. Back in pre-revolutionary Russia, the SRs declared “an end to theory” as a unifying factor to be celebrated, and declared assassinations “transfer power.” This is, of course, ridiculous, theory is important because it is useful despite disagreements over it, and assassinations do not “transfer power,” but create a void filled by those closest to it, always bourgeois, never proletarian.

        It’s important to recognize that Westerners have an implicit desire to maintain the status quo, having been taught all our lives that we have the “best possible” system yet. The western leftist idea of “no true Marxism yet” fits conveniently with that narrative, it’s deeply chauvanistic and moreover anti-revolutionary. Looking at the most popular trends of Marxism in the west, we see many Trots and “orthodox” Marxists, some of the least successful in producing real revolution globally, while in the Global South Marxism-Leninism is dominant.

        I highly recommend reading Masses, Elites, and Rebels: the Theory of “Brainwashing.”

      • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        To add on to what else has been said, you can just be blunt and obnoxious about it. Tell them “If a bunch of barely literate peasants in China can figure out Kapital on their own despite it being written in another language, you can read a pamphlet or two.”

        People smarter than anyone alive have done more in worse conditions and did us the courtesy of writing down what worked and what didn’t. The Bolsheviks, Black Panther Party, anarchists in Civil War Spain and Nazi Germany, etc. were in life or death situations trying to mobilize leftwing revolution. The least anyone calling themselves a socialist can do is read what they wrote. If you say “I don’t need to read theory because it’s just a book club,” you’re being an arrogant, egotistical asshole.

        We also live in an age where there are audiobooks and videos that will read this stuff to you for free, something our predecessors didn’t have. People with disabilities have used these tools to help them understand theory when they struggle with reading. There’s really no excuse.