• 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

  • 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.”

  • Jamablaya@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I mean…there was an attempt. The chronically online seem to think a revolution in the USA would be socialist, but these are Americans we’re talking about. Its either be back to 1800s style libertarian ethics or fascism, corporatism, something like that, decimating government power not increasing it.

    • 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).

    • 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.

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

    I know it’s cliche by this point. But this one misattributed1 quote has become more prescient than ever.

    They’ve learned that giving us new shiny shit every year will keep the majority of us mollified against all kinds of injustice.

    1 - Commonly credited to George Orwell’s novel. It’s actually from the stage play adaptation.

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

      I wouldn’t glorify Orwell, he was violently reactionary, even Anarchists fighting alongside him questioned why he wasn’t on the “other side.” He had a deeply aristocratic worldview, admired Hitler, and despised the Working Class for their “stupidity.” I recommend reading On Orwell as well as A Critical Read of Animal Farm.

      • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Not glorifying Orwell. I’m aware of his history. The quote actually belongs to either Robert Icke or Duncan MacMillan; the two men who wrote the stage adaptation. Politics aside, it’s a fitting quote.

      • nomy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        If you just give everyone unlimited bread sticks most people never even make it to the entree, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

  • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

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

    The French people do not tolerate shit, the Americans on the hand will wallow in it and say work harder for less.

    • nomy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s one of the main reasons our owner class has sought to mock the French with “surrender” slurs and “freedom fries.”

      They’d very much like the citizenry to forget Frances contribution to America and “western culture” over the last 200 years lest they get any ideas.

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

    Americans have historically been obsequiously subservient to the big man.

    From Washington to Rockefeller to Bill Gates or Elon Musk, if you’re the richest man in the country people will practically worship you as a demigod rather than revolt at your presence.

    We may say we love Jesus, but our real God is Mamon

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

      Rockefeller hid in his guarded home for years before he and Carnegie did their philanthropy PR stuff. Carnegie fled to England, and was putting out press releases that supported the Unions, while at the same time telling Frick to gun down the strikers. The gilded age was full of violence that created folk heroes to this day. Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid, Pretty Boy George, Al Capone. These people were absolutely loved by the masses because they would destroy all the paper that said that old widow Johnson still owed on her mortgage. Bankers were beaten, hung, and shot for attempting to evict poor people.

      We may have revered Washington, but since The Gilded Age, lots of us were taught by our grandparents and great grandparents that the greedy have no end to their greed, short of a bullet to the brain.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, ‘It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.’ It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: ‘if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?’ There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

      Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

      Kurt Vonnegut