if they were prone to revolution, you'd think "get a danged job" would be the path of least resistance (pun fully intended).

I've been thinking about this with respect to America's future. Basically, suppose people want a revolution. Well, that would require a competent leader to make the mob effective. This is the rub, if you have leadership skills then you make bank and would be in 'the system'.

One thing US politics has been phenomenal at is ensuring that there will never be organized resistance to the government. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. I do not think it's a coincidence that politicians seem to have been focusing on issues that are increasingly incendiary, arguably in lieu of more relevant issues.

When the country is split down partisan lines, it ensures that any action taken will also be cast in this light and demonized accordingly. And even better for the status quo, it can also be used to get people to even vote against their own interest. How many people voted for Hillary or Trump because they thought 'yes, this person truly represents my interests and views'? How many voted for them because they thought 'oh dear god the [other person] winning is simply unthinkable!'?

How did the American revolution happen? Aside from having a huge number of competent leaders, it was framed as a unified citizenry 'us' versus the outsider English politicians 'them'. And this is a general theme of revolutions. It is 'us' versus 'them' when 'us' is the people and 'them' is a detached government. Yet in the US 'us' means one half of the population and 'them' means the other half while the government seemingly works to further antagonize this divide.

> I do not think it's a coincidence that politicians seem to have been focusing on issues that are increasingly incendiary, arguably in lieu of more relevant issues.

I do not know whether you intend to, but "this is not a coincidence" sounds like it implies a conspiracy.

I believe it is a coincidence, but in the same way that evolution is based on coincidence. Random mutations create by coincidence an organism that is better adapted to its environment, hence it survives. There is no need for a conspiracy to arrive at a political system like ours (it's just stabler than average and thus survives), just like how evolution does not need an intelligent designer to come up with intelligent designs.

Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as they get. The US government has also been outed engaging in such in the past to help stabilize themselves. COINTELPRO is probably the most well known example of this - a program that lasted through 4 political administrations. Faced with the rising political influence of groups ranging from civil rights protesters, to the Communist Party of the USA, the FBI engaged in an extensive and far reaching program designed to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections". The Wiki entry [1] gives a decent intro. The program was only revealed after a number of activists burgled an FBI field office and hit the jackpot.

So, our system is already absolutely a product of exactly what I'm describing. Now let's zoom forward to today. Congressional approval in the US ranges from the low teens to the single digits. [2] Think about that for a minute. That means upwards of 90% of people are dissatisfied with the most basic functioning of our government. If we weren't so divided among one another, our government would be replaced in short order by democratic consensus. But with what..? That question even gives politicians a sort of cognitive dissonance to put themselves as the 'good guys.' It's entirely possible we could, in retribution, elect individuals that could cause immense harm to this nation.

So you're a politician. What to do when you want to help ensure you and your fellow party members continue to get elected, even when 90% of people think you're doing a bad job. What do you do? You could do a better job, but that's tough - you need and rely on "donations" to get into and stay in office and the unspoken promises of those "donations" are a large part of the reason people think you're doing such an awful job. Making people despise and distrust the other group so much that they are willing to vote against their own self interest is one very obvious solution. Let's go back to COINTELPRO and look at some of its intended effects:

- 1. Create a negative public image of activists by publicly smearing their character

- 2. Break down organization by spark internal conflicts and exasperating racial tension.

- 3. Restrict the ability to groups to protest by using infiltrated agents who promote violence and lawless behavior at protests.

- 4. Restrict the ability of individuals to participate by engaging in surveillance, false arrests, and character assassination.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[2] - https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job...

The implicit assumption here is that American firms actually higher leaders based on some kind of objective leadership skills (and that the market will suck them all up).

I'm guessing whoever wrote this hasn't grown up poor/discriminated against, didn't beat their peers and find themselves never-the-less judged/ousted because they "weren't of the right background/proper means/cultural fit".

And remember, all it takes is a few key leaders. And that includes those who may have been part of the system but were unjustly ousted...(or those who just think they are getting a wiff of the winds of change and want to be on the right side)

/I'm not making any actual prediction of revolution the US incidentally. I'd be inclined against any theories of imminent revolution. Just pointing out that simple theories of "it wouldn't happen here because of our fake-meritocracy" are pretty off the mark.

The problem with your statement is that many people did and continue to do exactly what was stated going from rags to riches. Elon Musk is probably the most well known example. Now one of the most influential business and technological leaders in this nation, he immigrated from South Africa with little more than to rely on than his ability, motivation, and work ethic. A soft spoken immigrant with a slight speech impediment and South African accent is not exactly what you'd call 'the right background/means/cultural fit', yet it posed little issue.

More fundamentally the problem is that in America there is a very distorted sense of self. A total of 4% of Americans think they are less intelligent than the average American. [1] And so the vast majority of people in this nation who are not particularly meritorious think they absolutely are, or at the worst no less meritorious than average. Yet that, no matter how you measure it, is simply not the case.

[1] - https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/05/11/intelligence/

Elon Musk is the exception used to sell you the american dream.

The reason I chose Elon Musk is because he's a household name and most people are familiar with his story. However, 67% of all "high-net-worth" Americans are self made, with only 8% directly inheriting their wealth. [1] If you consider only men (as women have an easier time marrying into wealth) it's 76%.

I used to be more aligned with what you're saying. An eye opening paper for me was this [2]. I ran into that when actually searching information on the chiseling out of the middle class. And that paper does describe that. In 1979 the middle class controlled 46% of all income, and the upper/rich classes controlled 30%. Today (well at least today as of 2014) the rich and upper class control 63% with the middle class left with 26%. There's even been a chiseling out of the middle class as a whole declining from 38.8% of society to 32% of society.

But the eye opener is this. This is the change in the size of each economic group between 1979 and 2014:

- Rich: 0.1% -> 1.8%

- Upper Middle Class: 12.9% -> 29.4%

- Middle Class: 38.8% -> 32%

- Lower Middle Class: 23.9% -> 17.1%

- Poor or Near-Poor: 24.3% -> 19.8%

If you're concerned that partisan bias may be tilting those numbers (as such figures are certainly subject to a variety of different interpretations), wiki has a section on the political stance of the Urban Institute [3]. Beyond that, that paper is quite readable and their methodology very transparent. It's extremely eye opening.

[1] - https://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--stu...

[2] - https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#Political_stan...

Is the "size" of the economic groups given in population or income/wealth?

Population.

This is exactly my point, the rare exceptions are the ones capable of actually pulling off a real revolution; they get sucked into the American Dream.

This leaves everyone else without effective organization. Look at all the occupy stuff that was supposed leaderless; did it accomplish anything?

There are objective things like 'people follow you'

Why are you making assumptions about me?

What if leadership isn't about beating your peers, but about using influence to bring people together?

> American firms actually higher leaders

American firms actually hire leaders.

That describes a ton of populist leaders throughout history though. Sometimes it is more beneficial to raise a mob and usurp power than to stay withing the system.

History has been defined more by classes and royalty and rich familes, and America has more people that have risen based on their ability to execute. My claim is that this creates a release valve of sorts where people that can execute can rise in ranks.

> History has been defined more by classes and royalty and rich familes, and America has more people that have risen based on their ability to execute.

Can you be sure that this assertion is true of both the past and the future?

I suspect there is a not insignificant subset of males especially that would find the idea of anarchy more exciting than the humdrum of job-seeking and (worse) job-doing.

Again...

As per my other response re: your apparent implicit belief in a labor theory of value, now you're espousing the implicit belief that a labor market must tend towards full employment, and at a wage level that makes revolution unattractive.

If I might make the observation, your positions seem to be littered with false beliefs/understandings.

I'm assuming another one of those false beliefs would be that you'd be in the relative merit camp under any such meritocracy...

You must be exacerbated... so I apologize. But, what exactly is false about this. It stands to reason that getting a job sounds a lot easier than starting a revolution for most people.

Only if your economy has jobs. Let's say AI revolution brings 90% unempoyment: then it's easier to revolt than to find a job, if:

- you still can: you are not yet a slave, with the ruling class + machines not yet fully in control

- you have a reason to revolt: your life quality is low, because society does not give a damn about the losers

With those being true, a revolution should happen well before reaching those high unemployment figures.

Despite the propaganda, statistically the United States has one of the lowest starvation rates on Earth at .58/100,000 - half that of Norway.

The majority are not homeless but rather shut-ins, uncared-for elderly or suffering from other mental health issues.

I accept your argument that few are starving like a national geographic picture. Instead we have merely undernourished schoolchildren in the richest country in world history.

As for the adults, maybe we can write sleep outside until you freeze, get shot/stabbed, or jailed where you're threatened with sexual assault and are in general treated like a disease until you acquire enough money to escape the poverty trap and possibly mental help, the least funded area of America's inhumane medical system that is one of the top reasons people go broke.

The root cause of childhood hunger is more often than not either criminal neglect or parental/financial incompetence than actual cost.

I personally grew up in a single minimum wage income household, which supported 2 adults and 3 children. I'm very familiar with dubious food. That said, it is quite reasonable to meet the caloric needs of a grade school-age child in the United States with little regard for taste or variety for roughly a dollar a day. Adding some variety and nutrition to that wouldn't be much more. Formula for very small children averages between about $40-$100 a month so they are a little more expensive, but you did specifically say school children.

There are 50 lb bags of rice at my local grocery store for $15. I have bought them before, they're short grain and not very good so you wouldn't want it everyday, but in a pinch you can meet your caloric necessities with rice for basically cents.

I actually don't have a very strong sense of taste, and manage to get by on ~$3-$6 of food a day, my diet consisting largely of over-hard eggs, canned fish and canned string beans. I am quite confident I could get by on half of that if need be.

As far as homelessness goes, I don't have reliable statistics on this, but depending on where you get your statistics between 20 and 70 percent of America's homeless have mental health issues.

I am perfectly aware that this is anecdotal, but I have a friend who worked for an organization that housed homeless in unoccupied Homes and Apartments. According to her, the majority wandered off because they did not understand what was going on. In Minnesota no less, it's cold.

My point is simply that there is a sizable portion if not majority who cannot be helped without stepping on their personal freedoms, because they won't allow it, for better or worse.

Good lord, thank you for this. It astounds me how completely off-the-mark progressive thinking around poverty is - probably because it's a) not data-driven in the least, and b) primarily championed by people who grew up middle class.

Poverty in the US is NOT the same as poverty in Somalia. It's not even the same as poverty in Estonia. Childhood hunger is the best example - malnourished children in the US are in that state because of abuse.

Anyone that grew up in a truly shitty North American neighbourhood in the last 20 years knows - the people that were suffering were not suffering because of a lack of resources. They made bad decisions, or had health problems, or were abuse victims.

This is a very helpful comment thanks for posting. However, I would posit that financial incompetence is something we can avoid by removing financial barriers to decent food. If a child wants a snack, and those snacks were free, then how good you or your parents are with money wouldn't matter. We can implement systems that don't rely on individual competence to achieve end results we want in that vein.

As for the homeless, I would posit for that 20-70% with behavioral issues, we can start at least by offering medicare for all so their symptoms can be treated. Secondly, for the 80-30% who are merely unhoused, the solution for them works quite well!

> canned fish and canned string beans

Careful your sodium intake, rinsing the beans can reduce it by 40%, outta luck for the fish.

(good comment btw)

There is actually little evidence that sodium is bad for you, and the advice to avoid it comes from people like the AHA who are basically just trying to sell you breakfast cereal.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-sodium-per-day

You are correct.

Excess mortality is often hard to pin on its actual cause. If you can imagine 100 people in 2 alternative universes. One in which they are well fed, have access to medical treatment, get normal sleep. Another in which they are tossed on the street where they eat poorly, sleep poorly on a cold corner and live poorly.

In the second universe they don't drop dead of being poor on the spot or tomorrow they just gradually die a lot sooner.

Its much harder to drum up enthusiasm to fix. There is a 60% chance that 7 out of 10 of these people will die an average of 10-20 years sooner than it is to save someone who will die next week.

As a resident of Norway I'm interested in this statistic, please name the source.

Who's starving?