I like to think about how much time/effort/energy has been put into designing and indoctrinating people into systems so that that the 95% or so will actually do the work to defend its existence and the elite class can operate effectively as managers rather than ever get their hands dirty. How easy and self-reinforcing it is for people to operate against their own interests is the product of millenia of heavy research into information control, psychology, and power, not an emergent property of social people
People complaint but I argued he was the best employee we had thus far. "If we can find just a few of these guys I too can stay home whenever I feel like it! We just need 3 or 4 of these guys to do what use to be a one man job. Then it will actually get done in stead of you guys wasting precious time talking about how bad he is, wanting him gone. Gone where? To sit at home and live of our tax money? Well, I for one love paying for it. He should sit at home until you guys wake up to the new reality!
Those unmotivated milenimals apparently are the answer. Waving a moldy dried out carrot in front of their nose has no effect.
Its not a real solution of course... at least I think not? Not sure really. But things will change regardless. It might not be pretty, it will at least be interesting times.
History shows revolution almost always ends in civil war and destroyed infrastructure. You can't just create a power vacuum with nothing to fill it.
Even if you do manage revolution on a unified front, it always seems to splinter within a generation unless something radically new from some outside source forces you to alter or die.
The best revolutions start with an abdication and reform, reform, reform.
The only way i see that happeniing in the US is if everyone started voting third party and stopped being a two party system. That would create some competiton among the ruling elite.
The problems actually originate from the way we engage in peaceful transactions and activities among each other. It is pretty much universally agreed by economists that something akin to a land value tax is suitable for the efficient allocation of land. This should be used as an opportunity to give everyone an equal share of land on the planet. By that I mean parts of the revenue of a land value tax would be paid out as a citizen's dividend, it is almost as if you were receiving a land certificate but was automatically renting it out for money. You can then use that money to rent your own land.
This would fix the "rent is too damn high" problem. The money problem mostly fixed itself in its own but anyone who would advocate for e.g. a demurrage currency could introduce it as an equivalent to food stamps, not necessarily for the entire population.
Unfortunately, it seems to be an extreme historical anomaly for elites to put the welfare of their people over the zero-sum needs of their own class. One recent such anomaly was in the middle of the 20th century--The U.S. and USSR both invested heavily in building large middle classes (it being historically rare for such to exist at all) because they wanted research supremacy, which you can't get if you squander 95% of the natural intellectual talent, during the Cold War. Also, the existence of other systems put both sides on better behavior: capitalism couldn't be as scummy as it is today, and state-run socialism had to improve material circumstances and scale back the authoritarian tendencies it had developed during WW2... because, otherwise, neither system would have survived. But now that the Cold War is over, we're stuck in this global authoritarian capitalism that retains the worst aspects of both systems.
The division we're seeing is, of course, artificial. The elites deliberately pit people against each other (and trot out old divisive garbage: zero-sum nationalism, weird-ass conspiracy theories to distract from the more boring and often technically legal conspiracies occurring in plain sight, and of course antisemitism) because otherwise, the natural lay of the land would have 95+ percent of the people guillotining their dusty asses. That being said, I can't think of an easy way to end it. We do, as humans, need to (using your words) engage and unite; the problem is that what we need to unite to do--that is, overthrow the current global corporate elite using any means and mechanisms that shall work--is extremely socially unacceptable because those in charge have made it so. Thus, we're just expected to accept a declining standard of living and a nearly complete halt on technical progress at a time when we need it the most.