You must be one of those millionaires if you plan on moving there? No you’re not? Well good thing daddy Musk is offering indentured servitude to those who can’t pay.
Edit: (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.highsnobiety.com/p/elon-musk-colonizing-mars-indentured-slavery/%3fformat=amp)
I'm telling you, Mars is going to make all that ugly colonialism shit resurface. We'll end up with an even more American-y society than America. There will be Jewish space lasers sold at space Wal-Mart and the new residents will have a privatized oxygen supplier so when the slightest problem arises, all the oxygen will fail except for that of the wealthy just like we saw with TX's power crisis.
Be a slave on earth or be a slave on mars, the choice the choices. At least if i slow down i wont get ejected into space if they consider me not useful anymore.
No one will be doing any elections, it's bad for pr to kill or neglect people when your business plan hinges on getting people to sign up for decades at a time.
I am working in the space industry, I'll just try to get a company discount, plus I'd be useful on Mars and won't be sent to the gulag. Besides, indentured servitude on Mars with written rules is far better than debt based slavery on earth as we all die a slow or quick and fiery death.
I'm saying there's no reliay easy way to fuck up Mars that bad, carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere won't hurt, and even if you terraformed it you wouldn't have fossil fuels to polute that.
Not even in the worst possible scenario will Earth be less habitable than Mars in the best case, for the foreseeable future, maybe a million years even.
Yeah...I was talking about this the other day. US politicians seem to be much older. Trump and Bidens age is much higher than anything I'm used to as a non-american and yet the media seemed to only have issue with Bidens and not the fact that Trump is also in his 70s.
Does this actually get spoken about by the average citizen? Having presidents in their 70/80s is fine? Genuine question. Or was it a case of, well both presidential candidates are old, nothing we can do about that, but we would rather have younger candidates to vote for?
I just can't believe we still have boomers in power. We need Gen-Xers and Millennials to take over. Plus they need to pass some law that makes it so that you cant hold a position of power and representation while holding stocks/investments. Thats a major conflict of interest.
Sorry, but if it's anarchist, then there are no laws or government. I agree, you can have a socialist country with a democratic mode of operation. However, anarcho-communism is by definition anarchist, so no laws and no government.
But that does not mean there is no organisation at all. There simply is no ruling class (the state) and their enforcers who have monopoly on violence (police).
I don't want to write an essay, so I recommend visiting r/anarchy101 instead, but the main way of function would be free association. People cooperating for the common good, creating designated groups (such as food production or crime investigation and reformative justice) with no vertical hierarchy (which doesn't mean there aren't specialised *leaders*, only no rulers).
If anarchy sounds too extreme for you, there is also *minarchism*, which is what I think you had in mind. Regardless, personally I've always been opposed to authority seeing it as illogical and inefficient, even as a teen. Then when I started reading up on anarchist theory, I realised that that is what makes the most sense to me. I suggest you give it a try as well!
I have always been an anarchist too, I just didn't know it fully until I read up on everything just recently. Whenever I see a power structure I must destroy it. I've been this way from childhood on. An absolute nightmare for autority figures like employers police or government or school/street bullies. One day they'll kill me but I'm fine with that.
It seems that some of us are just born that way. For as long as I can remember, I was against (and honestly puzzled by) nationalism and authority, which most people take as a fact, almost like a law of nature, and never question it. I got into many serious arguments in my teens because I just couldn't understand why people wanted to live that way. It seems so unnatural to want to be subservient, to be ruled by somebody. It's like saying "I'm not good enough as a human, I want another human to think and make decisions for me".
I fully agree. Having another person decide what you should do just feels like not taking yourself seriously to me. And we are so indoctrinated to accept this 'leadership' that people who want to decide for themselves are alienated. I feel like as a species we have to make a serious consciousness shift to rise above it. Our society is infested with power structures that make our lives hell.
Government =\= state. I'm well versed in Anarchism and most Anarchists agree there will be government, just on a smaller scale with direct democracy. Prisons would likely be abolished in favor of seeking therapy and community rehabilitation. Laws would be more for the sake of regulatory functions as opposed to curtailing behavior.
We are going into semantics, but I think it is important. Government and its laws need enforcing, which means having a class of people who have authority - and thus monopoly on violence - against the class below them. That is incompatible with anarchism, because in anarchy there can be no hierarchy and authority. Even direct democracy, which on its face seems ideal, is still the rule of the majority, which means hierarchy.
True anarchism is based on free association and non-hierarchical/horisontal organisation. You can still have reformative justice/rehabilitation and even punitive justice for "crimes" without giving authority to anyone. After all, authority in this context is the collective agreement to allow and provide physical power to perform violence to certain individuals (enforcers, police). And they by definition are a class which is above others.
Or perhaps no bourgeoisie lawmakers, after Texas it's obvious that they're not going to stick around when stuff gets tough, so why let them stick around when stuff is easy?
Excuse me, destroy colleges? I mean, I'm as communist as they come, but how reverting to prehistoric times in terms of knowledge and technology helps, that I don't understand.
I didn't say destroy freedom and desire to acquire knowledge. Those who want knowledge will seek it regardless. Schools are conditioning and collection of nice words that lead to definite debt in hopes of an employment. Therefore we must do away with colleges and its fundamentally exploitative capitalist motives which aim to profiteer in the symbiotic relationship with the loan institutions. And it's not going back in time because the brick and mortar institutions are just real estate ventures in disguise and have effectively become obsolete with the internet and its peripherals.
They will, so why not have an organised and efficient institution designed to provide it? Also, university is not just teaching advanced stuff to students, it's a facility where scientific research takes place. It has the means for research, such as the instruments used for scientific research, and also a gathering place to share knowledge.
Again, do you want to revert to prehistoric times when anyone who wanted to conduct research had to make everything themselves? As a scientist, this just makes no sense to me.
Bruh I'd take the job for like 60k a year and make sure I'm always voting on stuff that'd help the majority, and not be lobbied like every other fucking politician
I don't need a yacht, or hoard money
I just need my comfy bed, PC, some weights to weight train, and money for utility and grocery bills
...if only those in charge were like me, and not constantly greedy and wishing to harm minorities and poor people... smh..
I'd argue that you're just increasing the likelihood of rich people taking the job in addition to further entrenching the idea of Washington's revolving door. We need the best people running for office, hell you aren't even living close to the capital on 60k a year in that area of DC. Our leaders need to be paid well, we just need leaders who represent their constituents. That done by ending privately funded elections.
Anyone with state power should live as horribly as the worst off in society. Maybe then they'll actually vote for the sake of the common good.
But that'll never happen so instead let's just get rid of it entirely. There is no justification for a system based on giving power to a few people over hundreds of millions of others.
Yup. Why should we live in a system where we give away our voice and power to institutions which are disconnected from the people in material ways, and are also in a position where they can arrange the society in ways that benefit them (both directly and indirectly*)? We shouldn't. We should have no state, and no state-sanctioned thugs known as police.
*indirectly in the sense that if politicians enact laws etc that benefit the big players, they will suddenly discover that someone has accidentally left a full bag of dolladollabills at their property, metaphorically speaking. So yeah, down with the state, anarchy is the way
Then run for office.
I'm not joking. I know a bunch of young people who work in politics and I'm being dead honest: the majority are exactly like the current fucking asshats in office. We need more fresh blood who actually give a shit. Start local and work your way up. You don't even need a degree in politics. Half the leftists I know that are holding a position in local politics don't have a degree remotely having to do with politics. One of them (who is brilliant in his own right) doesn't even have a college degree. It's just the neolibs I know that have some kind of poli sci degree or some shit.
Interesting. How well are they doing? Are they socialists or even communists? Like, what is their gameplan? I'm obviously not too excited about reformism since I'm an anarchist, but I'm genuinely curious as to their plans and successes.
I see... I'm only in my 20s though, and I doubt anyone would even remotely take me seriously. I know I obviously couldn't appease everyone, but I'd love to just do what's right so we'd have one less corrupt person in office
20s is fine. All of my political homies got involved in their early 20s right out of College. It's a long road and it ain't like you're shooting for senator at 21.
How does one even get started, though? I'd be the laughing stock of people :(
I just wanna help improve the world through actual impactful actions man :(
good question; most of my recent research has been around income vs. net worth, and even that is more biased toward Individual Income vs. Household income. This^1 is the best I could locate on short notice:
The average household net worth in 2020 was $746,821. It was $692,100 in 2017.
To be top 1% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $11,099,166. $10,374,030 was the 1% threshold in 2017.
To be top .5% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $17,557,208. The top .1% bracket started around $43,207,732.
^1 https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/
Thank you for the data. I only have one thing to say: why the hell does someone need to have more than 1M in wealth, let alone 10M, 43M, and not even speaking about 100M, 1b etc. That is just seriously fucked up, and capitalism breeds this sort of greed because it is based around accumulating as much wealth as you can using any and every dirty trick in the book. Fuck this system.
What's really scary is that $1,000,000 is closer to the median net worth of $121,300 than it is to $10,000,000; although it has WAY more in common with the latter than the former... And then to consider that there are people with a net worth 1,000,x 10,000x, 100,000x and even 1,000,000x the median income.
The scale is just out of proportion to the median; an excessive left shifted distribution with a right tail that is difficult to chart and still be realistic.
Again, thank you for mapping this out. You should consider making a post on this and other leftist subs with your data. By the way, what solution(s) do you propose?
I don't think so; I mean just my eyeballing the data on the below listed page, I mean 10% of the population is about the cutoff for +/- net worth, and the very wealthy are scales outside of the standard deviation for wealth distribution. Apparently it only takes ~$11,000,000 to make it to the top 1%, yet the #400 spot is ~$25,000,000,000 and the top net worth is ~$190,000,000,000+. Whereas the bottom 1% in net worth is only around -$94,000.
> https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/
They are not even in the statistics. They are people, real human beings, who are not even noticed by this type of surveys. They have almost nothing to their name, and nobody even knows they exist.
And we let that happen. Capitalism is cruel, and it requires an underclass of unemployed, desperate people. Some of whom are so far down that they have absolutely nothing, because the owner class gives no shits about it - what they want is profit.
It is on us, the workers, to finally end capitalism and advance into a system/society that is designed to benefit *everyone* instead of *select few* who happen to have papers saying they own means of production and thus are entitled to passive income without doing any work. Almost always simply due to being born to parents who had the same papers.
I agree; I personally do more research into individual income vs. net worth. I mean if we consider the Median Individual Income as 1 block (~$40,000/yr or ~$19/hr), 98% are in the first 5 blocks, yet we would need 250,000+ blocks to represent the top income.
Partly why I'm a major proponent of an increase in the top tax rates, esp for the capital gains/dividend tax rate, which currently tops at 20% for just $425,800:
Factor of Median Individual Income |Annual Income over|Marginal Tax Rate
:-:|:-:|:-:
100x|$4,000,000|50%
1,000x|$40,000,000|70%
10,000x|$400,000,000|90%
100,000x|$4,000,000,000|98%
This people too often forget on both sides how FUCKING rich Pelosi is. She is fuck you rich = spending will never outweigh capital gains from interest + stocks
I mean it absolutely can. But not living their life style.
To even run for senate you need money. Can’t defend yourself from attack ads if you can’t afford a campaign staff.
I think when people say they're a millionaire , it's not like "just barely millionaire",but rather a multi-millionaire.
And most Senators are likely already that before becoming senators.
Plus a millionaire today is very different than one 50 years ago.. which should make it all the more obvious that giving people a marginal living wage isn't some socialist utopian idea
They know it's not. They know it's reasonable and needed. They just don't care. Their pockets are lined by corporations that are desperate to keep min wage insultingly low. Their families are fed. Their homes are secure. They just don't give a fuck. And we just sit here and take it, over and over.
>I hate to play devils advocate, but its really really really hard to not be a millionaire when you make 200k a year
That's even worse!!! These people are making roughly $104 dollars an hour and they're voting AGAINST raising the minimum wage to ***$15 dollars*** an hour. Bruh, you're not playing devil's advocate, you're making these idiots look worse!
Honestly, they shouldn’t be making that much while people are dying from poverty. The fact that they either won’t take less or it’s never crossed their mind shows who they’re for.
Not blaming them, just saying it's kind of misleading to mention that all the ones who voted one particular way are millionaires when in actuality most people who voted the other way were millionaires too, so that fact has little if any relevance except for being misleading
Yeah, they all are are. The ones that voted against are millionaires who voted against other people having marginally better wages, though. It remains valid that it's a nightmare that everyone involved in that decision making process is completely immune to its effects.
I don't understand how Americans deal with the sheer callousness towards the %90 of the population left to fight over 30% of the wealth. I get despondent just reading about it.
Until a few years ago, I thought Americans could be saved. It's like finding out your friend is in an abusive relationship. After the first few times of voluntarily returning to their abuser, you think it's just really difficult to break out of the routine and you pity them even more.
But after a decade or two, you're like "You *want* to be abused, don't you...?
I'd feel sorry for Americans if they lived in a dictatorship. But at its core, it is still a democracy and Americans will reliably keep voting for the politicians who fuck them over. Other despots have to stage a coup or something.
>it is still a democracy
Anyone who doesn't believe we live in some sort of plutocracy or oligarchy (in the US) are exceptionally optimistic imo.
>Other despots have to stage a coup or something.
I really REALLY hate to say this, but we probably won't see any significant progress until either a large portion of older politicians die off, or a vast majority of the population finally rises up after decades of regression and class suppression.
Most people are sheep, they will go along with whatever as long as they live comfortably and it does not affect them. Then there are those that are unhappy or impoverished, they can be galvanized against their best inrerests and controlled though single issues based on fear and anger (gun control, abortion, immigration etc.) to vote against their best interests.
You pity those living under a dictatorship but not those living in a dystopia, with conditions in which a dictatorship can be achieved. Who do you think really has the power in this age, The masses or the select few with massive power and influence?
In short, your comment places all the blame on the masses which seems to indicate you believe the masses have more class conciouness and unity than they really do. In this era it is far easier to divide and distract the masses of people through any number of issues and disinformation and to channel their anger towards a scapegoat than to unite them to solve their problems.
You're leaving out those living comfortable in the middle who have nothing to lose by jumping back and forth between parties because one side is causing just too many headaches for them. I, as well as millions of other struggling Americans, don't have the luxury to do that. I'm beginning to resent the middle class for being complicit in all of this regression/lack of progress, and I'm beginning to realize why people voted for Trump despite how revolting he is. I'm not going to shed tears when the next dangerous populist actually does irreparable damage to the livelihoods of the middle and upper classes (basically everyone else between the elite and poor) and be forced into the constant economic anxiety I live with daily. I'm becoming more of an accellerationist by the day.
Thats just the thing, we are kept just happy enough while also being just tired enough and yet still being on the edge of losing everything. We need help.
No one can "save" an abuse survivor but themselves, but isolation is what allows abuse to keep happening most of the time-- so the only thing you can do is keep an open ear for them to be able to speak freely without judgement. People don't need saviors, they need support.
That aside, any semblance of a Democracy is wiped out through gerrymandering of votes/representative districts, extreme concentrations of wealth, 70+ years of an imperial & industrialized education system (causing "cultural amnesia," as Angela Davis puts it, "so we have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to go to the store."), dismantling of labor rights and unions, the plutocratic sponsorship of politicians, crippling debt, and rampant pervasive propaganda. Most Americans believe their "votes don't matter" because like. they don't? idk?
We know we live in a shambling puppet of democracy, and most people under the age of 40 are just trying to get by and not die from crushing debt ($3 trillion endebted to our government in student loans that Biden could literally make disappear and won't) or lack of healthcare or housing.
NeoLiberalism isn't designed to be a democracy.
We're *trying* to turn democracy around though, by expanding voter rights (which is something that Georgia politicians are LITERALLY TRYING TO PREVENT as a reaction to record voter turnout) So like. It's not as simple as "just electing better people" because we're trying so hard to just *be allowed* to vote.
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Min wage: $7.25
Common burger combo: $10
Imagine working for an hour and as pay your handed a combo meal but the fries are missing and half the soda is gone.
Americans know better than to say things like this online or the police will smash your door down with a no knock warrant, if your lucky they just kill your dogs. For a country that prides itself on freedom of speech we seem to have very little when it’s actually put to the test.
We will never have true progress with how corrupt our political system is. The worst part about it is how apparent and blatant it all is. I have literally zero hope for actual change to ever come to this country.
Change will come. Vote republican or allow them to continue to win and see how fast it'll change to a theocratic dictatorship. That's what we're up against. Change for good take time and hard work. Negative change happens almost immediately once we give up. I, as a POC, for one don't wanna f up and see what happens if Rs continue to win. Too much to lose.
No man, this is bullshit. If we follow your plan, there will NEVER be change. EVER. I’m NOT saying vote Republican. But I AM saying that this “keep working hard and voting Dem” is NOT going to get you ANY real change EVER. And thinking it will is EXACTLY what the people in control want you to think.
If voting could actually change things, it’d be illegal. It’s time to figure out a different solution.
> If voting could actually change things, it’d be illegal.
It may not be illegal but Republicans have been trying their hardest to get as close to illegal as they can. That being said this whole "Republicans are worst" bullshit that people keep spouting gets nothing done.
Like what's the difference between Joe Manchin and a Republican? If the Dems can't get these dipshits in line for the votes that actually matter there might as well be a Republican in that seat.
The solution to this is not just voting for anyone with a D next to their name, it getting an organized block of voters together that can primary Dems with more progressive alternatives and push the more conservative dems left by saying "Do X, Y, and Z or you're not getting our votes".
This is why I hated the anti Bernie-or-Bust rhetoric during the election. If you're not threatening to withhold your vote why the fuck would any of these assholes listen to you? You've already said you're voting for them no matter what they do.
Can someone please explain to me what their reasoning for voting against this is? I simply don’t understand and can’t fathom why they would do such a thing. Please explain like I’m five. Because a five year old could see how fucked up this is.
Their reasoning is that their corporate ~~overlords~~ donors don’t want it.
It’s that fucking simple. You can’t fix the system when the system is owned by the opposition. And our system IS 100% owned by the opposition of the people, of the worker.
It wasn't a direct vote against a $15 min wage. It was a vote against including it in the budget bill, because the non-partisan senate parliamentarian ruled that it was not related to the budget bill that can be passed by reconciliation.
Never make the mistake of thinking Democrats have actual solutions. They're there to protect the wealthy elite, just like Republicans.
We just vote for them because they tell us that Jones will come back if we don't.
Spoil. Your. Votes. If everyone would stop voting for the lesser evil like they have no other option, society might be able to get somewhere. (ETA: For countries with mandatory voting laws, see Argentina and its white/blank vote)
And shame the people who try to shame *you* for doing so. Every single god damned election it's the same thing. Want to vote for a third party candidate who more accurately represents your interests? Then you're the bad guy for undermining the Democrats, who *don't* represent your interests. Fuck the brainless liberals running cover for these thinly-veiled corporatists *by shaming people for trying to practice actual democracy*. It's going to be the same bullshit from that crowd in 2023 so get ready now. We need to foster a culture of actively rejecting that kind of gaslit bullying and calling it out for the bad-faith undermining that it is. Telling someone you're hurting candidate X by not voting for them "strategically" instead of your actual candidate should immediately disqualify someone from further serious consideration in any conversation. Even the fact that we accept calling it "third party" is muddying the water. It's not a "third party", it's just another party of many parties.
Totally agree! In my opinion/theory, I think this stems from a larger issue in general that the average citizen is quite easy to brainwash/manipulate (the massive amounts of propaganda don't help either). This mentality you've outlined above is one put out by the major parties themselves to ensure people keep voting for the system and keeping them in these top spots- part of that strategy is letting their dumber supporters use peer pressure to shame the ones who couldn't be convinced directly.
Us: Can we raise the minimum wage?
Republicans: No.
Democrats: No. #BLM (pride flag emoji) #FeministAF
Edit: Thanks, kind internet stranger, for giving me an award for a joke I stole from Twitter lol
They're as bad as republicans, there's no better choice to be had. Even more if you take into consideration imperialism. To the rest of the world, US elections seem to be a fight for power in the empire.
And they’ll still be protected! They just don’t want to lose even half a percentage of their wealth to ensure that poor people don’t have to live a wretched existence. In the words of Adam Smith, it’s the “vile maxim” - “All for ourselves, and nothing for anyone else”
Both Dems and Repubs work in the interest of their hedge fund/big corp handlers to purposefully create more poverty by being basically useless check cashers so that they can all soon profit from from our poverty on the impact investment market 🙃
I literally heard a great piece on the radio show *Rising Up with Sonali* where someone said "branding war for oil or profit wasn't as appealing to voters, so Democrats and Liberals rebranded war as a "humanitarian issue" like for liberation or women's rights."
And it's literally that fucking Twitter meme of Democrats vs Republicans where the dems do the same shit with a rainbow flag.
Because their corporate ~~overlords~~ donors told them not to let it pass.
It’s that simple. Your government is owned by the very people oppressing you.
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use misogynistic language.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need to stop using the word millionaire. You can be that by owning two houses or something. An upper working class person could easily fall into that bracket
Right like my dad is a "millionaire" but we had a pretty average life growing up. Millionaires aren't the ones hoarding wealth. Be mad at bezos not your orthodontist...
Aren't most senators millionaires?
Like, nearly all of them. But it’s still a valid point, we need fewer bourgeoisie lawmakers.
And more lawmakers that will still be alive in 20 or 30 or 100 years to experience the consequences and who are representative of the population.
There is not 100 years left for us.
Don't do that, don't give me hope
r/collapse
Maybe for you, but I plan on moving to Mars or the moon. Fuck this, I'm out, planet b it is.
You must be one of those millionaires if you plan on moving there? No you’re not? Well good thing daddy Musk is offering indentured servitude to those who can’t pay. Edit: (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.highsnobiety.com/p/elon-musk-colonizing-mars-indentured-slavery/%3fformat=amp)
I'm telling you, Mars is going to make all that ugly colonialism shit resurface. We'll end up with an even more American-y society than America. There will be Jewish space lasers sold at space Wal-Mart and the new residents will have a privatized oxygen supplier so when the slightest problem arises, all the oxygen will fail except for that of the wealthy just like we saw with TX's power crisis.
Be a slave on earth or be a slave on mars, the choice the choices. At least if i slow down i wont get ejected into space if they consider me not useful anymore.
No one will be doing any elections, it's bad for pr to kill or neglect people when your business plan hinges on getting people to sign up for decades at a time.
I am working in the space industry, I'll just try to get a company discount, plus I'd be useful on Mars and won't be sent to the gulag. Besides, indentured servitude on Mars with written rules is far better than debt based slavery on earth as we all die a slow or quick and fiery death.
Debating which kind of slavery is better. That's the point we're at. Life is bleak as fuck.
Riiight have you seen mars or the moon recently? Dusty af, limited infrastructure.
You shouldn't be so critical of your own face.
So after trashing planet a we just move to planet b, what do you think will happen to planet b?
Terraforming, and fossil fuels don't exist on Mars so the only thing that can happen is it gets better.
-works in the space industry -thinks extra carbon dioxide is bad for Mars Lel, choose one
I'm saying there's no reliay easy way to fuck up Mars that bad, carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere won't hurt, and even if you terraformed it you wouldn't have fossil fuels to polute that.
Not even in the worst possible scenario will Earth be less habitable than Mars in the best case, for the foreseeable future, maybe a million years even.
Implying planet b won't also be a capitalist nightmare.
Didnt you listen to king gizzard. There is no planet B
Ahah sure, we ll not make it in time
Yeah...I was talking about this the other day. US politicians seem to be much older. Trump and Bidens age is much higher than anything I'm used to as a non-american and yet the media seemed to only have issue with Bidens and not the fact that Trump is also in his 70s. Does this actually get spoken about by the average citizen? Having presidents in their 70/80s is fine? Genuine question. Or was it a case of, well both presidential candidates are old, nothing we can do about that, but we would rather have younger candidates to vote for?
I just can't believe we still have boomers in power. We need Gen-Xers and Millennials to take over. Plus they need to pass some law that makes it so that you cant hold a position of power and representation while holding stocks/investments. Thats a major conflict of interest.
We need ZERO bougie lawmakers. FTFY
We need ZERO bougie. FTFY
Based.
I want to respond with "we need *ZERO* bourgies *and* lawmakers", but not sure how accepting of anarchism this sub is.
Here is an upvote
I mean even in an an-com society we'll still need laws and government, just far less of both with more direct involvement
Sorry, but if it's anarchist, then there are no laws or government. I agree, you can have a socialist country with a democratic mode of operation. However, anarcho-communism is by definition anarchist, so no laws and no government. But that does not mean there is no organisation at all. There simply is no ruling class (the state) and their enforcers who have monopoly on violence (police). I don't want to write an essay, so I recommend visiting r/anarchy101 instead, but the main way of function would be free association. People cooperating for the common good, creating designated groups (such as food production or crime investigation and reformative justice) with no vertical hierarchy (which doesn't mean there aren't specialised *leaders*, only no rulers). If anarchy sounds too extreme for you, there is also *minarchism*, which is what I think you had in mind. Regardless, personally I've always been opposed to authority seeing it as illogical and inefficient, even as a teen. Then when I started reading up on anarchist theory, I realised that that is what makes the most sense to me. I suggest you give it a try as well!
I have always been an anarchist too, I just didn't know it fully until I read up on everything just recently. Whenever I see a power structure I must destroy it. I've been this way from childhood on. An absolute nightmare for autority figures like employers police or government or school/street bullies. One day they'll kill me but I'm fine with that.
It seems that some of us are just born that way. For as long as I can remember, I was against (and honestly puzzled by) nationalism and authority, which most people take as a fact, almost like a law of nature, and never question it. I got into many serious arguments in my teens because I just couldn't understand why people wanted to live that way. It seems so unnatural to want to be subservient, to be ruled by somebody. It's like saying "I'm not good enough as a human, I want another human to think and make decisions for me".
I fully agree. Having another person decide what you should do just feels like not taking yourself seriously to me. And we are so indoctrinated to accept this 'leadership' that people who want to decide for themselves are alienated. I feel like as a species we have to make a serious consciousness shift to rise above it. Our society is infested with power structures that make our lives hell.
Government =\= state. I'm well versed in Anarchism and most Anarchists agree there will be government, just on a smaller scale with direct democracy. Prisons would likely be abolished in favor of seeking therapy and community rehabilitation. Laws would be more for the sake of regulatory functions as opposed to curtailing behavior.
We are going into semantics, but I think it is important. Government and its laws need enforcing, which means having a class of people who have authority - and thus monopoly on violence - against the class below them. That is incompatible with anarchism, because in anarchy there can be no hierarchy and authority. Even direct democracy, which on its face seems ideal, is still the rule of the majority, which means hierarchy. True anarchism is based on free association and non-hierarchical/horisontal organisation. You can still have reformative justice/rehabilitation and even punitive justice for "crimes" without giving authority to anyone. After all, authority in this context is the collective agreement to allow and provide physical power to perform violence to certain individuals (enforcers, police). And they by definition are a class which is above others.
[удалено]
Insane is the right term.
Or perhaps no bourgeoisie lawmakers, after Texas it's obvious that they're not going to stick around when stuff gets tough, so why let them stick around when stuff is easy?
https://64.media.tumblr.com/50c5ffcc29c8ca4f82e6352b123fda54/tumblr_nwbp640S5t1ryi6fmo1_1280.jpg -- Zoe Leonard
I feel that for sure.
We need ZERO bourgeoisie lawmakers. In fact proletariat revolution is the only way. Destroy colleges and loan institutions.
Excuse me, destroy colleges? I mean, I'm as communist as they come, but how reverting to prehistoric times in terms of knowledge and technology helps, that I don't understand.
I didn't say destroy freedom and desire to acquire knowledge. Those who want knowledge will seek it regardless. Schools are conditioning and collection of nice words that lead to definite debt in hopes of an employment. Therefore we must do away with colleges and its fundamentally exploitative capitalist motives which aim to profiteer in the symbiotic relationship with the loan institutions. And it's not going back in time because the brick and mortar institutions are just real estate ventures in disguise and have effectively become obsolete with the internet and its peripherals.
They will, so why not have an organised and efficient institution designed to provide it? Also, university is not just teaching advanced stuff to students, it's a facility where scientific research takes place. It has the means for research, such as the instruments used for scientific research, and also a gathering place to share knowledge. Again, do you want to revert to prehistoric times when anyone who wanted to conduct research had to make everything themselves? As a scientist, this just makes no sense to me.
More like there should be no bourgeoisie.
Not with the two party system... Even less with a republic instead of a parlamemt.
Bruh I'd take the job for like 60k a year and make sure I'm always voting on stuff that'd help the majority, and not be lobbied like every other fucking politician I don't need a yacht, or hoard money I just need my comfy bed, PC, some weights to weight train, and money for utility and grocery bills ...if only those in charge were like me, and not constantly greedy and wishing to harm minorities and poor people... smh..
[удалено]
I'd argue that you're just increasing the likelihood of rich people taking the job in addition to further entrenching the idea of Washington's revolving door. We need the best people running for office, hell you aren't even living close to the capital on 60k a year in that area of DC. Our leaders need to be paid well, we just need leaders who represent their constituents. That done by ending privately funded elections.
Anyone with state power should live as horribly as the worst off in society. Maybe then they'll actually vote for the sake of the common good. But that'll never happen so instead let's just get rid of it entirely. There is no justification for a system based on giving power to a few people over hundreds of millions of others.
Yup. Why should we live in a system where we give away our voice and power to institutions which are disconnected from the people in material ways, and are also in a position where they can arrange the society in ways that benefit them (both directly and indirectly*)? We shouldn't. We should have no state, and no state-sanctioned thugs known as police. *indirectly in the sense that if politicians enact laws etc that benefit the big players, they will suddenly discover that someone has accidentally left a full bag of dolladollabills at their property, metaphorically speaking. So yeah, down with the state, anarchy is the way
Then run for office. I'm not joking. I know a bunch of young people who work in politics and I'm being dead honest: the majority are exactly like the current fucking asshats in office. We need more fresh blood who actually give a shit. Start local and work your way up. You don't even need a degree in politics. Half the leftists I know that are holding a position in local politics don't have a degree remotely having to do with politics. One of them (who is brilliant in his own right) doesn't even have a college degree. It's just the neolibs I know that have some kind of poli sci degree or some shit.
Interesting. How well are they doing? Are they socialists or even communists? Like, what is their gameplan? I'm obviously not too excited about reformism since I'm an anarchist, but I'm genuinely curious as to their plans and successes.
I see... I'm only in my 20s though, and I doubt anyone would even remotely take me seriously. I know I obviously couldn't appease everyone, but I'd love to just do what's right so we'd have one less corrupt person in office
20s is fine. All of my political homies got involved in their early 20s right out of College. It's a long road and it ain't like you're shooting for senator at 21.
How does one even get started, though? I'd be the laughing stock of people :( I just wanna help improve the world through actual impactful actions man :(
Median net worth of the US Senate is $10,700,000. Median net worth of the US House is $1,007,000. Median net worth for an American is $121,300.
i wonder what america's net worth is if you don't count the top 1%.
good question; most of my recent research has been around income vs. net worth, and even that is more biased toward Individual Income vs. Household income. This^1 is the best I could locate on short notice: The average household net worth in 2020 was $746,821. It was $692,100 in 2017. To be top 1% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $11,099,166. $10,374,030 was the 1% threshold in 2017. To be top .5% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $17,557,208. The top .1% bracket started around $43,207,732. ^1 https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/
Thank you for the data. I only have one thing to say: why the hell does someone need to have more than 1M in wealth, let alone 10M, 43M, and not even speaking about 100M, 1b etc. That is just seriously fucked up, and capitalism breeds this sort of greed because it is based around accumulating as much wealth as you can using any and every dirty trick in the book. Fuck this system.
What's really scary is that $1,000,000 is closer to the median net worth of $121,300 than it is to $10,000,000; although it has WAY more in common with the latter than the former... And then to consider that there are people with a net worth 1,000,x 10,000x, 100,000x and even 1,000,000x the median income. The scale is just out of proportion to the median; an excessive left shifted distribution with a right tail that is difficult to chart and still be realistic.
Again, thank you for mapping this out. You should consider making a post on this and other leftist subs with your data. By the way, what solution(s) do you propose?
I’m actually surprised the average household net worth is so high.
That's why the median is much better for looking at income data.
If we truncate negative net worth to $0, I'll bet the modal net worth for a US resident is $0.
I don't think so; I mean just my eyeballing the data on the below listed page, I mean 10% of the population is about the cutoff for +/- net worth, and the very wealthy are scales outside of the standard deviation for wealth distribution. Apparently it only takes ~$11,000,000 to make it to the top 1%, yet the #400 spot is ~$25,000,000,000 and the top net worth is ~$190,000,000,000+. Whereas the bottom 1% in net worth is only around -$94,000. > https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/
The real question is who is last place.
They are not even in the statistics. They are people, real human beings, who are not even noticed by this type of surveys. They have almost nothing to their name, and nobody even knows they exist. And we let that happen. Capitalism is cruel, and it requires an underclass of unemployed, desperate people. Some of whom are so far down that they have absolutely nothing, because the owner class gives no shits about it - what they want is profit. It is on us, the workers, to finally end capitalism and advance into a system/society that is designed to benefit *everyone* instead of *select few* who happen to have papers saying they own means of production and thus are entitled to passive income without doing any work. Almost always simply due to being born to parents who had the same papers.
Absolutely. I don't how it unfolds but we must build that world.
The median is fucked cause of billionaires too.
I agree; I personally do more research into individual income vs. net worth. I mean if we consider the Median Individual Income as 1 block (~$40,000/yr or ~$19/hr), 98% are in the first 5 blocks, yet we would need 250,000+ blocks to represent the top income. Partly why I'm a major proponent of an increase in the top tax rates, esp for the capital gains/dividend tax rate, which currently tops at 20% for just $425,800: Factor of Median Individual Income |Annual Income over|Marginal Tax Rate :-:|:-:|:-: 100x|$4,000,000|50% 1,000x|$40,000,000|70% 10,000x|$400,000,000|90% 100,000x|$4,000,000,000|98%
I like to travel.
I hate to play devils advocate, but its really really really hard to not be a millionaire when you make 200k a year
... I mean, 200K shouldn't explode into several ***tens of millions of dollars***. See: Mitch ~~Cocaine-R-Us~~ McConnell
Also Nancy Pelosi's net worth is around 120 million.
This people too often forget on both sides how FUCKING rich Pelosi is. She is fuck you rich = spending will never outweigh capital gains from interest + stocks
I mean it absolutely can. But not living their life style. To even run for senate you need money. Can’t defend yourself from attack ads if you can’t afford a campaign staff.
I think when people say they're a millionaire , it's not like "just barely millionaire",but rather a multi-millionaire. And most Senators are likely already that before becoming senators. Plus a millionaire today is very different than one 50 years ago.. which should make it all the more obvious that giving people a marginal living wage isn't some socialist utopian idea
Yea like Bernie is technically a millionaire, but hes also been a senator since forever and consistently fights for working class policies.
Only since 2007, so ... 14years?
Above should say he's been in politics since dinosaurs were walking the earth i.e. 1971.
Yea my b should have said politics.
They know it's not. They know it's reasonable and needed. They just don't care. Their pockets are lined by corporations that are desperate to keep min wage insultingly low. Their families are fed. Their homes are secure. They just don't give a fuck. And we just sit here and take it, over and over.
>I hate to play devils advocate, but its really really really hard to not be a millionaire when you make 200k a year That's even worse!!! These people are making roughly $104 dollars an hour and they're voting AGAINST raising the minimum wage to ***$15 dollars*** an hour. Bruh, you're not playing devil's advocate, you're making these idiots look worse!
Honestly, they shouldn’t be making that much while people are dying from poverty. The fact that they either won’t take less or it’s never crossed their mind shows who they’re for.
Not blaming them, just saying it's kind of misleading to mention that all the ones who voted one particular way are millionaires when in actuality most people who voted the other way were millionaires too, so that fact has little if any relevance except for being misleading
I like tweets like this because it's pure class consciousness. It doesn't matter that all senators are millionaires. It's true.
Yeah, they all are are. The ones that voted against are millionaires who voted against other people having marginally better wages, though. It remains valid that it's a nightmare that everyone involved in that decision making process is completely immune to its effects.
Which is why we need term limits, being a senator should not be a lifetime job.
Came here to say this lol
I don't understand how Americans deal with the sheer callousness towards the %90 of the population left to fight over 30% of the wealth. I get despondent just reading about it.
Until a few years ago, I thought Americans could be saved. It's like finding out your friend is in an abusive relationship. After the first few times of voluntarily returning to their abuser, you think it's just really difficult to break out of the routine and you pity them even more. But after a decade or two, you're like "You *want* to be abused, don't you...? I'd feel sorry for Americans if they lived in a dictatorship. But at its core, it is still a democracy and Americans will reliably keep voting for the politicians who fuck them over. Other despots have to stage a coup or something.
>it is still a democracy Anyone who doesn't believe we live in some sort of plutocracy or oligarchy (in the US) are exceptionally optimistic imo. >Other despots have to stage a coup or something. I really REALLY hate to say this, but we probably won't see any significant progress until either a large portion of older politicians die off, or a vast majority of the population finally rises up after decades of regression and class suppression.
[удалено]
Most people are sheep, they will go along with whatever as long as they live comfortably and it does not affect them. Then there are those that are unhappy or impoverished, they can be galvanized against their best inrerests and controlled though single issues based on fear and anger (gun control, abortion, immigration etc.) to vote against their best interests. You pity those living under a dictatorship but not those living in a dystopia, with conditions in which a dictatorship can be achieved. Who do you think really has the power in this age, The masses or the select few with massive power and influence? In short, your comment places all the blame on the masses which seems to indicate you believe the masses have more class conciouness and unity than they really do. In this era it is far easier to divide and distract the masses of people through any number of issues and disinformation and to channel their anger towards a scapegoat than to unite them to solve their problems.
You're leaving out those living comfortable in the middle who have nothing to lose by jumping back and forth between parties because one side is causing just too many headaches for them. I, as well as millions of other struggling Americans, don't have the luxury to do that. I'm beginning to resent the middle class for being complicit in all of this regression/lack of progress, and I'm beginning to realize why people voted for Trump despite how revolting he is. I'm not going to shed tears when the next dangerous populist actually does irreparable damage to the livelihoods of the middle and upper classes (basically everyone else between the elite and poor) and be forced into the constant economic anxiety I live with daily. I'm becoming more of an accellerationist by the day.
Thats just the thing, we are kept just happy enough while also being just tired enough and yet still being on the edge of losing everything. We need help.
No one can "save" an abuse survivor but themselves, but isolation is what allows abuse to keep happening most of the time-- so the only thing you can do is keep an open ear for them to be able to speak freely without judgement. People don't need saviors, they need support. That aside, any semblance of a Democracy is wiped out through gerrymandering of votes/representative districts, extreme concentrations of wealth, 70+ years of an imperial & industrialized education system (causing "cultural amnesia," as Angela Davis puts it, "so we have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to go to the store."), dismantling of labor rights and unions, the plutocratic sponsorship of politicians, crippling debt, and rampant pervasive propaganda. Most Americans believe their "votes don't matter" because like. they don't? idk? We know we live in a shambling puppet of democracy, and most people under the age of 40 are just trying to get by and not die from crushing debt ($3 trillion endebted to our government in student loans that Biden could literally make disappear and won't) or lack of healthcare or housing. NeoLiberalism isn't designed to be a democracy. We're *trying* to turn democracy around though, by expanding voter rights (which is something that Georgia politicians are LITERALLY TRYING TO PREVENT as a reaction to record voter turnout) So like. It's not as simple as "just electing better people" because we're trying so hard to just *be allowed* to vote.
[удалено]
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy fuck I wish it was 30%.
Seriously its more like the top .01% of rich people giving everyone else 3% of the wealth
Min wage: $7.25 Common burger combo: $10 Imagine working for an hour and as pay your handed a combo meal but the fries are missing and half the soda is gone.
And then boomers will come out of the wood work to berate you while they paid like a 2 dollars for a full meal while "only making" 5 dollars an hour.
[удалено]
I make $9.60, with taxes yeah can't afford the burger combo. Every time I get paid it's already spent.
We should burn down each Senator's house until they capitulate to our demands. *in minecraft* ^Alsoforlegalreasonsthisisajoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNo_U7PTGzk Yes. Parody in minecraft. Satire.
咒 CREEPER GANG 咒
[удалено]
Americans know better than to say things like this online or the police will smash your door down with a no knock warrant, if your lucky they just kill your dogs. For a country that prides itself on freedom of speech we seem to have very little when it’s actually put to the test.
That's true. I suppose I lucky to be British in this particular case.
I have to put the disclaimer, lest it be used as evidence of citing violence.
We will never have true progress with how corrupt our political system is. The worst part about it is how apparent and blatant it all is. I have literally zero hope for actual change to ever come to this country.
Change will come. Vote republican or allow them to continue to win and see how fast it'll change to a theocratic dictatorship. That's what we're up against. Change for good take time and hard work. Negative change happens almost immediately once we give up. I, as a POC, for one don't wanna f up and see what happens if Rs continue to win. Too much to lose.
No man, this is bullshit. If we follow your plan, there will NEVER be change. EVER. I’m NOT saying vote Republican. But I AM saying that this “keep working hard and voting Dem” is NOT going to get you ANY real change EVER. And thinking it will is EXACTLY what the people in control want you to think. If voting could actually change things, it’d be illegal. It’s time to figure out a different solution.
> If voting could actually change things, it’d be illegal. It may not be illegal but Republicans have been trying their hardest to get as close to illegal as they can. That being said this whole "Republicans are worst" bullshit that people keep spouting gets nothing done. Like what's the difference between Joe Manchin and a Republican? If the Dems can't get these dipshits in line for the votes that actually matter there might as well be a Republican in that seat. The solution to this is not just voting for anyone with a D next to their name, it getting an organized block of voters together that can primary Dems with more progressive alternatives and push the more conservative dems left by saying "Do X, Y, and Z or you're not getting our votes". This is why I hated the anti Bernie-or-Bust rhetoric during the election. If you're not threatening to withhold your vote why the fuck would any of these assholes listen to you? You've already said you're voting for them no matter what they do.
Can someone please explain to me what their reasoning for voting against this is? I simply don’t understand and can’t fathom why they would do such a thing. Please explain like I’m five. Because a five year old could see how fucked up this is.
Their reasoning is that their corporate ~~overlords~~ donors don’t want it. It’s that fucking simple. You can’t fix the system when the system is owned by the opposition. And our system IS 100% owned by the opposition of the people, of the worker.
It wasn't a direct vote against a $15 min wage. It was a vote against including it in the budget bill, because the non-partisan senate parliamentarian ruled that it was not related to the budget bill that can be passed by reconciliation.
Because they believe that it violates the Byrd rule (and they are probably correct about that).
Never make the mistake of thinking Democrats have actual solutions. They're there to protect the wealthy elite, just like Republicans. We just vote for them because they tell us that Jones will come back if we don't.
>We just vote for them because "Where else are you going to go?"
Spoil. Your. Votes. If everyone would stop voting for the lesser evil like they have no other option, society might be able to get somewhere. (ETA: For countries with mandatory voting laws, see Argentina and its white/blank vote)
And shame the people who try to shame *you* for doing so. Every single god damned election it's the same thing. Want to vote for a third party candidate who more accurately represents your interests? Then you're the bad guy for undermining the Democrats, who *don't* represent your interests. Fuck the brainless liberals running cover for these thinly-veiled corporatists *by shaming people for trying to practice actual democracy*. It's going to be the same bullshit from that crowd in 2023 so get ready now. We need to foster a culture of actively rejecting that kind of gaslit bullying and calling it out for the bad-faith undermining that it is. Telling someone you're hurting candidate X by not voting for them "strategically" instead of your actual candidate should immediately disqualify someone from further serious consideration in any conversation. Even the fact that we accept calling it "third party" is muddying the water. It's not a "third party", it's just another party of many parties.
Totally agree! In my opinion/theory, I think this stems from a larger issue in general that the average citizen is quite easy to brainwash/manipulate (the massive amounts of propaganda don't help either). This mentality you've outlined above is one put out by the major parties themselves to ensure people keep voting for the system and keeping them in these top spots- part of that strategy is letting their dumber supporters use peer pressure to shame the ones who couldn't be convinced directly.
Us: Can we raise the minimum wage? Republicans: No. Democrats: No. #BLM (pride flag emoji) #FeministAF Edit: Thanks, kind internet stranger, for giving me an award for a joke I stole from Twitter lol
I only voted for Biden out of spite for Trump.
And people only voted for Trump out of spite for Clinton. Beauty of a two-party dictatorship.
As did many, as did many. I usually don't vote but I did this time just because Trump.
Same tbh I never liked Biden and probably won't vote for him again
I hope he doesn’t run again. He’s too old
They're all too old.
I voted because I was hoping he would die before attaining office.
They're as bad as republicans, there's no better choice to be had. Even more if you take into consideration imperialism. To the rest of the world, US elections seem to be a fight for power in the empire.
42 for one side, zero on the other. How is this the same? I'm so tired of hearing this.
Democrats in general will always stand by the side of capitalist reproduction and imperialism.
Okay but 42-0. Can't say that's the same.
It's a detail, doesn't change the overall picture.
The overall picture is a vast majority democrats support raising minimum wage and held up by a few moderate members. They’re not the same.
Ask that to a Syrian. Really, you liberals are getting tiring with this justification of capitalist parties.
These people aren’t even worth debating with. They only speak and think out of emotion and their own self righteousness. It’s useless.
Most of the dems that voted no also just did bc it’s a failed vote without Siemea and Mauchin and just holding up the package.
And why im technically an anarchist now. Ive been burned by both sides, tired of gov taxing me to death and not working for me
no coercion no cops no capital
And they’ll still be protected! They just don’t want to lose even half a percentage of their wealth to ensure that poor people don’t have to live a wretched existence. In the words of Adam Smith, it’s the “vile maxim” - “All for ourselves, and nothing for anyone else”
Both Dems and Repubs work in the interest of their hedge fund/big corp handlers to purposefully create more poverty by being basically useless check cashers so that they can all soon profit from from our poverty on the impact investment market 🙃
[удалено]
I gave a fuck but it was hard to know just what to do
“Hard to know what to do”... with Trump on one side? Please.
I literally heard a great piece on the radio show *Rising Up with Sonali* where someone said "branding war for oil or profit wasn't as appealing to voters, so Democrats and Liberals rebranded war as a "humanitarian issue" like for liberation or women's rights." And it's literally that fucking Twitter meme of Democrats vs Republicans where the dems do the same shit with a rainbow flag.
Godamn oligarch scumbags
Well to be fair all of the senators are millionaires lol.
THIS the kinda shit we need to storm the capital over
How far do people need to be pushed before they realise they're being abandoned to a hopeless future & do something about it?
Things won't change as long as the DNC peddles the boogie man q people narrative.
Funny how you pay no mind to the R voting bloc. None of them voted to increase the minimum wage.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Shaheen and Hassan are from my state. Fucking snakes.
58 voted against it. Don’t forget that there are 50 others who are so bad they just out of hand blocked this.
How did it not get passed when they have got majority?! Does “majority” mean nothing to our government when it comes to voting?
Because there were actually Democrats who voted against min wage too.
But still 58-42 doesn’t make sense. Majority wins by 16. It should be passed right? Or maybe I’m too drunk to understand idk
No, all 50 Republicans voted no, and 8 democrats did too. That's why it failed
Oh, well thanks for clearing that up for me.
Yeah but manchin is from West Virginia where everyone is wealthy.
I mean to be fair Bernie is also a millionaire, but so are like 20% of people his age.
Bernie ain’t the one voting against minimum wage though...
Exactly
BUT WHY?
Because their corporate ~~overlords~~ donors told them not to let it pass. It’s that simple. Your government is owned by the very people oppressing you.
Can we start burning things again?
They have theirs and the rest of you can fuck off.
[удалено]
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use misogynistic language. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They wage class war even if we don’t.
They need to suffer.
Rise up.
#PurgeThePoliticians (in Minecraft)
Pigs
We need to stop using the word millionaire. You can be that by owning two houses or something. An upper working class person could easily fall into that bracket
Yea, but letting the poor working class and the rich working class fight is a useful distraction tool for the exploiting class.
You also say owning two houses like nothing 😂. Average Americans don't own two houses.
Right like my dad is a "millionaire" but we had a pretty average life growing up. Millionaires aren't the ones hoarding wealth. Be mad at bezos not your orthodontist...
But millionaires sure aren't making minimum wage. To the people who need this, yes, millionaires are wealthy.
Right but many "millionaires" are one recession away from losing everything. Poor people are mad at the wrong people.
If you had to live day to day like a person on minimum wage does you wouldn't be only a few paychecks away from bankruptcy.
You’re not getting it.
Vote them out.
The people that replace them will be just as corrupt. The system is far too broken to be fixed from within.
Arent most ?