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.
The reason there isn’t a revolution in the USA is mostly down to atomization. Suburban growth directly leads to insular communities with no sense of responsibility to the rest of their brothers and sisters. Working class families in the burbs have functionally 0 ability to organize.
To add that on, I like to underscore the gravity of the situation here with details:
- The top 10% of earners starts at ~170k/yr
- The top 1% start at ~820k/yr
- The top 0.1% start at ~3,300k/yr (3.3 million)
- If Elon Musk had 100% of his net worth in really basic bonds giving 5%/yr he’d be pulling in 22 BILLION dollars per year, forever.
The interest on his earnings alone is equivalent to 130,000 workers at the start of the top 10%. That’s the entire workforce of American Airlines for comparison.
If the average person was paid like the 0.1% for 1 year they could retire and live off 65k/yr forever.
This chart is broken down by quintiles but it illustrates the disparity well imo.
Half of the wealth of the top 20% here (excluding top 1%) is in businesses or real estate they own. Most of that will be their own house and a small business, though
leeches“landlords” mostly fall in this category too.For the top 1% that’s more like 20% of their net worth.
Not sure where you’re getting your income percentiles from.
This site shows that 90th percentile (top 10%) household starts at $230k and 99th percentile (top 1%) starts at $631k.
For individuals the same site shows that the 10% starts at $150k and the 1% starts at $430k.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/
Because holy shit does “dqydj.com” look sketchy as fuck. The fact you clicked on a URL called that has me worried for your safety.
Like skipping through a minefield
Ok, I see where your source went wrong. Par for the course for Investopedia, which tends to get a lot of little details wrong (and sometimes misses the mark on the applicable scope of data that someone else has reported). But they’ve cited the Economic Policy Institute study of 2021 incomes, which looks at the average (mean) earnings within that group, rather than the actual amount that represents the boundary of that group. So it’s not that it takes $3.1 million to be in the top 0.1%, it’s that all the people of the top 1% average out to $3.1 million per year. Which, for the type of power distribution for household or individual incomes, is skewed heavily by the people who have the highest amounts.
And looking at the mean within that group can be fine, for certain purposes, but they’ve gone with the incorrect headline of saying “how much income puts you in the top 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%?” So it’s a headline that is wrong, that reports on a different number within the data.
And your own comment, saying that reaching each percentile “starts at” the reported number, is also wrong.
Because holy shit does “dqydj.com” look sketchy as fuck.
It just stands for “don’t quit your day job” and I’ve found that it’s a reliable resource for statistical data that’s widely available (like the ASEC numbers published by the Census Bureau and left to other people to actual turn into data visualization). It’s up to date, and the data matches the summary report on the Census website, so what’s the problem? The summary only reports the 90th and 95th percentiles, though, so I needed to find someone who actually reported on the thresholds for 99 (and not the averages within the top 1%).
TIL - Thanks for the context on dqydj.com
Cause that would’ve been a straight “report spam” if I got an email from them.
No dude you mixed some numbers up - 5%/yr of 440 billion is 22 BILLION dollars per year.
Unless you meant he could put 0.1% of his wealth (440 mil) to pull 22 million a year.
In fact, he could put less than half of his total net worth, 200 bil, into a basic savings account returning 0.5% a year and live off of a billion dollars a year, which is equivalent to the median income of 16,666 others.
While you were writing this comment I was updating my original comment because I messed up! Correct: 22 BILLION.
Market 10 year average is 11%. 400B at 11% for 30 years left of his life. That’s not 1 trillion dollars, not 2… Not 3… It’s over 9 trillion.
His money if allowed to be passed down and kept in the market, would make more than 1T dollars a year at that point.
Yeah but his net worth is tied mostly in specific stocks.
And beyond that broad market withdrawal rates mean you can really only safely pull about 4% without eating into the nest egg.
But yeah it’s all true - he’s on track to a trillion before he dies.
He doesn’t really need to sell though does he. Like imagine if ceo’s came out to trade and give public announcements beforehand to build trust. For instance an Apple Executive trading directly with Musk equal valued shares and telling the populous it is a good thing as these executives are showing that they believe strongly in these other companies. Next thing you know he’s got his investments varied across every field, and should maintain a portfolio matching the market average whether one field struggles for a bit or not. It “looks” like they are all showing faith in each other’s future gains, but in reality is is diversifying their portfolio to ensure no large setbacks
What’s interesting is that this doesn’t even tell the whole picture.
Because those people earning $170k/year? More than likely their net worth is negative. They owe more than they’re making, and even at that income rate and excluding long term debt, they have just enough in savings to last three months max.
Yeah and those are national statistics.
You don’t hit the top 10% in New York state until you break 330k
Neighborhood politics, social gatherings, community hotspots has massively declined in the last two generations,
It’s really hard to organize anything face to face?
It is and while I don’t think that was Eisenhower’s 5d chess play it is more or less directly from cold war era policies that encouraged Americans to live anywhere besides a city.
Yet if you keep the comparison until present times, you can only acknowledge the fact that the French once again rioted very violently and for months back in 2018-20. The “yellow vests” were mostly lower-income workers from far away suburbs and villages. Facebook let them organize and have a real impact on national politics and policy.
It was also a significant amount of right wing agitprop opposing any reduction to fossil fuel usage…
Yep, I wonder what would happen in the US if gas was suddenly taxed 50% up (much more than the yellow vests case, but it is a thought exercise)
The internet is also a big reason. Why put effort into fighting back when you can just bitch about it on social media?
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
Careful, bub, there are people lurking who think this quite seriously
You don’t? Tankie detected 😠
Gasp! My clever disguise has been sundered!
France didn’t have the sophisticated propaganda machine the US has.
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.
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).
why would you crop out the source declaration?
Why would you post an image of text?
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.
For elaboration on Chomsky, I recommend reading On Chomsky.
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 feet 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?
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. The Bolsheviks ended up being correct, that theory, discipline, and organization is what brings real revolution, and the SRs have mostly been forgotten. I recommend reading Revolutionary Adventurism.
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.
The “book club” Marxists are equally dangerous as the “adventurist” Marxists (or Anarchists, if you prefer). It is only through uniting theory with practice that we will succeed. You cannot be anti-theory and you cannot be anti-practice, you must unite both. I want to commend your discipline in not speaking up, one of the guiding principles of Marxists is “no investigation, no right to speak.” Muddying the waters with low quality input is pollutant, asking good questions and practicing self-restraint when speaking on what you don’t know clarifies the waters of discourse.
I highly recommend reading Masses, Elites, and Rebels: the Theory of “Brainwashing.”
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough! Just wanted to point it out as I think he leads a legacy dangerous to the left.
funny how such a big anticommunist meaning to predict socialism just ended up predicting capitalism
Essentially, we get to eat cake every so often, while bread rapidly becomes unaffordable.
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.
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.
please provide image
The revolution was about missed meals and lack of food. The US isn’t there yet.
I’m not sure I would characterize it that way. It was a bourgeois revolution, lead by the bourgeoisie, who were not starving. Same with the American Revolution. These were revolutions led by & funded by people who owned the means of production.
This is faaaar too low. The French Revolution was really triggered by famine and people not having enough food.
can’t say I’m a huge fan of Nick Cruse or the rest of RBN, but a graph’s a graph I guess
Wait till most people are starving.
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.
The “wealth distribution” theory of unrest is so thoroughly debunked its insane to see people who still think in these terms. Smh.
