5 ms·
I agree with you and your parent commenter. > Today? The people are held poor so that they can't afford to strike, much less openly revolt, and nickeled-and-di
by quacked 4y ago
I agree with you and your parent commenter.
> Today? The people are held poor so that they can't afford to strike, much less openly revolt, and nickeled-and-dimed by the credit industry.
I think it's less that they're held so "poor" (i.e. not having access to a lot of cash) as that they are so completely effectively barred from any kind of sustenance outside of the Debt System that striking would mean the total abandonment of any kind of life they're used to. A real revolution would mean complete blockage from almost every public space and service--unlike the past, there's not anywhere for you to go if you're at odds with the banking system. You'll starve, or you'll be tracked and thrown in jail to suffer the wrath of the stupid, uncivilized drug-addicted gangs. There's not even food in the lands surrounding the towns and cities, it's all single-crop cash yields that get exported.
People are also very carefully manipulated (not necessarily deliberately--it's just the net result of all aggregate manipulation) to be extremely suspicious and cautious of anything that would upset the life they're used to. If you talk to anyone above $140k/year household aggregate about the possibility of living 2-3 families in one home or never travelling by air again they look at you like you're speaking a foreign language.