I think you are in danger of trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. You definitely are right on the knife's edge of an ad hominem attack of accusing

I think you are in danger of trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. You definitely are right on the knife's edge of an ad hominem attack of accusing me of patronizing and I certainly don't appreciate that. > The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich I never said all. I said it is a common problem that is hard to solve. I said it was one complication among others, a complicated reason not necessarily "the" reason. I also never said opposed to unions. I said it was a perception problem that often causes people to even overlook unions as a possible solution. I said it was a solidarity problem when people do try to unionize that can drive wedges into groups and send some people "back to the sidelines". > I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want I didn't offer a solution. I offered a problem that I don't know the solution for. I think it is a twisty, complicated problem. > because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda I didn't use the word misinformation. Not all PR/propaganda is misinformation (or at least not just misinformation). I specifically gave several reasons why for tech workers especially it is not just propaganda but facts about recent history (90s dot-com boom) and current prosperity (this site is VC-adjacent and many of us that comment here, myself often included, think we're one good idea from VC funding). Again, you seem to think I'm making some sort of moral judgment here and are trying to put words into my mouth that I think this is a moral failing of some sort. There is nothing wrong with believing things like I'm one good OKR from having real ownership in my employer and being lightly rich, or I'm one good idea away from getting a lot of VC money to do something cool as an owner and a founder. I have these beliefs at times, personally. If I think there is a solution to this problem I know it isn't telling people with this mindset they are wrong and are morally failing: it's in growing the common ground between tech workers of all classes (all of the actual classes, the perceived classes, and the dreamed/preferred/hoped for classes). It's in crossing that divide between "I think this is a good idea, but I don't see why I need to be involved" to "everyone should be involved, and here's empathetic reasons to and here's why even if it doesn't help you personally today or even tomorrow it's not just a good idea but something that you should be actively involved in at every stage". I don't have good enough ideas of how we do that. It's a collective problem that needs collective solutions and I mentioned the problem to work the problem. I don't know why you are trying to put words in my mouth that I'm offering some sort of solution just calling people names and blaming their mindset for their problems. > Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general. Yes, but more specifically he pointed the finger at middle-class would-be-Communists that talked a good talk but never walked a good walk. They acted like they were in the game, but when the time came to put skin and real sweat into the game they were still on the sidelines. That thought Communism (and unions) were good ideas, but they engaged with it in only in salons/parties and as academic thought experiments. I think it applies to a lot of Americans even given how specific the original context was. I think there are a lot of reasons it got paraphrased so strongly soon after it was written as a specific concept. But even if it doesn't apply that generally to all Americans, it certainly seems to apply to discussions like this one in places like HN where we talk about it a lot but aren't really actually trying to put skin into the game to work the problems and get caught up in ten dollar words like "ad hominem" and academic discussions about the "well, actually" specifics of important reading in the historical context and sometimes we believe that to be just as useful to working the problem.