4 ms·

I think a very large portion of the 99% aren't complacent so much as they are not realistically able to opt out.

• embedding-shape 1y ago
  Everyone is realistically able to though, if they're willing to sacrifice temporary pain. Many countries been through it before, and general strikes seems to have been the only non-violent way of getting wide-scale change enacted, and many of the people participating in those strikes "wasn't realistically able to participate" yet did so regardless. It helps that other countries have some solid foundation for doing general strikes, particularly when they have strong unions that make people able to strike yet survive and get food and shelter. But the upper-class seems to have anticipated this and fostered a really strong anti-union culture in the US, so now people have to suffer because there is no way of protesting, and there is no way of changing the status quo.
  • rkomorn 1y ago
    Protesting, sure, although it's pretty obvious protesting does little in the US (and there's no "right way" to, either). Pulling their kids out of school? Quitting their teaching jobs? I'd say not so much. Strikes are also iffy. I'm from France so, you know, I'm down with strikes, protests, and all that. I also lived more than half my life in the US and, as you wrote, it's just different (and not accidentally so).