Why aren’t Americans rising up like the people of Chile and Lebanon? | Hacker News Reader

Why aren’t Americans rising up like the people of Chile and Lebanon?

opendemocracy.net

31 pointshoward94145 comments

Simple: most Americans simply have it too good. They’re not living with 5 roommates just to be able to afford a roof. They’re not eating rice or potatoes for every meal. They’re not sitting in the sweltering heat or the freezing cold. Their tap water is not killing them.

Americans complain a lot. There are absolutely failures in the system and people who fall through the cracks, but the reality is that the middle class is fat and happy for a reason.

That's partially true. However, the middle class will continue to shrink, because the 1% have made it very difficult for anyone to join it and even harder to stay in it.

We're on a timer to the bulk of the population being economically suppressed far enough that revolution becomes a potential option.

Yeah right.

People talking about revolution in America have no idea whatsoever of what the life of the people that actually revolt is like.

You're forgetting that many people in America have lived through revolutions. We're the great melting pot of people who had to come here because our military destroyed their home countries.

The vast majority of immigrants in this country come from countries impacted by their own governments. People have been immigrating into this country well before it was a global, military superpower.

The life of the University students in Hong Kong doesn't look half bad. And yet they're tossing Molotov cocktails at armored police vehicles. Not too long ago here in the US we had thousands of people occupying big chunks of downtown NYC and clashing with police, albeit in a slightly less violent way.

It is not about "how it looks".

It is very likely that their lives are much worse (or about to turn much worse). They are revolting because their lives are turning from being more like the US into being more like China.

PS. A thousand people protesting in NYC does not in any way count as a "revolt".

The precursor to any revolt is (even mild) civil unrest. The article is pointing out that we don't even have any signs of that. As you've pointed out, even the idea that things are about to turn much worse (rather than actual conditions today) can motivate civil unrest, but we still don't have it here in the US.

While I agree the US is not close to violent revolution, I would be wary of making that statement flippantly.

Hong Kong appears to be at the beginnings of a violent revolution with close to the highest GDP per capita (higher than Japan/Aus/New Zealand, less than Singapore) and quality of life (arguably lower than Japan but the highest in China and most of the AP) in the Asia-Pacific.

EDIT: Oops didn't mean to pile on, the other HK related comment was posted while I was typing this up.

Revolutions generally begin with the upper-middle class rather than the poor. The poor are too busy being poor to revolt. The fomenters of the French and American revolutions were quite wealthy, and the Russian revolution began with upper-class intellectuals who had a notably hard time getting the peasant class to go along with them.

You'd expect revolutions to start from the grindingly poor, and you usually have to get those people on your side -- eventually. But they're often the last to join the revolutionary movement, after the groundwork has been laid from the top.

That last one is technically false.

Like the author I feel like you have fallen into the trap of thinking that places like Flint are “the US”.

And even Flint (at its worst) had water that would have been acceptable 50 years ago. (As of 2016, > 90% of samples were below 15ppb of lead again)

I think this is accurate except for health care. If health care isn’t fixed soon people are going to be really angry.

Wouldn't have thought sick people make the best revolutionaries.

I live in an EU country and the bartender has been hacking up a lung for over two months because her GP doesn’t have any appointments. Unless you speak the local language (or get hit by a bus and end up at the ER), you’ll never get any of the care you pay into every month either.

Until you actually experience healthcare outside of the US you really can’t talk about how horrible it is.

Even if you speak the local language it can be difficult to get proper care. You essentially have to know what you need yourself.

In related news:

The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations

https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric....

As an American who has lived in one of the poorest countries in the EU for over two years now, this doesn’t surprise me at all, but it’s awesome to have stats to back that up.

All of the things I listed are, I kid you not, things that are constantly happening here, even to relatively middle class people. Sure your healthcare is covered (assuming you can ever get in to see a doctor), but beyond that you’ll work your ass off 12 hours a day and still live in what Americans would call poverty.

>Sure your healthcare is covered (assuming you can ever get in to see a doctor)

Wealthier countries, too. An amazingly high portion of Canadians don't have a family doctor https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/despite-more-doctors-many-cana... . In Atlantic Canada the shortage is astounding https://www.thetelegram.com/in-depth/doctor-shortage/what-we... . The problem affects rural areas more than cities, but I've heard the same occurs in Vancouver too.

I would really like to know which country was that...

Link is broken.

Should be https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric...

Excerpt from the article: "Why aren’t Americans rising up in peaceful protest like our neighbors?". Well, because those protests aren't peaceful as you think. At least in Chile, every shop, hotel and place where protesters appeared has been destroyed.

I saw videos of Chile in the last month that had uniform military and non-uniform officials murder citizens. One specifically was a plain cloths man that walked out of a clearly government building with a carbine, shot into a crowd of 6-8 people, dropped a couple and walked back inside.

Why aren’t Americans “rising up” like in Chile? Let me know when you see that scene in the USA.

Rodney King? Black Lives Matter? There are still areas of Chicago and Detroit and Los Angeles that bear the scars of mass and violent unrest if you look closely enough. One of the most venerated U.S. representatives was severely beaten [1] in a mass non-violent protest. Is it a question of how much longer things can stay calm?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(civil_rights_lea...

There is no reason to rise up. You can just vote. And it works just fine.

And when your side loses, that's because democracy works.

Sometimes democracy means that idiots will win if there were more of them. There is no cure for that.

Except recently it doesn't work that well.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/north-carolinas-legisl... [2] https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2019/10/us-supreme-cou... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/us/voting-rights-minoriti...

The cure for that does exist: it’s called education. That’s why the Founders were very clear that public education and libraries were so important.

Simple answer: because life in the USA is incomparably better and fairer than in Chile and Lebanon.

I find it ironic how a site that labels itself "free-thinking" and "open democracy" is everything but. Instead, it is using clickbaity content and exaggerated claims to promote their own interest and survival.

It would have been a better article if the author had interviewed a few Americans. You can’t derive this stuff from first principles. I was completely surprised by the force and longevity of Hong Kong protests, based on my prior intuition, for example.

I think it is because there are still sufficient numbers of people in the USA who remember things like honesty, the importance of the rule of law, the principles underlying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and realize that it is best to work within that framework. I hope it will always be so, and suggest that we all pray for our leaders at this important time.

The Book of Mormon tells of a king named Benjamin who gave his people a form of self-rule, because he was old, and they knew historically that good kings were good, but bad kings were bad. His sons didn't want to be king and he saw that self-rule by the people was a better option long-term. But he gave the people a warning that when the voice of the people would choose iniquity, the judgments of God would come upon them: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mo...

At my simple web site I have posted thoughts on Lincoln, who understood the importance of principles: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581762.html

...and semi-related thoughts here: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581762.html.

We will of course have varying notions disagree on some things (like medicare for example), but I really, really hope we can agree on the importance of honesty, rule of law (therefore obeying the law), working within the constitutional framework when changes are needed, and encourage others in the same. While we will of course have different views on policy, I think I should be happy to work with anyone if we can agree on that much, in order to preserve our precious constitutional system.

I was thinking about this yesterday as I was driving home from my local cannabis dispensary. I thought what a wonderful relief it is to live in a free country; where I have my own vehicle, where I have freedom of movement, can get in the car and go eat anywhere anytime; how I live in a nice spacious home, with all the creature comforts I could want; my neighborhood is safe where crime is unheard of; life is good. sure we have lots of problems in America, and a lot of people suffering, but the masses are kept pretty content and that is largely why we don’t see mass uprisings.

Simple. Because the authors take on the whole scenario is flawed and bias.

"Why aren't Americans rising up like the people of Chile and Lebanon?" Is a flawed question because the authors viewpoint is wrong.

For example - The emphasis they place on the Occupy Movement is misplaced. Such movements are minuscule compared to the remainder of the United States.

"They have the guns but we have the numbers." Yeah, But you know who has more guns? The remainder of the US Population who thinks things while flawed, are fine and will get better. The remainder of the US Population who wants nothing to do with Socialism and Communism.

"Without the movement-building work of thousands of Americans, Bernie Sanders would still be a little-known Senator from Vermon (And the entire end of the article)" Which is actually testament that the system can and does work. How many new Politicians like AOC have been elected since 2011? How many non-career Politicians have upset career politicians since 2011. On BOTH sides.

People can point to the electoral college as a failure - But the fact is.. Congress is being represented by the people and campaigns are working. Much to the dismay of those who wish to uphold the status-quo on both sides.

And that fact alone - Is why Americans aren't rising up. Because unlike Chile and Lebanon, We don't have a central leader with all the power. We have a Government with checks and balances that frankly, works a majority of the time. Where-as Chile and Lebanon doesn't.

Don't forget the U.S. Constitution. Nor the millions of veterans who swore to uphold it. Nor the 1.3 million active duty military personnel who are also sworn to uphold it.

I’m not clear on what that has to do with this? I get the Constitution aspect, but the military?

The Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts severely limit the use of US military force domestically. Yes the US police forces have been militarized and yes the governors of each state can call up the National Guard, and yes both acts can be repealed by Congress, but I just feel like it’s shortsighted to think that if this kind of scenario were to happen there wouldn’t be at least a few states whose governors would be going along with it.

All of the ex-military folks I know are also the last people I would expect to blindly be going along with the military just because that’s what was ordered, they’ve served their time and now they make up their own minds.

Ex military personnel tend to hold the rights described by the Constitution a bit dearer than others. It's not like they would jump on some revolution to overthrow something they swore to uphold at one point in their life.

Ah yes, holding up the constitution by not getting congressional authorization to engage in war with foreign countries.

Why would Americans rising up want to get congressional authorization?

>"They have the guns but we have the numbers." Yeah, But you know who has more guns? The remainder of the US Population who thinks things while flawed, are fine and will get better. The remainder of the US Population who wants nothing to do with Socialism and Communism.

You're oversimplifying here. There are plenty of people who own guns who are not Republicans or conservative, and there are socialists with guns. The population of the US is not neatly divided into "good guys" and "bad guys".

However, the original article this whole thread is based on is deeply flawed, regardless.

I didn't specify republicans or conservatives. I broke it down into those who think it's fine, and those who don't.

One of the biggest fallacies around is that Republicans/Conservatives are the GREAT majority of gun owners. The reality is there are tons of Democrat/Liberals that own guns. And that's perfectly fine.

As for Socialists with guns. I think the metrics on how many true socialists actually exist are flawed. But that's a different conversation.

And no - The country is not divided into good guys and bad guys. My comment was against the author who did divide the country into good guys and bad guys.

Regardless - If a civil war were to break out. It would be good guys and bad guys. That's one of the biggest tragedies of war. Nuance is killed.

interesting. it seems like a two party system is as effective for an autocracy as a one party one but with less brutality

There is no money in protesting. Until there is, America will be on the couch.

They're working on it:

https://youtu.be/uwvAgDCOdU4

Who says that Americans aren't rising up? The Tea Party movement involved plenty of informal protesting, and you can see the Trump presidency today as a fairly direct outcome of that very protest movement, they do have many themes and political talking-points in common. Even the controversy and divisiveness we see around things like MAGA hats, etc. could be viewed as a kind of fairly successful, grassroots-based "rising up" or "movement".

Part logistics: if the US was the size of 1 or 2 states, it'd be simpler. Part incentives: can't get paid and will get fired for any time off. Part terror: the Police here are armed with live ammunition and if you are shot, you will die, and the officer will continue policing.

If / when the powder-keg explodes, the media will scapegoat the protestors to protect plutocratic interests by showing the destruction of plutocrat-owned property, playing it off as the destruction of worker-class property; this will divide the public into two superficially opposing, easily conquered, groups, one that defaults to accepting any appeal to authority and law as just (liberal), while the other is labeled radical or reactionary (left). Plutocrats will further gaslight and inflame fascism on the impoverished right, blaming the left for all their problems. This seems to be happening in every nation touched by international, capitalist trade, in the same pattern. Maybe we should solve this one before the world breaks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com