
The issue with comparing the current moment to historical revolutions is conditions have materially changed. What was considered luxury during the October Revolution or Revolutionary War are now considered basic necessities. I think we need to think in terms of relativity, had revolutionaries from the past been born today would they not feel the same?
Even comparing rebellions and insurgencies in the 21st century they met conditions that the average America is far from facing. We have to realize that, objectively speaking, American citizens on average earn higher wages than most of the world, have access to high quality healthcare (despite the awful trap of medical debt many find themselves in within our broken system, people still get treated effectively), and overall greater opportunities that don’t create a unified conscious that we-
Need to rebel against our government. We can’t relatively compare the past to the present without deeply analyzing how much more nuanced modern life is for the average citizen. I’m not gonna argue that a rebellion will never happen, but in the present day most people wake up, work, eat, sleep, and live their life fairly normally without much of a thought about revolting as the conditions are somewhat far from being met
The problem is not just material conditions, because despite having the highest GDP many Americans still experience outcomes we would consider third world. Just because they aren’t the majority doesn’t make their existence insignificant. The actual problem is hegemony and orthodoxy being used as mechanisms to maintain inequality.
Tell me you've never faced systemic hardship without telling me. Housing and food insecurity are a real thing, an no it's not the victims' faults that our country very notably lacks a social safety net. That's something for people like you who are higher up the billionaire food chain to address because if you can stand here and question the existence of hardship, that means you don't face it.
Nobody said Mali. You picked one of the poorest countries on earth so you'd win the comparison. The claim was that portions of the US see outcomes we associate with developing countries, and that is simply factual: about a third of Navajo Nation homes lack running water, and life expectancy in Oglala Lakota County, SD is roughly 20 years lower than in Summit County, CO. National averages hide that. Pointing it out isn't delusion, it's looking past the GDP number and thinking critically.
The GFSI scores national food systems, not households. It can't show who's going hungry. Feeding America's county map can. In 2024, food insecurity ranged from 6% in Oliver County, ND to 37% in Dimmit County, TX, and child food insecurity hit 45% in some places. One national color flattens all of that.
Look at your own table. US public social spending is 19.8% of GDP, below nearly every country ranked above it. It only hits 33.2% "net total" because that counts private spending, mostly employer health insurance. That's not a safety net, it's coverage you lose when you lose your job. And spending isn't outcomes. The US spends the most on healthcare and still has lower life expectancy than every country on that list.