Or imprisoned, or deported, etc.

Schooling in the 80s was still very much training us to sit still and follow the routine. Because we were all going to be happy worker bees for a living. And our classes had 30+ kids and one teacher for most of elementary school.

I’m not sure it has really changed much in most of America, especially since standardized testing became the norm and led to “teaching to the test” in many classroooms. I have since realized I had a couple teachers along the way who encouraged questioning your preconceived notions, 7 and 8 grade jr high science teachers specifically, and a metal shop teacher who they eliminated the year I would have taken it in exchange for a computer based “synergy” class.

~~(The Adventures of) Huckleberry Finn was Samuel Clemons, AKA Mark Twain, and is the sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.~~

NM just realized that none of the later books you listed were Steinbeck

we should strive to listen and learn. Educate the hate away.

I see your point, but let me offer a counter point:

Fuck You

Is that a quote? Or an original thought. Either way, it’s golden.

Gaps grew (in part) because of capitalism. Back when the previous generations were working- people were compensated fairly and given regular raises... it wasn't uncommon to work for the same company until you retired. What changed? Line goes up above all else. Cut raises, mandatory pay cuts, layoffs etc. Line went up. But that has an effect that amplifies over time.

Raises were largely responsible for offsetting inflation - this is the gap that steadily widened. There are of course other factors but most of these are, at least in part, also effected by inflation.

Generally speaking capitalism works, sure. But this is no longer capitalism. We have too big to fail, price fixing to choke out competition, and a governing body bought and paid for by megacorp.

Competition drives that gap, Capitalism is still what drove that chance.

Revolutions tends to lead to powerful people seizing the state and centralizing everything.

The usual theory they bandy about it is that they are a "vanguard" of "elites" who will prepare the ground for socialism. And when they are done they will turn the system over to the workers to control it like promised, from the bottom up.

Spoilers : They never do, so far at least.

Instead they will take over any worker-led initiative and stifle it and shoot the organizers if they don't get the memo. You wind up with the state owning the means of production and the workers owning next to nothing and being worked as hard as under capitalism. You typically wind up with a centralized, bureaucratic dictatorship.

On top of that, because the rest of the world is in a different system and to become a socialist state one must break the other system's rules, you've pissed off most of the powerful people outside your border. This leads to a besieged mentality (and assassination attempts, and coup attempts, etc.) which keeps up the pressure on that state to keep being a dictatorial, paranoid mess. Oh and it can also lead to stiffened trade as you become a pariah. And historically the USSR's economy for instance performed worse than the US's.

That said, other alternatives don't have to include armed revolution. You can start a worker coop, and that is technically socialism (or anarchism? I forget), because the workers would own the means of production. You'd be able to do that within a capitalist framework without too much conflict and without pissing too many people off (really I can't see anyone but ideological goblins and competitors bitching about this. And competitors always bitch anyways). Of course, contrary to wage labour, you have to bear the financial risks yourself.