Because even the people who are the most negatively affected by wealth centralization will defend the billionaires that provide them with stuff they like, we'll never escape that system until people realize that there are no good billionaires and that they all exist at the expense of the majority of the population.
Like, we won. We did it. We have enough food, we can build enough homes, we can build enough clean energy to fulfill our requirements if we're halfway smart about it. What the fuck are we doing?
US Democrats are the equivalent to our countries conservatives, and US Republicans are basically our rightwing/neo-nazi party pedant. It is noteworthy here that this Republican-equivalent rightwing party here is under active surveillance by the national security agencies for being a threat to our democracy.
And people still wonder why the US f-ups their people up and down.
It's not the standard view because, in America, consumption is inherently tied to your identity.
You are seen as more attractive if you have trendy clothing compared to "outdated" clothing. You are seen as more financially successful if you overpay for "luxury" handbags. You are seen as having "made it" based on how much stuff you have.
Corporations know they can exploit this. They play up the value of purchases to your identity in advertising, then use that to distract you from the fact that your labor is being allocated solely to fuel this seemingly endless (solely monetary) growth, while they continue to siphon off more and more of your wages because, well, they "deserve" it for being the founder of the company, or being the shareholders that are "invested in its success."
The only solution to this problem is degrowth. If we show corporations we don't care about all this excess junk that nobody really needs, the available labor pool remains the same while demand craters. If everyone is working x hours a week, but demand drops to only necessities and minor luxuries, without the products advertised as "needs" holding any demand, suddenly, each individual has to work only, say, half of x hours a week to accomplish the same requirements to sustain society and individual wellbeing.
That, and we need to give the means of production back to the workers too, of course.
Can't have a view that matters when you are hungry, stressed, are left with like 1 hour a day to yourself, and with constant other random threats to your existence you get to manage.
The system is working as designed, ppl forget how much work such a system needs to sustain itself actually.
Because mEriTocRacY, those wealth thieveshoarders aggregators worked sooooooooooo hard for their money, they totally deserve every penny. If only people would work as hard as them, they wouldn't be hungry or cold!
Edit: the answer here is that some jobs are still necessary and the ruling class hasn't found yet a way to motivate people to carry out those necessary jobs, if not by keeping everyone on the edge of starvation. If food and habitation were to become free, people would just stop being the useful tools they are supposed to be. That's why ubi is never going to take off.
Edit 2: Am i been downvoted by the ruling class? Actually, maybe it's because i said i don't think the ubi is going to stick. If that's the reason, I want to clarify that i believe ubi is going to be necessary in the long term, though I also believe it's just a piece of the puzzle. Another piece would be limiting resource usage by accounting for externalities through a system like carbon credits, but with more types of resources (not just co2) and for individuals. It should be a system that lets the normal person live almost normally, but stops the rich from doing the fuck they want just because they have money. At least they would have to buy credits from other people and pay them if they can get them.
My understanding is that issues like universal healthcare and paid leave for parents poll at around 80 percent. The reason the US doesn't have those things is not because the people don't want it. So the representation we elect are center right and don't actually support the will of the people. They represent the will of their donors.
In fact, I've heard people most likely worked less back in the olden days pf pre-industrial scarcity, or at least took entire seasons off when the crops they grew weren't expected to yield anything.
Think about all the power we generate to mine bitcoin. That could power HVAC for a small country. So, bitcoin exists to create a decentralized currency to prevent government from regulating the currency so the advent of a financial clapse bit coin holders will be able to keep the power on. The very power being spent to generate bitcoin. Add on the extra carbon emissions from running the power plants and you have an equation for certain clapse.
I'm not really sure about that - I'd say in the US reactionary politics is just far more overt than it is in other places that self-describes (optimistically) as "democracies."