[wddkcs]

When wealth inequality within a society is often a contributing factor to revolution and societal collapse, it's not an irrelevant factor.

Your stance is fine and logical, but most people don't feel the same. The difference between your wealth vs a poor African, vs your lack vs a rich American, is that you have the ability to collectivize and reach that rich American physically (not advocating violence, but pointing out that revolutions are violent).

I agree that Americans should also keep this in mind, when we as a country deal with the global poor. We're richer, but they have numbers. Not wise for us to fly too high above them, without using that wealth to benefit them too.

[s1artibartfast]

I would argue that it is making wealth inequality a political issue and outrage around it is often a contributing factor for revolution.

It is also worth noting that the results of those revolutions are often worse for both the rich and the poor. There's a long list of countries that have destroyed productive but unequal economies and replace them with those that are worse, and usually unequal but on a different axis.

People like to talk about the French Revolution with Eat the Rich slogans, and forget that it left everyone worse off, led to dictatorship, and eventually everyone coming back around to realizing the old system wasn't so bad.

[wddkcs]

Wealth inequality affects the people, the polis, how could it not be political? I am not arguing for revolution, I am saying severe wealth inequality is a contributing factor to something I would rather avoid. No American should want our poor so desperate they resort to revolution. No American should want our government to unequally oppress the global poor. Revolution is a product of unequal systems, and I agree it is crushing.