MZT says that first we must analyze the primary contradiction in a society, from which all other contradictions build from.
My thought is that American working class do not revolt because our lifestyle is subsidized by the global poor. Of course there are impoverished workers (and lumpen) within America, but they are dissuaded by revolutionary organization because of this neocolonial dependence.
And I don't just mean "treats" although that's a big part of it. Many basic essentials are produced through the global supply chain and most people rely on income from companies who plunder the global south.
The financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy from neoliberal politics is the culmination of this. Why when workers made gains against industrial capitalists, production was moved to the global south.
I'm sure this has been discussed before by proper scholars, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm just reading through On Contradiction now.
I don't have a complete answer but I know that part of it is that the majority of people in the imperial core undrstand themselves as consumers, rather than as wage laborers.
You can have a core that exploits the colonies or periphery without the working class in the core making clear net gains from it. The distribution is mostly set by the ruling class in the core.
Regardless of whether the working class in the imperial core has a net favorable position, and regardless of whether they have enough insight to realize this, they have a story they are told about the fundamental justice of the system and the majority of them believe it, for whatever reason.
Very important, but this is not a material condition. It is more of the superstructure that informs the base.
Herein lies the contradiction.