Katniss, who is poor and has suffered her whole life, and has been forced to endure extreme conditions, including nearly starving to death many times. She was forced to be resourceful, learning to hunt and gather from her father and Gale to feed her family. Katniss has always had less. Realistically, this would only be a disadvantage for Katniss, being malnourished, but in this scenario it levels the playing field. The Careers, who have been well fed and well cared for, cannot bear this. Katniss uses her survival skills as a way to win. In the United States, many people work long, difficult hours at one, two, or even three jobs and have learned to be frugal despite not receiving a living wage. Could this suggest that if the rich were stripped of their resources, the lower classes would have the chance to grow and succeed economically because they learned to be frugal? In The Hunger Games, Katniss destroys the food supply, which is all the remaining supplies in the game, which means she also sabotages herself in a way. If the lower class were to rise up against the rich in this country, through violence, riots, or movements like Occupy Wall Street, they too would be at risk of being arrested, losing their jobs, or being injured or killed. Is it worth it? To Katniss, yes. Katniss' actions are obviously about survival, but it's interesting that she teams up with Rue, a young girl from District 11, the agricultural district. Katniss and Rue are the smallest and weakest tributes in the games, yet they find a way to get the upper hand on even the strongest tributes. Capitalism creates competition that divides citizens, and Katniss's form of rebellion here is solidarity with Rue and the Capitol: a refusal to compete. This could represent something called the solidarity economy, described by Huffington Post writer Beverly Bell as “…basically a concept rescued by Chilean sociologist Luis Razeto Migliaro. It refers