And by haters I just mean folks who think $12B isn’t a low enough cap…
We are not focused on class war between the majority and the 1%, because (by the numbers) they are not the direct threat to the sustainability of the system. They are not where our money has gone to.
The difference between someone with even $12B and Musk level wealth is the difference between a single story house and a 36 story skyscraper. We are focused on tearing down the skyscraper and taxing the house appropriately. To be frank, the wealth of people with less than a billion dollars is not on our radar as a problem. In contrast, we would like their help in tearing down the skyscrapers. That is the point of our community. We are only after the excess wealth of 250 people in the world.
So again, I welcome you 100% to the tent if you are interested, but politically our goals will always remain simple and be augmented by simple arguments. If that means we are not the community for you, I understand. We’re seeking to act rationally in pursuit of a more ethical world, not to demand ethical perfection from the outset. To be honest I personally believe that ethical perfectionism, infighting, and shrinking the tent are major reasons why progressive movements to rectify wealth inequality constantly fail.
Louis Sachar once wrote an entire book based around the concept that “if you want to fight your way upstream in a river, you have to take small steps”. We arent looking at the end of the river, were looking at the first small steps. (Also that book is a great sequel to Holes for anyone who has never heard of it)
Our argument may seem reductive, but anyone can see the simple nature of the problem. The skyscrapers are a head and shoulders above the single story house. Its a simple problem to see, and an exponential one. 6 people in the world owned half of all the money before covid. Now the problem is even worse. I would venture that the richest 250 people in the world probably own 3/4ths of all the money at this point, at least.
Money was made to move. When that money is parked it doesnt change hands. When it doesnt change hands it doesnt get taxed, things dont get bought. When that happens the government doesnt have the resources it needs, and the economy goes out of whack as well. Its a simple problem that ties into literally every issue imaginable just on that basis. Climate change? We could use more resources to fight it. Materials science to solve the plastic problem? More resources to fight it. People cant afford rent? More resources to pay them. People cant afford healthcare? Do you wish we had bridges to drive over that arent 60+ years old? Are you tired of paying for a fishing/hunting license to subsidize conservation? Everything big and small is impacted in some way by the wealth of the richest 250 people not moving, both inside the US and around the world.
The goal of the movement is not to change the system, really. We arent arguing for moving away from capitalism, even if many of us would like to see that. What we are arguing for is fixing the most unsustainable problem within the system we already have, so that we can continue to fight for a better system in general.
A primary goal is to keep the tent as wide as is possible. The point being that we are fighting specifically on this one issue that should, at least hypothetically, bridge the gap between even people who want radical change and people who want to see no change at all. For people who want radical changes, this is the first step in the right direction. For people who want to see no change at all, this is a step that will prevent the collapse of what they dont want to see changed.
For anyone too broke to afford cost of living, this is what will raise them up to afford a base level of comfort. For the 1%ers, this is what will ensure they get to keep the standard of living they already have, as well as make a shit ton of money off the rest of us. If anything I see this community as an incubation for a political bridge party that can actually bring enough people under one tent to affect change, and breakthrough the various distractions that the richest people in the world rely on so we dont come after them. Red vs blue, black vs white, majority vs 1%ers, and so on and so forth. Its all just bullshit to keep us from paying attention to the 0.0001% who have almost all of the money.
This isnt about redistribution of much of anything from the 1% at large. Its about dislodging the 5 trillion dollars that sit largely in the hands of like 10 people. Just that $5T moving would be enough to allow the rest of the 1% unaffected. Thats like 1/3rd of the federal deficit.
The point of targeting that $5T specifically is because its $5T that is virtually guaranteed to never move otherwise. Its just feel good money for the mega billionaires, which even 1%ers cant relate to nor justify.
We are focused on making the system we have, flawed as it is, a base level of sustainable in the interest of everybody. Capitalism with the bumper guards up. Regardless of what they would want to see next.
To analogize: if were all in one car together right now that is a hunk of shit, and we got a flat tire, the goal for us is to fix the tire so we can make it down the road. Some might want to abandon the car right now even if it means chaos. Some might want to fix the flat so we can get a different car. And some might want to fix the flat so we can keep driving the same hunk of shit. But the goal of our community would be centered on fixing the tire, to avoid chaos and to leave our options open for the future
- ToastedRavioli
If you’re seeing this from all, here is a link from yesterday to contextualize. Please consider subbing if you’re interested
Reading through your positions, your heart is very much in the right place but you seem to miss the most important detail: who actually holds power in our society, and how does that power manifest itself?
If we lived in an actual democracy, these changes wouldn’t be worth discussing because they would’ve already been put into place ages ago; it’s intuitively obvious to anyone paying attention that there is no world in which it makes sense for a handful of people to own something like 90% of the wealth a society creates. If government policy was driven by sound reasoning and a desire for the greatest possible outcome for the most people, all of this would already be in place. If the media were free to put forward information about key issues that affect everyone and the best paths forward to resolve those issues, you wouldn’t have to type any of this out.
None of those statements are reality, nor are they anywhere near it. Our society (speaking specifically about the US, though this is applicable in any western-aligned nation) is, has always been, and will continue to be dominated by those with wealth. This country was founded by plantation owners who sought to exist in a society with zero oversight on them, driven by factionalism between them and their British counterparts and fear of a rising sparks of abolitionism within the British government. When that first attempt at as true of a laissez faire society fell apart in the face of slave revolts and antagonism from the former soldiers they failed to pay for their part in their revolution, they circled the wagons and created a stronger central government completely bound to their wills. You don’t even need to read between the lines, they flat out admitted in the Federalist papers they were terrified of true democracy because the “mob” would overrule their enlightened perspective.
Our modern society is even more consolidated under their rule. They unilaterally own TV, radio, the internet. A single individual writes a check to bribe a senator that outpaces what ten thousand smaller donors can scrounge together collectively. Judges are drawn from billionaire-funded think tanks so regularly you could safely bet money on who the next Supreme Court justices will be. And most importantly of all, the means by which 99.9% of the population survives is, without exaggeration, a dictatorship by their bosses, the very people you’re opposing. Any resistance to the status quo will inevitably result in the relevant workers being blacklisted from society and left to starve to death.
A political movement whose objective is to place a wealth limit on the people responsible for the above system would only succeed if that movement amasses enough influence, organization, manpower, and popularity with the common people that they can overthrow the entire system. This is where I think you’re wrong: if you can reach this point, why would you treat the symptom instead of the disease? Every compromise the capitalists have ever given the rest of us will be and has been undone; the vast protections given to workers through mass unionization has been eroded, civil rights have been rolled back, and wages have stagnated as the existing real threat of socialism disappeared at the end of the Cold War. This same trend has occurred all across Europe and Asia, it is not a fluke but rather an inherent and obvious action of capitalism.
Don’t settle for half-assing it, break the system that allows for ten people to dominate all of society and build a more equitable world instead.
The 1% in total is over $40T in net worth, while billionaires only hold like $7T of that $40T. The 1% can outspend the billionaires if acting collectively, but not as individuals.
Im talking about convincing the $33T and the general public to outspend the $7T, which is locking up like $5T that would otherwise be bouncing around in the economy. The difference between the 1% and the 0.01% is that the 1% still move large volumes of money out. That $5T locked up among a few people will not move without government intervention, they literally cant possibly spend enough, but it’s not as immune to being dislodged as you imply. And its in the interest of all the rich people to dislodge it.
I understand you may disagree, thats just my clarification
The non-billionaires are part of the capitalist class. They’re on the same side as the billionaires; there isn’t some magical divide that pops into existence once you cross the threshold from eight to nine digits in your net worth. The problem still remains.
There is a completely non hypothetical divide in the sense that, in the face of an impending failure of society (which by reasonable measures we are not far from), I’m sure they would much rather maintain the status quo. Especially when it comes at the cost of a handful of people richer than them.
99% of 1%ers will never have to concern themselves with having over $12B. $12B is an insane amount of money, thats kind of the whole point. I think they would gladly sell the people with over $12B down the river, especially if it only makes them richer.
What incentive is there to do otherwise? I get youre used to thinking in class terms, but like just from a purely logical standpoint? If you had $100M would you not say “fuck Elon”, I could be making more money? The problem is virtually universal between 1%ers and everyone else
Classes exist not because of levels of wealth, but relations to production. Capitalists are in the level they are at because they exist in the M-C-M’ mode of existence, and that does not change at a fundamental level between the less than 12B and the higher than 12B crowd. Capitalism is a system of motion based on material production and valorization of Capital, Capitalists are not a class due to choices but material structures, and as such simply trying to convince a subsection of them to go against another subsection does not work as it does not address the system.
Additionally, historically the capitalists have been quite good at class solidarity between one another, even between factions that are unaligned in their own self-interests. You don’t get to the point of ruling over hundreds or thousands of employees and making millions or billions off of their surplus labor value without realizing that if you let those same workers ever figure out that they don’t need you and outnumber you 1000:1, you are beyond fucked and it is worth it to ally with anyone in the same boat as you to keep that from happening.
Yep, exactly. The closest you can get is nationalist bourgeoisie in imperialized nations combatting Imperialist bourgeoisie of their oppressor nations, but even then you have compradors.