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
There are 2 issues here:
Nobody is asking for complete societal collapse for progress, not Marxists, not even Anarchists.
Having a goal but not a vehicle to achieve the goal is the core issue here. It's fine and dandy to ask for a wealth tax, but what's more important is being able to get that wealth tax. That's why movements like the Bernie Sanders movement run into issues, they depend on asking a system resistant to change to go against its nature.
If we are headed towards societal collapse regardless in the current system, then the imperative should be to pick the most palatable alternative that can be quickly achieved to prevent societal collapse. Since societal collapse is the thing obviously no one wants.
The movement under Bernie Sanders also failed, much like the Occupy Wall Street movement, because they targeted the 1%. Targeting exclusively the 0.01%, the most gluttonous portion of society, is so targeted that it could actually garner support from enough people with money to work. Beyond that, the situation has only become more dire over time. People are buying groceries with Klarna now. The median rent is $2000. The rich must be aware that their customer base is wearing thin
Sure, I agree 100%. I think that path is actually revolutionary Socialism, because I believe that based on historical evidence, it is the surest way to actually bring about the desires of the working class.
I don't think that the 1% will ally with the 99% against the .1%. Historically, such a movement hasn't happened. Further, I don't think money is the obstacle, but physical, material control of the processes of production. Mass strikes, labor organizing, and armed revolution all have had a great deal of success, and money played a far smaller role in their success than labor power. The rich are acutely aware of the fall in purchasing power, historically wages have been anchored to the cost of reproducing labor, ie keeping people alive to come back into work, and when that number falls below it's necessity, wages recieve upward pressure. However, this is only up to a certain point, as the rate of profit has downward pressure, meaning Imperialism, itself a decaying system, is what props this up. Taxes alone, in my opinion, cannot save the system, only prolong it a bit more.