cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/30028880
See the stickied comment below for an explanation and statement of our purpose, based on simple back-of-the-napkin math
E: if someone could please link this community to r/aspen and r/roaringforkvalley I would greatly appreciate it. I’ve been IP banned by the all powerful AI mod monster, like many folks on Lemmy
You must log in or register to comment.
Will your community promote class consciousness and worker liberation?
Yes, absolutely. For one, we hope to expose the most significant class war impacting people today, which is between 250 mega billionaires and the other 8 million people on the planet. We advocate for raising the minimum wage to meet the true cost of living.
We see ourselves as focused on the most immediate concerns of both the working class as well as the 1%, which are united in opposition to the 0.00001% that have us all distracted.
Worker liberation obviously is a bit farther afield, but this is a progressive community. Personally I would hope to see people in the US get the same labor rights to organize as most people around the world have. Our lack of labor organization protection has been a critical part of wage stagnation
That answer does not inspire confidence, you didn’t answer my question at all. So I will ask a set of explicit and clear questions
- Will you support absolute class war? (Specifically through armed resistance and economic sabotage)
- Do you support the abolition of capital?
- What role if any is the state to play in your ideal world?
- Would you support a parial or complete collectivization of the economy through workers councils and syndicates?
- Are you willing to call out the ineffective social democrats who sell out to corporate interests?
- Do you support Zohran Kwame Mamdani for NYC Mayor?
- Do you support workers democracy (voting in the workplaces and/or non corporate sponsored political democracy)
Our mission is certainly not directly in line with any of the questions you have asked. What we are aiming for is not the endgames of changing the system. What we are, in terms of political aim, is a community that primarily concerns itself with pointing out that the current system is blatantly economically unsustainable, based on simple math. If you would like to know more about that specifically I encourage you to check out the linked post. Politically, our aims are very simple.
That said, the community (as a place to discuss wealth inequality) could use no shortage of perspectives regarding further aims beyond eradicating the wealth hoarding of the top 250 billionaires. Although our political aims are not nearly as far forward thinking as you might like them to be, nor are they for our anarchist or marxist/leninists who might want to see something far different from you, we still welcome everybody into the tent.
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. Were 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
With all due respect that sounds reductive. How can you grasp the wealth inequality without addressing the systematic issues that causes it? Its disease by focusing on the symptoms, you wont get very far because the underlying issues remain untouched.
I can understand that it seems very reductive especially to someone who has spent significant time thinking about intricate problems with the system, and ways of changing the entire system radically, but take a step back for a moment.
Its not truly as reductive as it might seem at first blush. “Reductive” implies unwarranted simplicity, which I don’t believe applies in this case. The most glaring problem is in fact a simple one, and a simple argument against it is appropriate. Look at this graph:
Anyone with at least one functioning eyeball 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.
As I said before, a primary goal is to have the tent be 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.
We are focused on making the system we have, flawed as it is, a base level of sustainable in the interest of everybody. 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
I wish you well on your goal however I personally will not partake in it. In my view trying to align revolutionaries with reactionaries is a recipe for disaster.
Using your example imagine that car was being controlled by an AI designed to slowly kill you. The driver of the car is also an AI but only a consequence of the greater AI. You can kill the driver but they AI will make a new one. Do you keep attacking the driver or do you tear out the computer system that produces those drivers?
