this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
129 points (99.2% liked)

Aspen Anti-Billionaire Society

118 readers
207 users here now

A community dedicated to spreading awareness of the negative impacts of the billionaire class, especially the 250 richest people on the planet

We believe that the existence of the 0.01% comes at a cost to the rest of us, even multi-millionaires, and hope to spread awareness of this problem among the 1% (who have the most resources to affect change)

All discussion and links related to wealth inequality and related activism are welcome. We hope that this community can serve as an easily accessible repository of information about wealth inequality

Please meet disagreement with civility so we can foster productive discourse

founded 2 days ago
MODERATORS
 

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

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Our position is a strong but simple one: we firmly believe that our entire economic system, and the world along with it, are doomed to fail if we dont move the money that billionaires have been squatting on. A vast majority of the exploitation and poverty that exists in the world can be tied to billionaires parking money that should be moving through the hands of Americans and out to the rest of the world. We believe that this isn’t just a problem that negatively effects the average American worker, or those less fortunate around the world, but that negatively effects all people; including you multi-millionaires out there fretting about the masses clamoring for equality.

As a working-class resident of one of the richest tiny towns on the planet, I’ve gotten plenty of insight into the lives of the 1%. While I at first resented the money that flows through this town, Ive come to realize they are hardly part of the problem. For any of the 1% out there that end up reading this imagining “theyre thinking about taking my money away again”, Im gonna say something you probably rarely ever get the pleasure of hearing: you’re too poor for us to be talking about you. And more importantly, youre just as screwed over in this as we are.

The idea for an organization came to me when I recently started looking into just where all the money went. If families back in the day could live off of one man’s income alone, where the hell did it go? Although we all know the answer inherently, moreso I have been trying to acutely visualize the problem. So lets look at some simple facts:

The median income today is roughly equivalent to the median income of 1958, so if you are just looking at raw inflation you might think people are paid on par with the value of money in 1958. The reality is that inflation does a piss poor job of showing you the whole story.

In 1958 the median household could afford everything that was needed for a family of four and then some. The 2% richest income bracket in 1958 made only $15k or more, equating to an income of around $170k today. There was only 1 billionaire at the time, J Paul Getty, who was the richest man in the world and worth the equivalent of $12B today.

Flash forward to now, the median is at a nearly inflationary equivalent point, but appx. $75k a year is hardly enough for 1 individual to live comfortably, let alone an entire family of four. This means that 50% of all households are well below what it costs for one person to have healthy finances in 2025. It also means that the majority of the richest 2% of households in 1958 would not be able to afford a comfortable cost of living of a family of four in 2025 (about $170k at its cheapest, and nearly $300k at the high end)

If that isnt a ridiculous enough statistic to show you how viciously American wages have stagnated in favor of making the rich even richer, then consider this: In 1958 child laborers were paid $1 per hour, the minimum wage at the time. Assuming that child worked 40 hours in a week, they would have made a little over $2k in the year. Relative to the GDP of the united states at the time (about $480B) that would equate to making over $1M per year today. Therefore, everyone currently making less than $1M per year (pretty much everybody) has less buying power than the average 10 year old child laborer in 1958.

With this in mind, its easier to see how inflation doesnt tell the whole story. That $1 minimum wage might equate to $12 today, which is higher than the federal minimum wage and the state minimum in about 25 states. But even if the minimum wage were brought on par with that base metric (which again was considered the appropriate wage for literal children), a person making $12/hr would have absolutely no buying power relative to a minimum wage earner back then. To be precise, it would be less than 2.5% of it.

To put it further in perspective, a household earning the median income of $5k back in the day would be the GDP-relative equivalent of making over $40M per year in 2025, even though it would be the inflationary equivalent of earning less than $75k a year.

Now, Im not an economist whatsoever. Im just a guy. And im sure there are some methodological issues with looking at wage strength relative to GDP for serious purposes. But I think doing so makes it pretty clear that we have hardly a fraction of the buying power of the average American back then. Where did all that money go? Into the bank accounts of billionaires.

Getty, the first billionaire, would have had the equivalent of an unfathomable $12B today. Elon Musk has $433B just himself, along with 249 other billionaires worldwide that can count themselves as having over $12B. Musk alone is 36x richer than how rich Getty ever was.

In total, the US today has 812 more billionaires than we had in 1958. If we capped all wealth at $12B, or the equivalent of Getty’s wealth back then, then every billionaire in the US would still have $1B-$12B, and we could immediately move the excess $5T that they have collectively been sitting on. US worker wages could be raised to a point which meets actual cost of living. Wages around the world could finally rise in step, ending crushing poverty that plagues the globe.

Even if we pegged modern billionaires to the same level of wealth relative to GDP as Getty, who was 1/481B, then no one would be allowed to be worth over $62B today.

The wool has been pulled over our eyes for decades. We have been pushed to accept the bare minimum that they could get away with, while they stuff their pockets for no functional reason. A game of numbers that creates limitless suffering around the world for the benefit of no one. All so they can feel good looking at their estimated worth in Forbes magazine. We dont deserve this, the people of the world dont deserve this. And the whole world is gonna go tits up if we dont fix it. The existence of the 0.01% comes at the cost of the rest of humanity.

While we may be able to do a lot in pointing out the problem, few of us have the means to do anything about it. We need more than just the collective action of everyday people. We need the 1% who arent billionaires on our side. We need them to see that Americans not being able to afford to live is a direct threat to their wealth. We need them to help us fight for the end of the billionaire class, whos existence only holds them back as much as it does the rest of us.

As someone already located in this town, I hope to use my position to garner the attention of the 1% visitors here, and draw it squarely on that issue. I dont know exactly what that will look like yet, and I seek the assistance of everyone who cares about this issue to help. I believe if we make these simple facts known to people they will see how unsustainable our economic system is, and just how much theyve been screwed by it. Its literally 8 Billion of us versus 250 people, or 3k people if the poor billionaires take offense. There is almost no one who shouldnt want to see this change

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Policy positions that I would like to fight for, at least in starting:

A cap on net worth at $12B per household, executed in conjunction with the rest of the world. But at the very least within the United States, alongside criminalization of attempts to evade the cap. Including by moving money abroad.

Major overhaul of the tax system as it applies to all net worth above $1B but less than $12B

A $35/hr minimum wage, the exact means of execution (so that it doesnt fuck the economy) TBD. But here is some work on the minimum wage I recently slapped together using SmartAsset’s cost of living calculations for 2025:

(Arctic is being a pain, but I will get it uploaded eventually. See my profile in the meantime)

Abolishment of the Brooke Amendment, which standardized spending 1/3rd of income (rather than 25%) on housing. While this would only impact public housing directly, more widely it could be part of a push to return to 25% as a standard for all housing.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I feel like we should be anchoring our numbers far lower. Net worth of more than 100 million or 50 million or 20 million should be impossible.

I agree with your policies and I'd support them as is, I'd be happy to get anything improved. But I'd love to suggest a lower starting point. 1 billion is more money or net worth than any dynasty needs let alone a single person.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Part of the entire point is that $12B is 36x less of a problem than people having Musk level wealth. Like the existence of billionaires in and of themselves is not that crippling based on the total wealth in the world, but yes I would love to see them taxed appropriately for sure.

Having a cap on wealth at such a ludicrously high point means that virtually no one in the 1% will even need be concerned about it, as they will probably never make it to $12B. Again, there are over 3k billionaires in the world, but only 250 of them have over $12B. But those people hold virtually all the money. 6 of them have well over half the money in the entire world.

The point of putting it where it is is to make the tent as big as is possible. I completely agree $1B is more than anyone could ever need or use, but that shrinks the tent and also threatens the sensitivities of some hundred millionaires. We need those people to ever actually make this a success. We all know congress is bought and paid for. Thats the only way anything will ever change

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think appealing to the worst people in the world will ever work, hence why I recommend lowering it to a good value and not a possibly feasible but less meaningful number.

I agree my suggestions are not based on data, and ideally they would be, but the goal is that no one accumulates enough wealth to influence whole cities let alone countries. 1B is still too much.

I think change will only come when the vast majority of people want it, and what motivates the vast majority of people is not a slightly better value but an actually good number.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

To be quite honest, I had a similar perspective to you for a long time, until I ended up working directly for people with that level of wealth.

For one, theyre people just like you and I, quite frankly. Sure, they float through life rarely having to concern themselves with the problems normal people have and can be called selfish I suppose. Although to be fair to them, many are philanthropic, but either way: thats pretty much what all working class Americans also do. Yeah sure we have problems ourselves, but we also largely ignore the impact that us having it better off comes at the cost of other people. And honestly people with a shitload of money have no shortage of problems themselves. Rarely do they seem well adjusted. Many of them end up in marriages young, trying to crank out kids, because inheritance is often tied to number of children. Like again, boo hoo when people are literally not able to afford food. But still, theyre just people like you and I.

More importantly, they care about their money more than almost anything else. Its not even “appealing” to them IMO so much as the point is to make it plainly obvious to them that the system is unsustainable. If we dont pay people enough to afford cost of living then their businesses will fail to find customers, the resort communities they love to visit or have second homes in will implode on themselves, whatever major metro they live in will follow, and really having whatever amount of money they have will be meaningless. Were at a tipping point where a non-insignificant amount of people are buying groceries on Klarna to survive, the tourism industry is taking a $20B hit, and they could probably lose most of the benefits of their wealth without doing something. If anything Im appealing specifically to their selfishness, and Im fine with their selfishness if it means we can end the selfishness of the richest 250 people. Because that, by the numbers, is the driving economic issue in the world. Money was made to move

I definitely agree the majority of people have to want it, which is why I want the tent as large as possible, and the message as simple as possible

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Look it, you can defend them as much as you like, I'm not here to debate the granularity about which hundred millionaire is less awful for remaining a hundred millionaire or judging them individually based on their human woes and vices.

I'm here to say the largest tent pole and the simplest message is constructed by being honest and effective. The honest and effective truth is when someone gets more than some tens of millions, let's say 20 or 50 if you're worried about the millionaires, they become a danger to society and to their communities. Any number of billion is so far removed from reality that I don't think it will actually interest most people. If I had heard that just 6 months ago I would have chalked it up to just another fake effort that won't change anything. And even if now I see the value of putting aside these nitpicking differences when it comes to the movements overall health, I still feel obligated to say dream bigger.

We don't need hundred millionaires, we need neighborhoods and family and unions and community and if we have to guns.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Im not debating the granularity of anything, I’m stating a fact that you don’t seem to understand about the gravity of someone having $430B versus $12B versus $100M.

Would you say there is “granularity” in comparing a 36 story skyscraper to a 1 story house? They are inarguably 2 completely different magnitudes of building.

Im being very clear and very honest, by simple plain math someone having $100M is not affecting your life in any way. Literally people make this whole idea of “the 1% have us all turned against each other with culture wars” which is almost all the way correct. The reality is that a handful of fucking people have everyone distracted, and that even the separation between you and someone with $100M is a petty class war from those 250 people’s perspective. People with hundreds of millions are not this evil monster that are any different from you, they hardly have any more money than you in comparison to a multi-billionaire. That is just factual, plain, and honest. Whether you want to accept it is a different story

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not debating magnitudes dude. The question is should a functioning society allow for someone to accumulate 12 billion USD in networth? Now answer that same question for 1 billion? Now again for 500 million? Now again for 100 million? Now again for 50 million?

The answer is no. Plain and simple. I don't care that I'm closer to 100 million than 100 million is to 12 billion, to simplify your point. Idgaf. The reality is neither 100 million nor 12 billion should be allowed. So why are you not advocating for a lower boundary value? You're saying it's because we need the 100 millionaires to make this work. I'm saying no we don't. I'm saying we can get more support from people if we pick a value that actually makes sense. Letting anyone own a 100 million dollars is still letting someone play king to an unbelievably large group of people. That shouldn't be allowed.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Again, you still dont understand, the one story house is $12B, not $100M. Magnitudes is hardly even the right term, its just the closest we can get. Someone having $12B is not the actual functional issue with society either. The issue is someone having hundreds of billions of dollars.

Ill be willing to debate the ethics of wealth between $13M and $12B once we solve the actual problem that is fucking up everyone’s lives. I personally dont think anyone needs so much money at all, but that isnt the point. The point is what can we actually do to make the system a base level of economically sustainable, otherwise we will be guaranteed to never see a day when it becomes ethical. Its about rationality in pursuit of ethics, not demanding pure ethics from any possible solution

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The biggest problem here is trying to use a utopian solution for a systemic issue, and doing so based on vibes. Whether that number be 1 billion, 200 million, or 100 billion, the working class has no power to enact that without destroying the Capitalist state that gives the Capitalists dictatorial power over the system itself, and replacing the state with a working class state. It doesn't matter if it would be better to have less obscenely wealthy individuals or not if there are no levers to pull within the system created and run to support them and their interests.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This doesn't really add anything to the conversation. I, and I assume anyone here interacting with this content, know that things don't just change based on Internet conversations. So... What's your point? Are you offering levers to pull within legal boundaries? Or are you just stating "we need to change society by changing society or we'll never change society!", cause again I don't think that's useful.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

As I already said, the working class needs to overthrow the state and replace it with a working class state. This is accomplished through organizing, such as what the Party for Socialism and Liberation is already doing quite effectively. The reason I take issue with OP's measures and methods is because they focus on working within the existing system, and appealing to the lowest denominator of the megawealthy as though their financial power can topple the .1%. In reality, the working class has far more power, and the will to carry it through, and that power is through force of numbers and effective organization.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you have a good initiative and I support your goals but I have one fundamental disagreement: these proposals are essentially "tax the rich, raise minimum wage", and they've been the bread and butter of Socialdemocrats all over the western world for the past half century and never really meaningfully improved things anywhere.

Wealth redistributions historically have only happened either as a consequence of revolutions, or as a consequence of fear of revolution as a form of concession by the capitalist owners. If revolution is the prerequisite in any case, why not just aim for revolution anyway?

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Full blown revolution is relatively unlikely to occur, or I think we would have seen it by now. People want change in society but they want to see it done peacefully, and I think the No Kings protests were evidence of that.

Violence against individual billionaires a la the French Revolution will never work, because its just attacking a hydra. Kill a multi billionaire and then their wealth just gets spread to their kids. Their kids will still accumulate wealth faster than they can spend it.

I think an evidenced based argument made, and particularly targeted at the 1%, would show them quite clearly that A) their wealth means nothing if people are actually pushed to full blown revolution, B) if nobody can afford cost of living by a mile, then they are losing money because we cant spend money on shit that they own, and C) nothing about their current income, taxation, or standard of living has to change whatsoever, because were literally just targeting people with over $12B. Like all the 1%, which starts with anyone worth over $13M, up to $12B, can just go on living as they have and being as wealthy as they have. The 1% are not the problem. The entire reason for our economic woes can be tied down to 250 people in the world.

While I totally agree that the base ideas here of taxing the rich and raising wages are the bread and butter of a lot of political movements that have failed, I dont think they take this exact approach in policy goals or in messaging. Saying “tax the 1%” is taking most of the wealthiest people who could, and probably would (if it saves their asses), actually help us with that problem easily and pushing them out from under the tent. If anything I almost see this as a prototype for a political party that could actually be successful in bringing people together. We should all be fighting against the 0.0001% for the sake of each other. I just want to afford cost of living. I could care less if that means someone with $100M gets to keep having $100M. They arent the problem

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 4 points 22 hours ago

People want change in society but they want to see it done peacefully, and I think the No Kings protests were evidence of that

But the history of mass, peaceful protest in the west leading nowhere is endless. In the very US you had the occupy wall street movement. In Spain we had the 15-M protests, in France the Gilets Jeunes, in Greece they had massive protests too, literal millions on the streets... and nothing happened. And I'm only talking about the past 15 years or so. You could go back further to see the tens of millions of people all over the west who protested against the Iraq invasion to no avail, if you go just a few years further back.

The problem isn't that nobody over the past 50 years of the western world has come up with a clear enough slogan, the problem is that quite literally every institution in the west is designed around maintaining the status quo, and when the time comes they won't be afraid to use violence to maintain it. If you somehow get a big enough following of peaceful protesters/voters who want to tax the rich, the rich will respond with violence, as it happened for example in my home country Spain in 1936 when the fascists did a coup to a relatively non-revolutionary leftist government.

The list of countries where fascists or otherwise violence were summoned to stop otherwise peaceful social leftist movements is endless: you have Nazi Germany (born after the murder of Rosa Luxembourg by the socialdemocrats), Fascist Spain, Allende being murdered in Chile and Pinochet taking control, you have Iran under Mosaddegh being toppled in the 50s... The list goes on and on and on and on all over the world. The countries which actually managed to reduce wealth inequality aren't mainly Socialdemocrats ones: you have the Soviet Union, Cuba or Maoist China solving wealth inequality for about a billion people, saving hundreds of millions of lives from hunger and exploitation in the process. There are a few counter-example mini-states such as Finland or Norway but they're a minority, and historically the reason why they managed to achieve these victories was because of the example (and threat) of the Soviet Union.

Again: I fundamentally agree that the richest among the top 1% must be extremely taxed (ideally their capital expropriated and nationalised or redistributed), but I don't think that's happening unless under threat of socialism or directly under socialism. You make a valid point when you say "Full blown revolution is relatively unlikely to occur, or I think we would have seen it by now", but in my opinion that's just because the west has been happily exploiting the work and resources of the global south. This dynamic is coming to a halt thanks to China and to the multipolarity of the world, and in the process, the west will collectively lose a lot (as it already happened in Europe and will keep happening, purchase power in Spain as of 2023 was 10 less than in 2006). With the decrease of material wealth in the west, fascism will pop up to keep the profits of the ultra-rich at the expense of the working class, and only socialism can defeat fascism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 22 hours ago

The reason revolution has not happened yet in the Global North is because through Imperialism, cost of goods are kept low enough that workers are more interested in perpetuating the system than they are overthrowing it. As Imperialism continues, though, concentration gets higher and exploitation more severe, until these countries break away and nationalize their industries. This reflects in worse conditions back in the Global North, and strengthens revolutionary fervor (hence the rising class struggle in the US).

You're correct that random assassination won't work, the system has to be replaced. You agree with Lenin, here, who argued against adventurism. Instead, the state must be smashed and replaced, the bourgeois state with a proletarian one. Public ownership must become the principle aspect of society, not private.

People have tried making arguments to the bourgeoisie, like Robert Owen, Saint Simone, etc. These were the Utopian Socialists, and they all failed, because economic systems are material, not collections of ideas. They aren't recipes, but physical objects, that behave according to the laws of physics. Policy is a reflection of that underlying base, not the driver. Policy shapes the base, but the base is primary.

Finally, it's the working class that has power through numbers and trained through Capitalism into socialized (read: cooperative, systematized labor) into a class that can run society as a whole. The 1% have money, but the working class has physical power.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I read your program, it seems very much in the flavor of Social Democracy, and as a consequence erases Imperialism as the biggest factor in the United States economy. Some of your conclusions, like simply taxing the US to end global poverty, ignore the entire mechanism by which the US Empire runs, cheap labor in the Global South kept dependent on US dollars and foodstuffs.

Further, you reach out to the 1% as the target demographic for this movement, rather than the working class. The lower 90-99% of the 1% do not have the resources to enact change, nor the desire to. The 99% have the resources and the drive. This "change-enacting" resource is labor-power, brought together through organizing. The 1% will not collectively band together against the .1% in order to benefit the 99.9%, they will continue to support the same system of surplus-value extraction that forms the basis of their wealth. It is only the working classes that have the will and the means to create a better world.

Next, there's a lack of Materialism, you place far more value on money than on actual production. All of these flaws absolutely cripple your analysis. Finally, the most damning, is a reliance on simple policy changes being possible in a system dominated by the Billionaires you claim as the enemy, the only way to actually wrest control from them is revolution.

I highly recommend you engage with political theory. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I keep an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list. Without understanding the how and why of the system, you can't learn how to end it. Capitalism cannot be reformed to save it, merely delay collapse while still depending on Imperialism like European Social Democracies. We need Socialism, and revolutionary organizing to overcome the evils of today.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Man ml coming hot as always with the imperialism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's true, though. The US consumes far more than it creates, it is utterly reliant on a complex system of expropriation from the Global South. Michael Hudson's Super-Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance goes over how the US in particular came to be the world's largest Imperialist power (though I don't agree with all of Hudson's analysis). We can also see Lenin's analysis in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism or this article on Imperialism, if you're short on time.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s not that I disagree, it’s that it’s predictable lol just being cheeky

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

To be fair, Marxists have been attacking Imperialism since it began to solidify at the turn of the 20th century, and even as it was beginning to form in Marx's time. Any methodology and analysis that excludes Imperialism as a factor is fundamentally wrong, the US economy is not inwardly supported but externally.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

If you think imperialism was “starting to form” in the 19th century then you have a shit ton of learning to do about imperialism my guy.

I also studied US imperialism nearly exclusively, in university as a fundamental part of my undergrad.

I dont discount the importance of recognizing imperialism, or deny that things are vastly more complex than my highly simplified argument makes it out to be. But its also inarguable that wages around the world are limited significantly by whatever American wages are. We would be exploiting the world to a far less significant degree if our country did not so viciously exploit its own workers. More money in the hands of consumers is more money flowing out and raising wages and standards of living everywhere else just as it does here. Especially at the increased level of movement we are hypothesizing about. And then shit will come down to a million complex interactions happening everywhere around the world. But regardless, we will be sending out far more money that currently is doing literally nothing for anybody

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Imperialism as a specific stage in Capitalism, not the general process of international extraction. Earlier forms of Imperialism of course exist, I assumed we all knew what I meant by my statement. Around the turn of the 20th century, bank and industrial Capital had largely monopolized in countries like Britain, France, Germany, and the US, and this monopolistic stage in Capitalism forced territorial division amongst these powers.

Prior to the 20th century, Capitalist development was largely internally driven, and monopolies had not yet formed. It was not possible for a few banks to control entire industries. There was still colonialism, in the traditional sense, but Capitalism had not yet reached the stage Marxists call "Imperialism."

If you'd like, we can call it "Capitalist Imperialism," as a separator from prior froms of feudal or mercantilist Imperialism.

Further, your conclusion doesn't follow. We would exploit the world more if the US remained Capitalist while paying its workers more. Capitalists would retain their profit levels and fund their workers with the fruits of more brutal Imperialism.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I understand what you are saying now, in putting it that way.

I’ll ask a simple question, in your opinion, how is unfettered capitalism in the US hypothetically less exploitative of the rest of the world, the global south, etc, than having moderated capitalism? I do not understand that perspective. Especially in that the US adopting moderated capitalism would hopefully push the world in that direction more largely, given our, admittedly highly imperial, influence?

I would like to better understand why the current system is somehow less exploitative in your view. I would think at worst one could say they would be equally exploitative

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 22 hours ago

Moderated or not, US Capitalism depends on Imperialism, as all highly developed Capitalist systems do. Imperialism becomes an economic necessity for Capitalist countries thay reach the monopolist stage, which itself is an economic compulsion of Capitalism. Social Democracies like the Nordic Countries still practice Imperialism, and not at a lesser degree, just a lesser scale.

Further, that's even assuming we can moderate the system. All states are dominated by a class, in the US that's the bourgeoisie. We can't just say "these are good ideas and are what we want," the Capitalists have to want it too. That's why revolution is necessary. Socialism is necessary.

[–] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 4 points 22 hours ago

I think there's a small misunderstanding here. Cowbee is using Lenin's definition of imperialism, which is different from the commonly understood definition of imperialism. When you say imperialism you likely mean something like "a big country attacking a smaller country", but that's not what Lenin (and so also Cowbee) means by it.

Here is a link to Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism if you'd like to read it. Lenin doesn't ever give a straightforward sentence or two definition of imperialism (at least, I don't think he does, I could be wrong), but really, for a first approximation understanding of his definition, I would look to the subtitle, that is "The Highest Stage of Capitalism". For Lenin, imperialism is the name given to the actions of a growing international bourgeoisie during a particular time in history, a time when capitalism is reaching its full power, and thus also, of course, experiencing the full weight of its contradictions.

It's a good little pamphlet by Lenin, gotta say! I'd recommend reading it at some point if you get the chance!

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

you do your thing my dude. As long as you’re not one of those Putin/Stalin/mao apologists I see from ml all the time, I don’t have an issue

[–] huf@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

lol, landed gentry, afraid of a fair redistribution of land?

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 day ago

If you don’t get the reference whatever, but I know better than to discuss genocidal dictators with a hexbear user

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I don't really know what you're getting at. Read the sources I've linked, do some study, all it seems to me is that you're just laughing at someone who took OP seriously and offered a serious critique on the basis of it being a critique common to Marxists, which I already said I was.

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Is the split linked to something happening in 1973? Did something change?

EDIT: Wasn't this roughly the period of stagflation?

Nixonomics babyy

[–] artifex@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago

The dollar was fully decoupled from the gold standard in 1971. I think this is just a slightly delayed reaction to that.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Based on some research I was doing last night, the consumer price index also spiked at around that same exact time, and exponentially took off from there. Years prior it was far more stable. It looked a lot like the graph on this post, but with far less growth before 1973.

I would love to know more about that particular time as well, if anyone has better insight

[–] The_sleepy_woke_dialectic@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does "Aspen" in this com's name refer to Aspen trees being connected at the root?

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Aspen refers to the town of Aspen, CO, one of the richest towns on earth. I want to start a local organization with wider support to try and target the 1% and wealthier people in general, attempting to spread the message of the negative impact of billionaires on them and the rest of us. Hopefully so that we can have their support in capping the wealth of the richest 250 people in the world.

I hope this community more widely can serve as a place on lemmy to discuss wealth inequality in all ways, shapes, and forms!

You should definitely consider tapping into that symbolism then! I've always thought aspen leaves would be a great symbol for the American left