this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
-30 points (25.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44182 readers
2123 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that there is not a choice to just end the 1% makes this very
The next 1% would just take their place.
Really, you think the 1% is just uniquely bad? You don't think there might be a systemic problem?
The 1% at the top have chosen to maintain the current system for generations. They also have chosen to strangle any attempts to change the system whenever possible via immense violence.
Ok, but do you really think the next one percent down is much different?
I really don't think you understand the scale of the ultra wealthy - the top 1% own almost half of the world's wealth. Yes, the next 1% are much different, as they don't own almost half of the entire world's money.
Do you think the kind of circumstances that would lead to the 1% being ended would be conducive to another slotting itself in without problem?