this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
213 points (96.5% liked)

Aspen Anti-Billionaire Society

141 readers
530 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 3 days ago
MODERATORS
 

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

https://midwest.social/post/30028880

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You're running into a few problems.

  1. The arbitrary nature of 12B. People take issue with it because there isn't any materialist analysis in deciding that number outside of saying that other billionaires are worse, which is hurting your "big-tent" philosophy.

  2. You call this a pragmatic first step, but there's no analysis of how change happens in the first place. This is Utopianism, you cannot create a better world by simply trying to convince everyone of a better way. This is why Robert Owen and Saint-Simon failed, and why Marxists have made far more progress.

  3. You're strawmanning your critics. Nobody is letting perfection be the enemy of progress, people are pointing out how this isn't an actionable plan in the first place, and you're calling them naive because of it. This further hurts your argument.

  4. You're focused on money, not actual production. This means you have a flawed understanding of how we can actually solve problems. You can't just throw money at a hospital to make it develop, you have to physically develop it. This is important because your view of taxation is heavily financialized, when what matters most is actual resources and production. You can't take billions of dollars from Bezos and magically turn it into new industrial Capital, this kind of a change requires central planning and the labor and resources to do so.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The $12B figure is derived from the equivalent wealth of J Paul Getty in 1958, the first person to be a billionaire. So really it would be $12B scaling upwards, equivalent to the value of $1B in 1958 today. It’s vaguely reasonable given the far more equitable state of the US economy in 1958. Wealth disparity was a whole different thing at that point even though we had a billionaire. The top 2% income bracket started at a household income equivalent to only $170k today. The median was only 1/3rd as much.

The logical way it gets done is via governmental intervention, and no I havent fully planned it out yet. Im just one dude, thats kind of the point of why I created the community? To hypothesize in this specific vain

Im not strawmanning my critics, Im responding directly to responses I have received over the past 24 hours. I never intended for this post to be so wide, I was addressing specifically people who had subbed to disrupt by complaining this isnt a community for X, Y, Z alternatives to capitalism, or anarchism, or whatever. I was not intending to write to all of Lemmy

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I understand that you got the 12B from Getty, but that's just symbolism, it isn't attached to a scientific reasoning. That's why it's getting pushback.

I understand that you're just one person trying to spark a discussion. That in and of itself is admirable, and is the start of your personal political growth and development. However, you are stumbling into very old and developed arguments with a solution that is just as old. I understand that the idea would be government intervention, but the lack of a way to get from step 1 to government intervention is drawing criticism, as that process is more important than picking a good outcome to shoot for.

Again, this traces back to Marx. Utopian Socialists picked an endpoint and tried to convince everyone of it, rather than analyzing the trajectory of society and mastering the laws of social development in order to better guide that development.

My advice is to take a step back, and try to familiarize yourself with common arguments and strategies picked by various critics of Capitalism, such as Marxism, Anarchism, and even the Social Democrats that want Capitalism with tweaks, like you're advocating for. Look into the history of these movements and their successes and failures. Capitalism + tweaks is not a new idea, so its arguments for and against have been ongoing for centuries.

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

Look, dude, I get that you are deep into critiques of capitalism, and you want any excuse to talk down to anyone as much as possible. I havent forgotten replying to you yesterday. Youre half the reason I wrote this post, and again the door is wide open for you to leave if you want to.

This community is to be a place to discuss attempting to redirect the 1% of the 1%s wealth. Thats the point, to investigate collaboratively a means by which to do it. My expertise is not in the world of finance, but nor is it in having my head up my ass. I know an unsustainable system when I see one, and Im a critical theory writer. Im doing my part, trying to find like minded people to collaborate with.

If the kind of replying you have been doing is all you want to keep doing in this community then I dont see why you should want to be here. If were giving free advice, you should figure out how to get your ideas across without sounding like a condescending twat

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I'm not talking down to you, I'm trying to engage with your ideas constructively. I'm participating how you ask people to, by discussing the feasibility of these changes. How do we get from A to B? This is a critical question, and I'm trying to help you see how to better address the critics you have, how to engage with their counters, and how to develop to a higher level of understanding through dialogue.

If you don't want discussion, or engagement, then this is your community to do with as you wish. If you just want to insult people taking you seriously, though, I don't see this going very far. But, maybe I'm wrong.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

You're not a critical theory writer if you haven't studied the theory and practice of those who came before in your own tradition. Cowbee is trying to explain to you what the results of that experience are and you're getting upset like this is an ego exercise.

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 25 points 1 day ago (6 children)

We arent arguing for moving away from capitalism

Why not? Billionaires didn't appear out of nowhere, they are a product of the system that created them. If you aren't getting rid of the system then you're never going to get rid of the billionaires.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think there should be a maximum but there should be no end to maximum tax rates either. The first million should not be the hardest it should be the easiest and every bit after that should get progressively harder. Pro baseball players should not be playing t-ball.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

IMO, there should be a maximum cap to wealth (not just income, but total wealth). Not only to reduce the opportunity for exploitation of others, but also so any one individual can't be rich enough to control a government.

After a certain point, taxes should ramp up so high that making any more brings no benefit to the individual. They would be free to retire, fuck off, and give everyone else a chance to earn a living wage.

If wealth was not being hoarded as it continues to be, everyone would be better off.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

thats exactly what I mean. The taxes should prevent getting to a certain amount essentially. The competition will have an advantage for whatever the excess is so that we naturally keep from having monopolies.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How can you claim to be an anti-billionaire society when you are in favor of the majority of billionaires?

Are you completely unconcerned with the political economy of having billionaires in the first place and only care about the 'stagnant money' they're holding? An Andrew Beal can easily monopolize the politics of an entire state for the price of his passive income above inflation.

How are you going to accomplish literally anything in the face of that kind of domination?

[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just the tip; no billio

[–] PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How much rare stuff is in a billionaire loot drop?

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

anywhere from 50-200k runes and a Remembrance.

[–] CrookedSerpent@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Since I'm not seeing a lot of voices in support: Thank you. For the first time in a long time, this feels like an idea that has a chance of working.

Too many people online get wrapped up in their echo chambers, then are surprised that the average person doesn't react well to the idea of complete societal collapse as a path forward.

If that's a requirement for your plan for the future, you don't have a true plan for the future.


For many, many years I've lived by the idea: "We don't get to live in the world as it should be, we have to work to affect change in the world that is."

Setting broad goals that work in the current flawed systems is how you do that.

Do I want UBI? Fuck yes. Do I want a better system than capitalism? Fuck yes. Do I want socialized healthcare and further socialozed systems for the benefit of all members of society? Fuck yes.

Do I think anything short of total, global, entire financial, technology, and societal collapse will cast off the yoke of capitalism within my lifetime or even in the lifetime of my potential grandchildren? No. I'm not even sure that would be enough to do it.

"Kill all who disagree" or "kill all of the old guard" is not an actionable plan.


Instead, this has bones as something that might be possible. Target the top of the top.

How ridiculous is it that we have people squabbling over relative tablescraps in the dumpster out back of the restaurant while ignoring the people feasting in the private room.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are 2 issues here:

  1. Nobody is asking for complete societal collapse for progress, not Marxists, not even Anarchists.

  2. 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.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
  1. 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.

  2. 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

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

  2. 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.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

12 billion is way too much:

Duck Tales will show you why.

https://youtube.com/shorts/U-Fc4yuvgMQ

Every Level Of Wealth In 13 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6pcAcFKW30

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

this graph needs an X when Reagan went full trickle down economics

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’d love a link to that chart if possible :)

[–] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] KAtieTot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fuck that. What does "legitimately taxed" even mean. IMO, any legitimate tax rate would be 100% well before an income of $1 Bil

Most billionaires are billionaires through assets and stock options, not direct income, because that would be taxed.

Beyond that, you don't accumulate a billion dollars without ripping off a bunch of people along the way, employees, vendors, customers, consultants, partners, public services.

load more comments
view more: next ›