I don’t know how many Marxist/Dem Socialists we have on FC, but there’s a convo I want to have (rather in person but):

It’s presented by Bernie/Zoran/etc that there needs to be zero billionaires because their wealth should be redistributed.

I heard someone else say “what if everyone was a billionaire?” 

I don’t think either are going to happen exactly (no billionaires vs all billionaires), but the decision sets if you make one or the other as the GOAL is fascinating, and I’d love to have that convo with people of many different viewpoints!

I’m basically as far from DSA as possible but I don’t think the “there should be no billionaires” thing is about the nominal amount in either direction, it’s anti-inequality

The idea is “it’s immoral for some people to be making $16.25/hour and some people to have 1 billion dollars”

History, tech stuff, SEO/marketing, shitposting, etc. etc.


https://paragraph.com/@afaik

Doesn’t make sense and is basically out of touch with reality, it’s more or less the mindset of a child but it’s not about the number itself

I’m not talking about what’s happening, I’m talking about what’s possible. 

Is a system that redistributes the only way? Or are you open to people finding technology that grows the pie so much, that everyone has what they need?

I think it depends if you mean everybody is *exactly* a billionaire and has the same net worth as anybody else, or if you means everybody is *at least* a billionaire.

I think a lot of people on the left would tell you that as long as X, Y, Z material needs are met then they would be ok with inequality, but in practice I think that’s fake.

People now are at a much higher material level than people 200 years ago but the ideology has stayed the same. Says more about people and political opportunities than material conditions

Yes, which is why I’m using “billionaire” symbolically, as well as literally. 

The world winning doesn’t necessarily need everyone to have exactly $1B USD, but we can choose to pursue a world that grows the pie so big that everyone has what they need or we can choose one where anyone who gets rich is redistributed. 

Are you open that the former could be the way?

It very funny how when you point out how arbitrary the threshold is, you are called a devils advocate or bad faith or whatever but it’s extremely short sighted and naive to set what seems obvious as the current threshold as the objective threshold. It’s just gonna keep changing

I agree that people who say they want everyone lifted, often seem to fall back on views that contradict.

Everyone “at least” a billionaire or “at least” living in a system where technology has brought the cost of everything down so much that everyone is living like a billionaire