this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
83 points (98.8% liked)
Aspen Anti-Billionaire Society
141 readers
390 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
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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.