Flippanarchy

1108 readers

4 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]

Rules

If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

376

It's praxis ok? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

That question has a lot of variables that need to be properly defined.

How many are in the next generation to inherit? Passing the money/property to the next generation doesn’t actually fix anything, after all.
If they are already counted as 1% on their own, they must be excluded from the inheritors, even if it puts them in the .01%.
If not already in the 1%, how many would have their share of inheritance bump them into 1% territory?
If it would not bump them to 1%, how many inherit full or partial control of anything particularly impactful, like a business, commercial buildings, or huge tract of valuable land? Because that’s likely to put them squarely into the 1% in short order, as well.
Given the above variables, how much will the 1% figure shift? For example, you have 5 1% people, and each of them has 3 kids, who in turn each have 3 kids. So you off the 5, and now the 1% has fundamentally changed because where -all 5- qualified, now -only 5- will qualify due to the sheer mass of overall population, but you now have 15 people who would have otherwise qualified as 1%. Take those out and you now spread that among 45.. and eventually they aren’t rich anymore sure (or more likely the inheritance line dies out), but that’s really complicated math.
At what dilution point should this stop? There will always be a top 1%, and they will always own disproportionately more than others, so what should we deem a fair stopping point?

My math skills are nowhere near good enough to solve that complex of an equation.

Unless we are talking about outright sizing their ill-gotten gains along with their head.. I’m down for that option, as it simplifies the math substantially.