I can understand that it seems very reductive especially to someone who has spent significant time thinking about intricate problems with the system, and ways of changing the entire system radically, but take a step back for a moment.

Its not truly as reductive as it might seem at first blush. “Reductive” implies unwarranted simplicity, which I don’t believe applies in this case. The most glaring problem is in fact a simple one, and a simple argument against it is appropriate. Look at this graph:

Anyone with at least one functioning eyeball 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.

As I said before, a primary goal is to have the tent be 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.

We are focused on making the system we have, flawed as it is, a base level of sustainable in the interest of everybody. 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