Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept capitalism that involves a basic income where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth.
Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)? Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)
Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types. Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.
They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality. In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth. Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society. Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty. However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society. Thus, her relative rank goes up.
And it’s not just about wealth either. In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.
Nobody’s perfect. I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.) I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.
Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering. Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace. However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.
So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities. Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.
The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all. Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)
Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea—is that really something we applaud?