this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
1065 points (98.4% liked)
Memes
45753 readers
967 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder what would happen. Let's say 10,000 people.
Let's say some extremist, highly organized group manages to successfully assassinate the 10,000 richest people in the world, and then disappears without a trace.
I'm guessing those people would all be succeeded by their next of kin. Would that cause a wave of change or...?
You're correct. It would cause some disruption and a lot of joy, but system would continue. It need to be overthrown entirely and new one built. That is, proletarian revolution is needed.
my boy/girl.
No, it would not cause change. More would quickly take their place. The problem ultimately isn't the billionaires, but the system that allows them to exist.
Which they maintain (and rig further for their benefit) with their exorbitant wealth and power, let's not be coy.
Sure, killing them all isn't enough on its own, but abolishing capitalism will never happen as long as they, and their power, exist, and very few, if any at all will give it up voluntarily (to begin with, anyway), leaving us only one choice. They are what is destroying the planet and oppressing, and killing, millions of people, proactively and by choice, the "magic hand of capitalism" didn't force them in to their positions.
Depends. If it happens once, you're right. Nothing would change. But after the 2nd or 3rd time in a year? I think the people who inherit it will start seeing a little more charitably.
Hence the necessity of Communist theory, otherwise random adventurism takes place.
I think a more efficient tactic would be to, once a month, execute the person with the highest net worth. Billionaires would be scrambling to get rid of their money
Be better to just go ahead and achieve a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, any Capitalism that remains can be kept no bigger than can be crushed easily if it gets out of hand.
No dictatorship is ethical, the state is inherently unjust and oppressive. Also see: USSR, China, and North Korea.
The Dicatorship of the Proletariat refers to a democratic proletarian government. The State is a tool by which one class oppresses others, hence why it is important for the proletariat to assume command. Once classes are abolished, the state itself withers away into an administration of things.
See what? Democratization?
You're just another bootlicker, the only difference being that the boot has been painted red. Were you a real leftist, you would understand that so called 'communism' executed this way only leads to the creation of a new ruling class that the people first obey because they believe it can liberate them, and after that, because they are surrounded by propaganda and would be imprisoned or killed otherwise.
I beg you to educate yourself and start looking at tankie propaganda more critically instead of breaking your chains only to hand yourself over to a new ruler.
Lmao
I am a real leftist, thank you very much. If you can explain how elected delegates constitute a "ruling class," then that would be appreciated. The idea that Communists were supported because of propaganda and threats ignores the doubling of life expectancy, 99%+ literacy rates, free healthcare and education, democratization, and reduced wealth inequality. You ignore material reality.
I beg you to educate yourself and start looking at US Empire propaganda more critically instead of supporting the status quo while whining about it.
Honestly, the idea that I am somehow brainwashed by "tankie propaganda" despite living in a system where Marxism is demonized daily is silly, you know your quip doesn't make any sense.
Read Blackshirts and Reds, and read theory.
The problem is that these billionaires profit the most from a system of resource exploitation, but they do not benefit exclusively. We'd still have hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel centric infrastructure that we'd need to replace and reconfigure. And that reconfiguration would require a national organized effort.
Ultimate, you can't just wave a wand and make Rich People Go Away. You need a national project that is both popular and efficient. One that reduces emissions while improving quality of life. You need a Green New Deal.
That's not something you can affect purely from subtraction.
You'd have to also threaten to assassinate their inheritors from taking the estate, or just take the estate. Either way that's violence. The question then becomes is it okay to use the Master's tools to build your own house, to which my answer is no I can't. I can use the Master's tools to tear down their own houses. I may be a bit too idealistic though.
Have you read theory? I can point you to some good entry points, but essentially if you can smash the bourgeois state and create a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you vastly democtatize society.
Something would happen on the micro level. Some families would fight over the power vacuum, other families would slowly fall into obscurity due to the loss of a loved one, some might spend resources to track down information, some might a come to Jesus moment about the wealth, etc.
Would anything change on the macro level? Doubtful. New people will rise to the top as the system that created unimaginable wealth still exists.
It's not the people, it's the assets you must destroy.
To go after Warren Buffett you need to destroy Apple, Coca-Cola, Kraft, etc.
Are you (and everyone else) willing to do without your comforts?