302
submitted 2 years ago by moosetwin@lemmy.fmhy.net to c/196
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] R00bot 35 points 2 years ago

They're not going to give up their control willingly, hence the killing them part.

[-] xedrak@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

But you still haven’t refuted my main point. If killing them just creates new billionaires, what does that actually achieve?

[-] AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org 14 points 2 years ago

I mean the general idea is we kill them and take their property instead of giving it to their heirs. Killing the billionaires is generally something that occurs as part of the larger revolution and not just a leisurely Sunday activity

[-] xedrak@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Sure, and that worked when money was a tangible asset rather than a speculative one. It really doesn’t apply in modern times when most money can’t be physically taken.

[-] AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago

Bro what part of a revolution do you not understand. The people saying this stuff are communists and leftists. After a revolution there won't be stocks left to own or corporations. The whole point of communist revolution is to seize the companies and desolve the capitalist institutions. Surely you understand this no?

[-] R00bot 5 points 2 years ago

Do you think billionaires actually have billions sitting in banks holy shit. They own assets bruh. That's what we'd be taking.

[-] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Why not murdering them AND Robin Hood all their shit? At least until the systemic problem that made them billionaires in the first place gets dismantled bit by bit.

[-] R00bot 5 points 2 years ago

It wouldn't create new billionaires if you're also changing the system lol that was my point.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
302 points (100.0% liked)

196

16870 readers
1743 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS