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

196

667 readers
64 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] xedrak@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] AnarchoYeasty 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago (2 children)

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 8 points 1 year 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

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