that’s a scarily large amount of billionaires
Another consequence of inflation, I suppose.
We’d see some real trickle-down in that case.
A little billionaire cocktail math for you. Each billionaire emits in the neighbourhood of 1 million times more CO2 than the average person. So you streetcar just 3000 or so billionaires and that’s the equivalent of reducing the earth’s population by about 3 billion. Can’t really think of anything greener
The emissions from their investments … thats the same as the emissions of your place of work or the emissions of the company you buy your stuff from. Lets blame that on an extremely small group of people instead of the billions of people who consume the products enabling them.
Yep there might be plenty we disagree with regarding their investments and their affect on the environment but we are just lying to ourselves to say people arent making a living due to some of those investments, having our lives enriched, and generally benefitting us in ways we would demand to keep if they were all magically erased.
Kind of useless to talk about this in any way to come to a sentimental conclusion though because we arent looking at a distribution of data to inform us what generates the most environmental impact and how much value we actually get from it each investment. Its just a big ambigious number until we look into it. Which we wont. Because nobody here actually cares enough.
Honestly it’s a form of depoliticization because it’s not a serious proposal with any realistic chance of success. It distracts people from getting engaged with real politics and actually making a difference. And at the end of the day, isn’t that exactly what the billionaires want?
What proposal? I dont know what you are talking about.
I want truth.
Thats their investments, not their personal use. According to your source anyway.
I’m pulling the lever as hard as I can, I swear!
Not that I don’t believe you but I’d love to cite this in future discussions, where did you get your stats from?
2700? That’s more than I thought.
I see no problem in this trolley problem… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Put a sniper on top of the cart in case the switchman gets bought out. Ain’t taking no chances.
And when the sniper gets paid off?
Now there’s 2702 billionaires to take out…
So killing them saves 1.00074 habitable biospheres?
B…but the shareholders! Won’t someone please think of the shareholders. 😢
That’s 2700 more than what I would like
I’ve seen this meme a while ago and I saw someone saying he wants to run over the billionaires back and forth to make sure they’re dead and I deeply agree with that.
Billionaires brought the tram and dismantled it for car infrastructure
Trolley problems usually have some conflict that makes the decision hard.
Exactly. There’s no moral dillema here. I’m keeping the switch in the “left” position and welding it in place, just in case.
Add on the left workers rights, freedom, and real economic prosperity
Lest we forget, trolley tracks are electrified sogo ahead and let ol jg gotrox step on one
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No dictatorship is ethical, the state is inherently unjust and oppressive
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.
Also see: USSR, China, and North Korea.
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.
You’re just another bootlicker, the only difference being that the boot has been painted red
Lmao
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 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 tankie propaganda more critically instead of breaking your chains only to hand yourself over to a new ruler.
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.
I’m guessing those people would all be succeeded by their next of kin. Would that cause a wave of change or…?
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.
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.
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 up either 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.
Hence the necessity of Communist theory, otherwise random adventurism takes place.
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.
This is so stupid it makes me worried for the human race that people actually fall for that. Do people honestly think that the problem of emissions goes away by taking out the people owning the companies producing the emissions? Isn’t it extremely obvious that the same companies will produce the same emissions regardless of who owns them as long as the demand for their goods, services and laws governing them stays the same?
I mean sure, lets blame the owner of exxon for the emissions caused by cars and powerplants. I’m sure people will enjoy riding to work on a horse amish style if it means limiting global warming to 2 degrees instead of three, how about you pitch that idea to a large group of people an see how that goes.
You know what would actually help? Electing the right people. Not just caring about this on election day when you have the choice between two shades of shit, get the right people primaried. But you know whats the truth? The truth is that it’s not the billionaires fault. The truth is the majority of people don’t care about saving the planet, not if it inconviniences them and thats why democracy doesn’t nip this in the bud. Because it works. It actually represents the people and their will and the people who care are represented by the guys that loose by 30% in the primaries, as in getting 3% instead of 35%.
You take out the billionaires and the industries will be run by the workers, the state or whatever anarcho socialist conglomerate you can think up, but nothing will change. Because 90% of people are too busy with their own little lives to care about 3 degrees global warming and nothing will change that.
You’re right people will never ride a horse instead of their car. (Plus it seems horses would be worse for the environment) But the 2k people who own 50% (?) of world wealth have more say on how the resources are used than the 99.99% of other people. And like them those 2k don’t want to ride horses. On the contrary they want to use all the resources for their own benefit. So getting ride of them could allow to implement some sustainable practice they are fighting against.
But it is a joke in the end: Having 2k oligarchs run over by a trolley wont save the planet. What need to be run over is the system that allow 2k people control the fate of all the others through greed.
But thats just not true. Well maybe it’s true for a country like china or north korea. But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do. Sure they can influence elections to some degree, but if there was a true will for change? The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.
But again, the oligarchs ain’t the problem. Getting rid of them just changes the ownership of the companies producing the pollution, what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation. And that legislation is not supported by the majority of people. I mean look at east germany during the cold war if you don’t believe me, not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don’t cause pollution, people do.
But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do
Lol. Lmao, even. No, you cannot.
what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation
Will never happen in bourgois dictatorships. You have to wrest their control via force.
Sure you can, happened many times in history. US independence, French Revolution, suffrage movement, civil rights movement. Elect radicals and they will change the system. But only if people wanted change, which they don’t.
People that want to get rid of billionaires, corporations in politics and people getting fairly represented are the minority. The majority want a wall on the border with Mexico, arming teachers or abortion rights and lgbtq rights etc. That’s what they care about. Highly controversial topics that ultimately change nothing about how the show is run.
Sure you can, happened many times in history. US independence, French Revolution, suffrage movement, civil rights movement. Elect radicals
These were none via election, this was done through mass popular struggle.
People that want to get rid of billionaires, corporations in politics and people getting fairly represented are the minority. The majority want a wall on the border with Mexico, arming teachers or abortion rights and lgbtq rights etc. That’s what they care about. Highly controversial topics that ultimately change nothing about how the show is run.
You’d be surprised, but even then trends are changing as Capitalism declines and dies.
We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do…The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.
which one of your two options is offering to change the system? Who owns the media that propagandises the masses not to support such change because “cOMmUnISm” and instead be bombarded with “aspirational” content designed (at the cost of trillions of dollars) to make us overconsume?
what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation.
Who is legislating? And who do they actually serve (see above)
not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don’t cause pollution, people do.
Lmfao. It isn’t poor people who wage and fund war that leaves more poverty and destruction for them, and billions for those calling the shots. The fact that in one place at one time the people making the money weren’t local doesn’t change that.
Billionaires don’t cause pollution, people do.
Billionaires are people, people who use their vast power and money to maintain a system that is and always has been rigged in their favour, and that is designed to keep you trapped, along with the rest of us.
