• zcd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not that I don’t believe you but I’d love to cite this in future discussions, where did you get your stats from?

    • tee9000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thats their investments, not their personal use. According to your source anyway.

    • Sbauer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • tee9000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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?

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    3 months ago

    Put a sniper on top of the cart in case the switchman gets bought out. Ain’t taking no chances.

  • fin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • onlooker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Exactly. There’s no moral dillema here. I’m keeping the switch in the “left” position and welding it in place, just in case.

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    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…?

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

      • P00ptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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?

            • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • InputZero@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?