Skip Navigation
153 comments
  • Let me copy pasta myself here to save time and just say - they are already murdering us in the millions, any harm that might come to them is an act of self defence.

    Look around - the violence is already here, it has been inflicted on to the working class for centuries, killing hundreds of millions (at least, in all that time) for profit in war, with hunger and restricted access to water, with homelessness and poverty, with preventable disease, with climate change, with immoral laws and entire systems designed to keep large segments of the population as slave labour, which is what they used to gain their power and wealth to be in the position to impose all of this in the first place. And all that just off the top of my head, there is so much more violence that is inflicted on us daily, they've just got most people convinced that's just life, when it really really isn't. And those who actually benefit are never just going to give all of that up.

    • But they did though. Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Alexander H Stephens, plus countless slaveowners all just... surrendered, and went back to owning the exact same plantations their slaveowning had provided the startup capital for.

      Was it right? Hell no! Their plantations should have been given to their slaves. We would live in a better country if they had.

      But it's worth repeating that people who blew out their chest and blustered about how it was better to die than to lose this fight just went right back to comfortable lives after a heinous, sadistic, brutal form of capital exploitation was abolished right out from under them.

      If you can abolish slavery without killing Dolly Sumner Lint or Jefferson Davis, then it stands to reason that even after sending Pinkertons, cops, and bootlickers to die by the thousands, these billionaires will surrender at the first sign of blood on their doorstep.

      Meaning you can abolish capital without killing Jamie Johnson OR Jeff Bezos.

      Which in turn means the killing of those particular people ends up peripheral at best.

      They will not throw their bodies in front of the bullets aimed at their orphan killing machines.

      As much closure as they would bring, as good as that would feel. It's just not going to happen.

      And then, at that point -- when they have surrendered -- it's like torturing a serial killer. We gain nothing. It doesn't bring anyone back to life. It doesn't put the aerosolized carbon back underground or bring the temperature back to livable levels. All it does is introduce a little bit more pain to the world.

      Again: at best.

      At worst it could potentially set a precedent that anyone perceived as "aligned" with billionaires deserves the same death inflicted on those billionaires.

      In other words, at worst, it could turn the person holding the guillotine into the de facto capitalist controlling all of the factories, all of the land, and all of the equipment single-handedly. Because who is going to stop them? Anyone who challenges that person can be easily labeled a "reactionary capitalist counter-revolutionary" and punished according to that label.

  • For me it's a case of where the end justifies the means. While murder is terrible and I'd personally feel bad if I had to take another life, it'd be for the greater good of our species (as well as every other lifeform on this planet) if the world was suddenly ridded of a billionaire or two... or more...

    I do recognise that this is a slippery slope in justifying homicide, but what is the alternative?

  • I’m sorry, but this point of view is so brain-dead to me. What do you think happens when a billionaire dies? The money magically disappears? It’s redistributed to the masses? No, it’s inherited by relatives. Killing billionaires only creates different billionaires. How about we use our brains and come up with actual solutions rather than parroting brain-dead bullshit?

    • You're taking the argument at it's most basic level, assuming that we would kill the billionaires and then sit around twiddling out thumbs. I don't think it's much of a leap to assume we'd change how the system works as well lol.

      • Ok? Then maybe do that without the murder part??? If you have actual ideas of how to change the system, then do it?

  • Agree with OP... societal/systemic changes would be great, but I'd never wish death on anyone.

    I know it's pretty common on here, but rhetoric about killing people, guillotine memes, etc skeeve me out

    • Look, no one wishes death first thing, obviously people would prefer it if billionaires suddenly became good people and gave up their money willingly. Obviously people would prefer it if the government made extreme sanctions or taxes against them. There are many things people want but time and time again they don't get them. There's really no just way to have that much more money and power than everyone else. They're modern day monarchs in all but title. Policy makers may have the power but they're forced to stay in line and not deviate too far from what the billionaires want. When the solution to better humanity is "you should share more, you've got more than you could ever possibly imagine needing" it's no surprise that the people with the power to keep those folks out of office do so. That's why we see such mild criticisms from so many parties and even an embrace of the rich by the American "left".

    • Agreed. Personally, all I wanna do is take the vast majority of their money and redistribute it to society. They can keep a few million to fuck off with. I don't really care about them beyond that. They largely only have power imbalance because of their money. I don't think anyone should be a billionaire (or frankly more than about $10M USD or so -- which is currently enough to comfortably live your life without having to work, yet isn't utterly crazy).

      Once they no longer are so rich, why would I care about them anymore? I'm not one to try and get revenge or anything, and I think that's a harmful way of thinking. I just want society to suck less and fixing the massive wealth imbalance is a big part of that.

      If we were in a position where "eat the rich" could be taken literally, then "seize their current and future wealth" is just as achievable.

    • Well, it's complicated. Ideally, I would make them all millionaires. But, they made it so that this is more difficult than murdering them.

  • Not necessarily, as you said, murder is murder.
    I will cheer for their deaths, tho.

153 comments