• ɔiƚoxɘup@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They will be stopped by Democratic process (lol) or by an undemocratic one.

    For now they still have the power of choice. I wonder how much longer that will be true.

      • jamesrandysghost@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        At least in fiction the richest person is interesting. They may be a monster, but they are usually smart or ruthless or something

        We get a Ketamine Soaked Edgelord of Embarrassment…

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, but plenty of other people do, and the person that shot him clearly hasn’t been doing much else to “help”.

          So, either put your money where your mouth is, or stop spouting the same demagoguery bullshit and find an actually useful thing to suggest.

          • AnchoriteMagus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You think the removal of one system of government to institute another (even if that system is as little of a system as possible), along with a radical redistribution of wealth, happens without violence?

            I may have a bridge to sell you.

            • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              You think it happens with violence? Look what the french revolution led to. 100 more years of imperial rule and the most deadly war in European history. Look at what the Russian revolution led to, the USSR. The Chinese revolution.

              Now look at how anarchist societies/groups emerged in history. Cooperation and mutual aid. The violence was for the most part defensive.

              The only people who think violence is the answer, are the ones with superficial understanding of history who are suffering from Duning Kruger effect. Violent revolutions always lead to authoritarian’s grabbing power and kick starting oppressive regimes.

              Today is the parent of tomorrow. The present casts it’s shadow far into the future. (…) Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become it’s cornerstone. - Emma Goldberg

              • Yliaster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                27 days ago

                I don’t get why you’re being downvoted. No reasoning being given back. People flock to violent revolution without considering if it even leads to what we want in the first place.

                This is an anarchist space so I expect reasoning if a proposal is being rejected.

  • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I love how Musks conpanies keep losing money yet somehow the stupid fake value just keeps growing.

    I hate speculative capitalism so much

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If we all just collectively decided to eat the top one every week, the problem would just sort itself out after a month or so.

  • Digit@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yup. Ben Norton did a good piece on this topic a few days ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj-hd3l4dSo

    The graph (iirc about half way through maybe), with his added coloured blocks for the different eras lends some superb clarity to what’s going on, the political philosophy shifting phases of accelerated worsening, and how bad it is, as in how much worse it is contrast to the worst time in history…

    What we have now, makes the guilded age look like some kind of egalitarian paradi~~ well, maybe not paradise, but more egalitarian… much less egregious than would have been seen in the keynesian phase. How little they knew, of how much worse it could get, and was going to get. Pesky marketing, in rebranding same old corporate fascism as “neo-liberalism”. Many likely not bothering with the term neo-feudalism, preferring the delusion there’s anything “liberal” still going on. As if that limp thing were even enough to do any more than pretence on slowing down the consolidation of wealth and power even if it were what it’s best definitions and ideals pronounce.

  • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s ridiculous that they could give away $1bn/yr in charity projects and they’d still be billionaires when they’ll finally die

    • philipp_@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not really because this isn’t real money. Especially in Elons case it’s all in pumped up stocks that he could never sell without crashing the price. Not that this is making anything better and the current stock market is just another symptom of the death spiral we are currently in.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      $999m is still an obscene amount of money, and they’d just start finding ways to amass it again

    • Digit@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ever played around with the maths of that?

      If seeking a Robin Hood style remedy, may need tackle all the dormant pools of hoarded wealth, and all the squander.

      It’s fun maths to play with. If one is aware of at least a few of those pools. Especially banking, and suppressed access to resources (primary, technological, and more).

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t even care what happens to the confiscated money; it could just *poof* out of existence and that’d be fine. What matters is that massive wealth inequality is objectively bad for society and must be reduced.

          • alapakala@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            you forgot to append the #Against anchor.

            it should be depressing many people still don’t comprehend the problem with compulsory larceny.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Oh I just now realized that you’re calling taxes, “compulsory larceny”. Literally just “tax is theft” with a pseudointellectual patina.

              Lol ok bud. Go live on SeaLand or some shit

              • alapakala@quokk.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Wait, taxes can now be voluntary?
                ’Cause mutual aid is something we praxis, but being threatened with violence for not complying to your burglary is “pseudointellectualism”?

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  No, trying to sound smart by using big words was the pseudointellectual part.

                  “Taxes are theft” is just the stupid bullshit I believed when I was 12 years old.

        • gid@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s okay to be nuanced about this. In a system where one person can “make” this much, things are so obviously out of whack that it’s not contradictory to want that kind of wealth to be heavily taxed, while still holding the view that in an anarchist system taxation is not desirable.

            • gid@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I don’t disagree in principle. But pragmatically, while a wealth tax is an imperfect system for wealth redistribution, it’s still realisable on meaningful timescales. It can be done while working to achieve true horizontalidad.

          • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yeah, it’s also worth noting that “wealth tax” is the compromise. It’s the starting point for a good faith negotiation, which works within the bounds of the current systems. Because the alternative is “storm the compounds. We’d only need to livestream a mob eating like a dozen of the richest before the rest get the message and fall in line.”