• Haagel@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not advocating violence, of course, because that’s illegal both on this platform and in real life.

    However, the history of humanity has demonstrated that powerful people need to be publicly executed in order for there to be sea change in economic inequalities. When enough people have nothing to lose, said executions become inevitable.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not advocating violence, of course, because that’s illegal both on this platform and in real life.

      No it’s not.

      1. This platform’s policies do not have the force of law.

      2. Advocating for violence in general isn’t illegal; only specific threats are. (Trump, for example, is an idiot-savant at walking that fine line.)

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Also the advocating for violence rule has always been weird, because it’s rarely against the rules to advocate for war, even if it’s literally violence and also much much worse due to the scale and horror of it.

      • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah no, lemmy.world’s admins and mods are already infected with the alt-right taint, calling for eating the rich can and will get you banned.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Don’t advocate violence. Instead, imply advocacy for violence.

      It’s not “let’s kill the rich”, it’s “it’d be a damn shame if someone killed the rich”

      It’s not “you’re morally obligated to burn that pipeline”, it’s “you’re morally obligated to burn that pipeline in Minecraft”

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

      A general strike of 3 days with 10% of the population participating would do a LOT more than public executions of billionaires.

      That said, there’s no fucking way you will get 10% of the population to agree on ANYTHING anymore because every single communication channel, forum, and social space is FILLED with people who actively create hostile, circular and unproductive environments. Either for the hell of it or at the behest of their corporate masters, the result is the same.

      We can’t do it the easy way, so we will suffer until the only choice is the hard way.

      All so 8 people can own half the fucking world.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The only way to avoid this that I have ever been able to imagine would require our global society to somehow abandon the concept of currency. But that’s insane, of course, so we’re probably screwed…

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

        Not insane. Insane is making up a system of what is worth keeping alive and then sacrificing life on Earth for that system. If we want to survive as a species, we might have to embrace a sort of gift economy.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Thanks for your reassurance. You know, given that the entire purpose of operating as a society is for everybody’s individual benefit, it seems kinda weird to reject a “gift economy” out of hand, doesn’t it? Basically, if each and every member of a society doesn’t benefit from how that society is organized, then said society has failed at it’s most primary function.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Assuming change involves violence you simply advocate for the change and “defending” your way of life or “taking back” or “sheparding society”. Violent Neo Nazis use this kind of rhetoric all the time to get people to do stupid shit and then escape accountability for winding them up. The absolute best way though? Thoroughly make your case and spread your ideology. When enough people feel like things aren’t going right and they can’t make change any other way, violence is the natural next inflection point.

        That all said. We really should be trying to do things peacefully. Political violence is fucking nasty and modern civil wars see things like militias taking control of small towns or neighborhoods to kill everyone they find because they think they voted the wrong way. If we could avoid that I’d be grateful, I really don’t need to witness a second factional battle with hundreds of people on either side right down a main street in a city.

        • Haagel@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I certainly don’t want civil war. I would, however, like to see a few billionaires fear for their life enough that they would lossen their death grip on the future health and wellbeing of the rest of the world’s inhabitants.

          • Haagel@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s really hard for me to imagine a scenario where large groups of people are fighting on principle to protect billionaires.