this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
12 points (87.5% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

63 readers
1 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No real change would occur, new billionaires would grow.

To eliminate billionaires you have to understand the material conditions that make billionaires possible and change them.

Although getting rid of them certainly helps making the systemic change possible, like the romanovs.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assassinations are anarchist / ultraleft tactics, we want to remove the possibility of billionaires re-becoming or regenerating into existence.

A stark example of this is during the Cuban revolution. Fidel talks about how, near the end of the civil war, they had many opportunities to assassinate the opposing military leaders, but they refused to do so. Why? Because that changes nothing about the nature of the system, and new generals would just take their place. IE we need to remove their ability to regenerate, rather than their manifestation.

Fidel said that assassinations are easy, revolutions are much more difficult, long-lasting, and worthwhile.

It's also noteworthy that the Chinese revolution took the opposite stance from the bolsheviks when it came to treatment of royalty. They proletarianized them, rather than killing them, since their base of power was eradicated.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fidel said that assassinations are easy,

He of all people should've known that's not fucking true.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

They were easy for him

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Nope, the money doesn’t die just because the owner did. The multi-millionaires would open businesses in place of the deceased billionaires and probably rake in even more money under a smaller percentage of people, you’d probably need to do a monthly culling of the Billionaires, which may be fun for a while, but it wouldn’t stop billionaires from existing as long as capitalism continues

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Im from Buenos Aires and I say kill em all

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's a weird question. Of course it would be inherited by their successors. I don't know if I understand the question.

Their assets would be inherited and production would continue, simply business as usual. Nothing would change in the big scheme of things for two reasons:

  1. Billionaires are not needed for production. They're literally useless. They are leeches that steal the value workers produce. They are not needed for production to go on.

  2. If the mechanisms of wealth accumulation aren't disrupted, new billionaires will appear.

The problem is not the individual billionaires. The problem is the existence of bourgeoisie as a class and their private ownership of the means of production, through which they capture and accumulate the value that we produce through our work.

Even if their wealth is not inherited you'd still have capitalism. Suppose a crazy government killed all billionaires and redistributed all their assets. Even in that case, if private ownership of the means of production continues, surplus value accumulation will eventually produce new billionaires.

You'll never see serious Marxists advocating for polítical assassinations as a strategy. Because it's pointless. They know that the problem isn't specific individuals and their morals, but the mechanisms. Those mechanisms produce a class of individuals who can accumulate power and wealth by controlling other people's work. The only solution is eliminating this mechanism and turning those people into regular workers.

In the late 19th century oppressed Russian workers managed to assassinate multiple magnates, ministers of state, and even managed to assassinate Czar Alexander II in 1881. You know what this accomplished? Absolutely nothing but increased oppression and vigilance. Because the problem isn't individuals. It's how we collectively organize around production.

[–] satanmat 2 points 1 year ago

I don’t think it would destroy capitalism as that’s the general basis for the economy.

But history kinda shows (citation needed) that subsequent generations don’t usually keep the … hoard of gold… intact. they’re rich, yes but are not producing “the next thing” just living off the wealth of the previous generation…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Imo even if all billionaires wanted to end capitalism, they couldn't. It's too deeply rooted both materially and ideologically. So no, killing all billionaires would definitely not end capitalism.