Spyke

Just curious but are we heading towards an "eat the rich" society?

While it's very unlikely that someone has a definitive answer, this question popped into my head after the assassination of the UHC CEO and it's been bothering me that I can't shake off this feeling that more is likely to happen (maybe not in higher frequency but potential).

Usually I could provide counter-arguments to myself in a realism/(should I buy apples or oranges comparison) kind-of sense but this one I feel more unsure about.

I wish I had more diverse exp in systems analysis as these kinds of questions that linger in my head really irritates my OCD brain as I just want to know what's the most likely answer.

View original on lemmy.ca
Asafumreply
feddit.nl

Billionaires: yeahhh I'm just going to buy all the media, all the politicians, and make sure enough of my guys win that they stop any legislation that would cost me anything. Nothing could ever go wrong with effectively taking away people's choices right?

I'm thinking all we have left is roit. We've already lost the democratic process through propaganda outlets and bought and paid for candidates a while ago. There is no party for the working class. There is a party that likes to talk big, but when push comes to shove they don't do shit and have their chosen "enemy of the term" to pop up and take the fall to stop anything from passing.

54
proudblondreply
lemmy.world

I’m honestly not sure which party you’re talking about. It’s just vague enough…

7

as much as i hate the "both sides are the same" argument when it comes to actual individual politicians, their actions, and policies. this is the one thing that the vast majority of them do have in common. taking billionaire money and letting it affect their decisions.

we were fucked as soon as citizens United passed. that was probably the inflection point that made violent revolution inevitable. when political bribes became legal.

28

That's the beauty of it, they're not wrong either way.

10

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"

I'm a fan of this belief because it provides hope in that with the increase of peace and harmony, humanity could course-correct towards a realized utopia.

The publicized hope of increased violence is a scary indicator that we're approaching closer to commonly associated fiction-based dystopias🫠

23

The publicized hope of increased violence is a scary indicator that we’re approaching closer to commonly associated fiction-based dystopias🫠

Honestly, I realized a few months ago that we're already way into dystopia territory. It clicked for me when I read a news story explaining how there are people in Los Angeles that make it their business to rent old, beat up vans and RVs parked on the street for homeless people to live in, for several hundreds of dollars a month. I did a search and found another article about it, linked below. How much more dystopic can things get? In fact, any of the massive homeless encampments we've been seeing are already plenty dystopic.

Edit: oops, it seems I had left out the link - https://abc7.com/los-angeles-vanlords-rv-renters-rvs/13322319/

7
lemmy.world

John F Kennedy said that at a time when the majority of Americans weren't overweight, undereducated, overworked, utterly dependant on their cars (which need the roads maintained by the government to work), and addicted to their phones. I don't think Americans have the physical or mental capability to wage an effective protest like what happened in the 20th century.

9
weeeeumreply
lemmy.world

Considering the US (and most modern militaries) struggle against insurgencies and irregular militia (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam) there's no reason to doubt the american public.

Much of the Vietcong were uneducated, underfed, impoverished rural farmers but they were a devastating force to GIs.

14

The main US motivation in all wars, is to enrich weapons and oil industries. Winning or losing is both an end to a war. Only the process of losing motivates more funding, because the alternative is that the enemy wins... until the boondoggle seems too hopeless. The US would take civil war more seriously.

1
nomyreply
lemmy.zip

Give it a decade and people might become a lot leaner and a lot stronger though, I hope. Admittedly I don't have a lot of faith in my compatriots but it could happen.

6

Luckily for us we've set things in motion to destroy most of the benefits that allowed us to live such a sheltered existence, so it doesn't look like most of us are going to have much of a choice about it. This isn't self sabotage, it's a training montage.

2
lemmy.world

Feels too good to be true. It's only one shooting.

Now if some second evil CEO were unfortunately victimized, I might be tempted to call it a trend...

134
adarzareply
lemmy.ca

two is just a mere coincidence; but three would be the start a pattern or trend.

37
moodyreply
lemmings.world

And if there were FIVE evil CEO's suddenly victimized, why we could have a movement!

23

Are there even five evil ceos out there? Come on, be real.

::: spoiler spoiler /insert_meme_about_making_question_too_easy :::

4
fedia.io

Well, there was that guy who took a pot shot at Trump, so if you count that, we're already at two...

6
vinnymacreply
lemmy.world

You make it sound like he didn’t successfully shoot him. Honestly if trump wasn’t so goddamn fidgety on stage I think he would be dead right now.

4

successful

Even your second sentence implies that he wasn't. Not in his goal anyway.

2
sh.itjust.works

It happened in Europe during the "years of lead", mostly in Italia, France and Germany.

17
sbvreply
sh.itjust.works

Skimming through Wikipedia, most of the attacks seemed to focus on politicians, police, and (disproportionately) members of the public.

A lot of the glee about the CEO murder is that his company's actions are indefensible, and, as CEO he is responsible for them. It's very difficult to say the same of the victims of the Years of Lead - many seem to be police, random members of the public, or other members of the same group. With the possible exception of some politicians, it's hard to see how the victims were responsible for much.

7

Absolutely right. The aim at large was to free the masses from the grip of modern capitalism. The actual targets were mostly unlucky blokes.

3
Sabin10reply
lemmy.world

I feel like victimized is the wrong word for someone reaching the find out part of fucking around.

9

It was tongue-in-cheek, along with "unfortunately"

8

But is it? This same year a kid was an inch or two away from making a bullet enter Trumps brain.

He’s not the CEO of a healthcare company, but he’s certainly at the helm of many companies, and will soon be president of the states.

7

Honestly, even if 100 CEOs or similar were mowed down I don't know that I would think that meant we were headed any particular direction as a society, if they're all done by a single person or group. Now, if many different unaffiliated people start making billionaire swiss cheese, even if it's only 3 or 4, then I think we start to see a pattern at a societal level.

Of course, if that were to happen, they'll take all the guns and start throwing people in reeducation camps and probably publicly executing sympathizers. Remember, the police exist with the main purpose of protecting that class. Any kind of class war is going to be met with overwhelming force that would rival any military conflict, and that's before they start bringing in actual military if it got to that point.

Y'know, this comment started off trying to be playfully optimistic, and now I'm sad :(

7

You also have to keep in mind that both the police and military are "outsiders" to capitalists. They are often poor, and can side with the public. Capitalists rely on total obedience of the military and police, if that breaks, they're done.

The whole "seizing guns" thing is a red herring. One general strike and no amount of guns will matter, capitalists need constant, increasing wealth. To not just lower their money but stop incoming money is death to them. Imagine every port, airport, train station, service industry business, etc, all with no workers.

They can call all the cops and infantry they want, those same people will constantly be asked to kill friends and family. The ones willing to do so will decrease in number until the inevitable toppling of the governing body.

A (former) leader of Japan was killed with a makeshift weapon. Imagine CEOs trying to dine out when any person in the kitchen staff could poison them.

8
lemmy.world

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

79
sh.itjust.works

And that's how you get fascism!

Edit: from the backlash, I guess my contribution was misunderstood :-/. I meant that the top trying to hold on to its power against an increasly conscious base is how you get fascism. I'll try to make myself clearer next time

-55

From my point of view; death at the top of the pyramid is more of a symptom/resultant of fascism rather than it being the source.

I could be wrong though

27

Nuh uh. Oppressing and brutalising the bottom layer of society is how you get fascism. Assasinations of the rich and powerful is how you get freedom.

11

It's certainly part of the catabolic stage in the system's decay. Due to many reasons, both at the input side and the "drowning in waste" side (example: GHGs waste causing climate destabilization), growth is going to falter which means that the "sharing" strategy of the rich, of the oligarchs, is going to stop working. You may know it as "grow the pie" (instead of "share the pie"). The rich get richer, the rest get poorer, and there are going to be a lot of poor people. That means a lot of desperate people and a lot of people with nothing left to lose.

What you have to watch out for is perhaps two strategies that can stop this:

  1. Scapegoating: vulnerable minorities and more. The rich of a certain ethnicity may become the scapegoats, instead of .... you know, ALL of that class. This would be a misdirection of attention.
  2. Jingoism, chauvinism and various forms of ultra-nationalism. This would be a misdirection of violence... instead of "punching up", it becomes "punching the foreign threat", which means war.
  3. Combined 1 & 2. It's usually called fascism.

Something to print:

On a related note, I really liked the recent season of "Arcane" (both seasons are great). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11126994/

45
sopuli.xyz

The rich have exceptional resources to protect themselves. Money is just another form of power.

For instance, even in a doomsday scenario (for them) of the French Revolution, the rich will have personal security guards. These people will be paid very well (relative to the general population), which will keep them loyal enough. They will eat at secure restaurants (similar deal), and enjoy activities in secure locations.

Beyond that, you already see the rich buying private islands (Larry Ellison) and preparing for an uprising (Peter Thiel).

But if you let your imagination run wild, they can even distort the blame, and set up patsies. Owning the media and controlling the narrative (propaganda) is highly effective and already happening in earnest. Plenty of blame is being shifted to immigrants and (because it works, somehow) LGBT+ groups.

I would even say the UHC CEO is himself a fall guy. The buck doesn't stop at the CEO. There is a step above him. The board of directors is responsible, and they will replace him with another just like him. They are the ones that ultimately choose the direction.

33
hperrinreply
lemmy.world

I don't think the guy making 12 million dollars a year off the suffering of the poor counts as a fall guy.

13

He's a willing participant, for sure. But the board and shareholders make even more than that.

4
weeeeumreply
lemmy.world

It's hard to defend yourself from guns. Considering Trump, with the resources, intelligence and defense of the entire state still had 2 close calls with assassinations being an example of this.

The second time was in a secure, exclusive, golf resort.

Rifles can reliably hit a target within 200 meters in a single shot with practice. They maintain an effective range from 500 to even 800 meters.

Unless CEOs are okay with living and working in extreme solitude and isolation, there will always remain the possibility of assassination.

5

It's mostly irrelevant to your point, but I'm pretty sure the second one at his golf course was an unrelated shooting where someone else got shot. I guess it could be a cover story where they shot the attacker and didn't want to make it seem like a trend for the media, but I don't think we have any confirmation that the was indeed a second attempt

2

The first "attempt" was just a staged fire into the crowd event. Trump's ear got injured when a SS guard bumped his holster into him.

1

200 yards is nothing for a rifle, I shoot at 500 yards on my range for fun. There are schools and ranges for 1mile shots which you can do in a few days learning from long range shooters.

A $1k AR10 or even a 700 will do 750 without breaking the bank.

Small arms are why we have lost basically every war the USA has been in since Vietnam. It's basically impossible to stop gorilla warfare.

1

For instance, even in a doomsday scenario (for them) of the French Revolution, the rich will have personal security guards. These people will be paid very well (relative to the general population), which will keep them loyal enough. They will eat at secure restaurants (similar deal), and enjoy activities in secure locations.

In a collapse scenario, their money will be worthless.

4

Just curious but are we heading towards an "eat the rich" society?

I guess we should be, but that's just my personal opinion.

Realistically, no. The people have clearly expressed how dumb they are and what they desire in the November election. They want dumb Republicans, they get asshole CEOs. I don't see it any other way.

Honestly, I believe voting is the best way to bring change about a society that wants to change. It's just that I have given up the thought that the US wants to change in the direction that I would go. So no, it's not gonna happen.

21
lemmy.world

They voted for Trump, but not because they actually wanted a bunch of asshole CEOs in power. The electorate wanted real transformative change; they're looking for anyone who can offer even a hope of some bold transformative change. The only party offering real change right now is the Republicans. Democrats just want to offer a few piddly means-tested tax credits like they usually do, while doing absolutely nothing to actually rein in corporate wealth and power. Kamala's flagship domestic policy was a $25k home tax credit that only a sliver of the populace would be eligible for; and it would only serve to bid up housing prices.

Like it or not, the Republicans did actually have answers for people. They aren't good or noble answers, but they were answers. Democrats were too chickenshit to run on a platform of "CEOS are ruining your life, we need to come down like the hammer of God on the greedy oligarchs." The Republicans in turn ran on a platform of, "the reason your life sucks is a bunch of DEI programs are putting unqualified people ahead of you. We'll end that. Illegal immigrants are taking your job opportunities, and we'll deport them all. House prices are too high, so we'll deport 20 million immigrants and lower them!"

Those are abominable answers to the problems we face, but they actually had an answer, however evil and ultimately unproductive. Yes, obviously deporting millions of immigrants won't actually help people, but it doesn't matter. The Republicans actually had an answer to the question, "what transformative change will you do to improve the lives of Americans?"

Democrats had no answer. And for that, they lost.

People are hungry for dramatic change. They feel the system is rigged, and they are right. Democrats were too cowardly to take up that message and push for change against the corporate class, and that left Republicans as the only party offering any real change.

You don't need to radically transform society to want change; the country already clearly wants change. The fundamental problem is the only ones offering change are the Republicans.

26

Thank you for taking the patience to put this into words so nicely! I really appreciate your perspective. Maybe I was being too rude calling Republicans "dumb", I apologize. I guess I'm just as angry as many other people at seeing the proposed Republican plans (especially "slashing public spending" a.k.a. reducing social welfare) and seeing people actually vote for that.

Yeah, people in the US want change. I'm not sure what would be a productive and viable proposal that doesn't completely fuck up the country. I'm European and have a non-interference policy for myself when it comes to the internals of the US. In other words, I don't want to meddle too much with what's going on in the US.

5

%100 gonna see more copycats on this. Those who want their name in history are watching this and seeing how the Internet is treating this guy like a hero.

5

Look to history for some answers.

The Denver Post had a opinion piece that talked about how America has seen something like this before.

The Gilded Age, the tumultuous period between roughly 1870 and 1900, was also a time of rapid technological change, of mass immigration, of spectacular wealth and enormous inequality. The era got its name from a Mark Twain novel: gilded, rather than golden, to signify a thin, shiny surface layer. Below it lay the corruption and greed that engulfed the country after the Civil War.

The era survives in the public imagination through still resonant names, including J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt; through their mansions, which now greet awestruck tourists; and through TV shows with extravagant interiors and lavish gowns. Less well remembered is the brutality that underlay that wealth — the tens of thousands of workers, by some calculations, who lost their lives to industrial accidents, or the bloody repercussions they met when they tried to organize for better working conditions.

Also less well remembered is the intensity of political violence that erupted. The vast inequities of the era fueled political movements that targeted corporate titans, politicians, judges and others for violence. In 1892, an anarchist tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick after a drawn-out conflict between Pinkerton security guards and workers. In 1901, an anarchist sympathizer assassinated President William McKinley. And so on.

As historian Jon Grinspan wrote about the years between 1865 and 1915, “the nation experienced one impeachment, two presidential elections ‘won’ by the loser of the popular vote and three presidential assassinations.” And neither political party, he added, seemed “capable of tackling the systemic issues disrupting Americans’ lives.” No, not an identical situation, but the description does resonate with how a great many people feel about the direction of the country today.

It’s not hard to see how, during the Gilded Age, armed political resistance could find many eager recruits and even more numerous sympathetic observers. And it’s not hard to imagine how the United States could enter another such cycle.

20

I really fucking hope so, the world has too many rich morons in charge and we genuinely need to do something about it right now if we want to have a planet anymore.

20
lemmy.world

It always does. The lords get too greedy, and the peasants revolt.

The US has done an exceptionally good job of propaganizing that instinct out of people. But the material conditions of American Life have brought the sentiment roaring back.

Basically there are 2 paths. Either way is going to be a revolutionary upturning of the status quo. Either there will be another FDR who reins in the worst impulses of Capital. Or the citizenry will do it for them.

That or GovCo goes full authoritarian to control the population. But that has the potential to spark a civil war. After all, we have more guns than people to use them. A few massacres around the country would spark a real resistance.

18

You know the saying, "death and taxes"? Well, they stopped paying taxes.

17
lemmy.world

No... Lemmy is, but Lemmy is not indicative of society at large, hell, the Internet is not indicative of society at large.

Look at the last US election, if we were going to Eat the Rich would we have elected a putative billionaire candidate backed by Elon Musk?

16

I mean, kind of. Conservatives don't view Donald Trump and Elon Musk as the wealthy elite that they are. They view them as "political outsiders". So yeah, people want change from the status quo, because the status quo is broken for so many.

13
jordanlundreply
lemmy.world

Plenty of comments in Politics about how dumb the Democratic campaign was, the bans were for calling them perpetrators of a genocide, which is false.

-4
spujbreply
lemmy.cafe

Love your continued moderation of your communities into an echo chamber by removing opinions that $ ~> murder could ever be considered perpetration of murder.

Don’t get me wrong you are free to disagree, but censorship of the opposing position is so toothlessly lame. Glad people are noticing how ineffectual and cringe your moderation practices are.

5
jordanlundreply
lemmy.world

Fringe elements are gonna fringe, I get way more thanks for dealing with nonsense than hate.

-5

“fringe elements gonna fringe” says the mod who gets pummeled with downvotes every time this happens

tell me more about that “fringe” in light of that fat ratio 💪💪😎🦅

5

as an outsider I would think no. you don't have much political force to cultivate this sentiment. democrats are already acting shocked and devastated for their buddies. they're on the side of ceos, don't forget. insider trading party can hardly pretend to give a shit about the average person. they will wait for the flame to burn out. return to business as usual: protecting the rich, losing elections and all that.

15
lemmy.world

If people can protest for higher taxes on the wealthy, and ensure that money is spent on social services that would be a great start. I don’t know about other countries, but why the fuck can’t America do a Nordic model of socialism?

14
stoyreply
lemmy.zip

Swede here, first of all, we don't have socialism here, we have a social democratic system here.

Secondly, the words socialism/communism have been tarnished over decades in the US, people have been taught to immediately reject those words regardless of their context.

So if the US can ever get a social democratic system, it needs a rebrand.

It needs something like "The Great America Deal"

29

Couldn't agree more. Socialists with their hammers and sickles and Che Guevara t-shirts are accomplishing nothing. People need to let go of their fantasy of having people they disagree with them someday saying "I was completely wrong about socialism, you were right, I will never doubt you again!"

Though at this point Americans don't even like the term "New Deal" because they've been told the economic policies of FDR (which pulled the country out of the Great Depression) were bad. So "Great America Deal" may not work. Biden tried "Build Back Better" but that was too lame. But yeah, gotta find a phrase people like and put it on a hat.

7

I don't think we're headed towards that society. This was one incident. We've lived with the billionaire boot on our necks for decades and decades, I think people have become complacent if anything and the vast majority of us go to tictok or places like Lemmy to vent and then never actually do anything about it. We vote, the billionaire class candidate wins, and nothing ever changes. We sigh, vent, and go back to work.

I wouldn't take this one incident to mean anything larger.

12

In my opinion, just like humanity is taking more from nature than is sustainable and in turn we create climate change, modern capitalism takes more from workers than thei can sustain. And just like climate change is not something that happens suddenly, but is more like a slow slide towards doom, the tone in society is steadily getting rougher, until something breaks.

9

I’m honestly just glad it brought the left and the right together! 🥰Give more CEOs bunnies, get more unity? Working class solidarity, ya’ll. 🥳

9

I hope so. We need more organization though. The biggest hurdle to "us" as the majority is that we suck at working together and looking past differences for the greater good. And they will use every tool like media, social media, TV, film, and more to keep us that way.

9

And they will use every tool like media, social media, TV, film, and more to keep us that way.

You forgot about the giant holy cow in the room.

3
lemmy.world

I sure hope so with how difficult the rich are making it to just fucking get by in this world. Just having more wealth and power than anyone in the history of mankind isn't enough for them; they have to make sure everyone else has nothing.

8
lemm.ee

Aren't we primarily ok with this guy being assassinated because he was the face of a terrible company not because he was CEO in general? If someone from middle management or even low level worker who personally denied this guy′s insurance claim would have been assasinated, would we suddenly feel sorry?

Also remember that people like surgeons or dentists also can be considered ″filthy rich″ by your average Joe standards.

8

We wouldn't feel sorry because we wouldn't know it happened, the only reason anyone is talking about this is because the guy was rich.

8

There is a gulf between people who are paid well for their valuable labor (even into the millions of dollars) and the capital class who primarily profit on the labor of others.

Rent seeking is a big driver of "eat the rich".

6
sopuli.xyz

"If someone from middle management or even low level worker who personally denied this guy′s insurance claim would have been assasinated, would we suddenly feel sorry?"

Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.

5
lemm.ee

Not just CEO. I would say he might have known even less of procedures in detail than middle management. You wouldn't pardon all Nazis just because Hitler was on top, would you? If what you do willingly is non-ethical even if you don't call the shots, you are just as bad.

1

Well yeah there is a gradient of culpability but it roughly follows the gradient of power and compensation, which is an exponential curve with the lion's share of the area under the curve contained within the very very top.

If you want to get technical about it, if the average CEO earns 300 times the average (not the lowest) pay of employees at the company than sure, the average employee has culpability but it is 1/300th or less of the culpability of the people truly at the top and that is likely a conservative estimate of gulf between those two values.

Obviously one doesn't somehow nullify the other but the structure of culpability here has to be taken into account in order to make an honest analysis.

1

Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.

I would argue anyone participating in the company, even someone washing the floors at night is helping to perpetuate it. Definitely not to the degree of the CEO, but every single worker there is helping to sustain the system.

0

Never underestimate the laziness of a disaffected but mostly not quite yet starving population.

tl;dr: Patience, grasshopper.

8
lemmy.world

The system is extremely flawed but works just well enough for a plurality of people to feel like they are getting something out of it. I think it would need to collapse in such a way as to affect more people if there was a chance it would be replaced

7
lemmy.dbzer0.com

I think it would need to collapse in such a way as to affect more people if there was a chance it would be replaced

Reading the tea leaves on this incoming administration, I'd wager that's a rather large possibility...

2
steeznsonreply
lemmy.world

Yeah that could happen but we were all predicting total collapse last time and things were mostly just bad as opposed to apocalyptic. Obviously the insurrection is unforgivable but the dude spends most of his time playing golf.

It would be awful if the USA elected someone who was the same amount of evil but actually competent. Like president Xi in China type of person.

1
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Last time, Trump stumbled and fell into the Whitehouse. They weren't prepared to fuck shit up like they wanted. That's not the case this time around. Trump was just a Trojan horse to get the fascists in office. My prediction is Trump is getting 25th amendment treatment before the first year is out, and we'll have a Vance administration that's beholden to the Thiels of the world.

Really hope I'm wrong.

2
lemmy.world

Ferdinand was trying to help the Serbian people.

They shot themselves when they shot him.

3

Hopefully we will move towards a more equitable society, but Fascists also have a track record of exploiting the sort of instability American society has been faced with during this century so far. If we don't handle this carefully, it could go badly. Which is saying a lot, given the last decade.

7
feddit.nl

Short answer: no.

One CEO getting shot is not going to change much. The American public's attention span is two weeks, if that. Another CEO in the endless line of corporate douchebags will take the spot of the murdered one and so on. All the lousy crap that led to our fucking useless health care system is still in place: CEOs with no heart/conscience, health industry lobbyists, spineless politicians for sale to the highest bidder.

For sure, this was an exceptional event, but it's not going to lead to any lasting change. Disagree with me? Post your prediction for what will change one year from now and let's see what happens. My guess is NOTHING.

7
sopuli.xyz

in a year from now, ceo's will probably have a bit more private security and do less walking around in cities at 6 in the morning alone. I agree with you on the rest though

5

Go price out the cost of 24/7 coverage for an individual and then think about the need to restrict your life to places that can be easily secured. These CEOs will be jumpy for a few weeks and then life will go on. I predict this is not going to be a trend. We aren't going to see 10+ CEOs shot a year. If I am wrong about that rate, then the rest of what I said would no longer be true. I believe this will be an isolated incident.

3

Probably not, but it's nice to see that the assassination of just one executive, and the widespread support and praise the assassin has received, has other parasites terrified. My optimistic side says that maybe this will get the attention of lawmakers. My realistic side foresees private militias funded by megacorporations, but without rockerboy Keanu Reeves leading the resistance against them.

6

I doubt it. There's a good chance that we will see copycat killers. That's a well known phenomenon, but it is not a change in society.

High-profile events can catalyze changes. Violence has been committed. A person died. That creates a sense of urgency. Americans have discovered that there is a broad consensus that something ought to be done about health care. We'll see.

But I do not see any appetite for a societal change. Americans look at individuals, not at systemic factors. The USA has, by far, the highest incarceration rate in the world. It costs the taxpayer a lot of money to feed and house all those people, not to mention that the rest of society misses out on all the productive labor they could do. The US likes to punish individuals for perceived wrong-doing, but it does not look at systemic factors.

US society now wants more bad guy CEOs punished. That's not a change and it will not lead to a change. People aren't even thinking about how the law could be changed to punish these bad guys, or what they personally could do alone or by collective action. They are waiting for heroes.

Americans want V (for Vendetta) to save them while they watch the show. Many think that Elon Musk is Ironman. That's part of the malaise.

People want individuals to take care of things and so individuals need the power to do so. Well, billionaires are people who have been given the power to take care of business (excuse the pun). And if they don't do it right, it's because they are greedy or have some other individual flaw.

6

There are plenty of alternatives to eat the rich.

UBI does not make the rich any poorer. It just decentralizes power so that all can survive and eliminates crime.

While our electoral politics is divided between either "pro business" or "hamas supporting communist radical left", it could seem reasonable to constrain oligarchy and Israel first rule while still being pro economic growth and prosperity. This requires an "eat the media stooges" who refuse to tell the difference along with a forceful message that the DNC doesn't support.

Understanding that DNC are worthless pig fuckers meant to fundraise and not empower ordinary people is step 1 to progress.

3

No.

The killing of the CEO was a one-off event.

There would need to be readily apparent will to revolt, or a slow buildup of tit-for-tat escalating action/reaction between have-not and the rich…. More killings and active attacks, more police trying to crush any protest or anyone rebelling, harsher and harsher punishment for resistance or protest, and a wealthy class protecting themselves as much as possible while telling everyone (most likely through the press and government they own) how bad it would be for everyone were they to be killed or the system disrupted.

3

Nah, we're going to see more anon violent terrorists, some of them might even do a little good, but for the most part it's not going to change a single thing about our system of laws or how the majority of people navigate that system.

White supremacists groups have been kidnapping, holding government buildings hostage, and threatening politicians for decades and they don't get their way, don't expect it to be any different from any other groups or individuals.

3
moist.catsweat.com

they filled this country with guns and poor people with nothing to lose. its a powder keg waiting for a match.

22

we had a near assassination of a 'presidential candidate' (we were so close to not having to.. you know) and now this. just like with school shootings, once they start happening they happen more often.

its funny now the powers that be might see gun control as something that needs to happen. too little too late.

8
jlai.lu

Since most people would be too happy to be (very) rich themselves, I doubt that will ever happen. Or only if we were to live in a "eat the other than me rich" society? ;)

2

Yeah, I think the saying goes "every American man feels like a temporarily embarrassed billionnaire"

7
Rhaedasreply
fedia.io

Maybe that's why the US has gotten this far, because they've sold the idea to enough people that they could be rich one day so don't mess it up for the rich people that you could be one day. Then convincing them to hate the other poor people, even hurt them. It might hurt you too, but remember, one day you'll be rich and escape the pain.

6

"Rugged individualism" is propaganda sold to school children from the time they're in grade school.

2

Nah it looks like they're just throwing them back on the streets.

1

I certainly hope not, given how an “eat the rich” society generally becomes an “eat your children” society in short order.

1

No its just one event. The first time I've seen this on Lemmy and I can't blame people for not being sad about it.

Anything else would be Stockholm syndrome.

-1
vga
sopuli.xyz

You might feel happy about this in your far left wonderland. But in the real world, the consequence of stuff like this spreading will be that CEOs will acquire better security, nobody will ever be able to even glance at them without getting tasered and you the consumer are going to pay for all of it.

Changing the social security system into a centralized one might work, but note that scandinavia (the place that has championed such systems) is having pretty big problems with their health care systems as well.

Perhaps IT work has tarnished my political mind as well, but I tend to think more and more that it's not about the ideology, but about the implementation that matters.

-4

We're already paying for their private jets and super yachts. At least making them paying for a security team means some more jobs for regular people. And they will need to pay their Praetorians well if they don't want those guys to turn on them.

If capitalism were working correctly, this would be a great business opportunity for smaller companies which wouldn't have CEOs with expensive private jets and praetorians. But capitalism isn't working so well at the moment.

14
Rootyreply
lemmy.world

So your suggestion is to roll over and take it. Ok 👏

7
Auxreply
sh.itjust.works

You can always become rich yourself, nothing is stopping you.

-16
Ookami38reply
sh.itjust.works

Yeaaaah that upward mobility isn't a feature of the system, it's a bug, and they're working on patching it constantly.

It's never been easier to be a billionaire. It's never been harder to be a millionaire.

7
Auxreply
sh.itjust.works

It is actually very very easy to be a millionaire, especially a USD millionaire, these days. Once again, wealth is not money. And here in London we have plenty of low paid people like nurses who are millionaires on paper. Simply because they bought their house 30+ years ago and now median average house price in London is above £700k, which makes you a fucking dollar millionaire even if you're living wage to wage.

-10

OK so how do I easily buy a house 30 years ago?

2
ZeroOnereply
lemmy.world

Yes it is & I'm tired of people making excuses for it

0