For context: The thread was about why people hate Hexbear and Lemmygrad instances

  • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    101·
    1 year ago

    Rich people are not a race. So “genocide” doesn’t really make sense there. “Eat the rich” does not mean “kill the rich”, necessarily, either. A lot of people just use it as a metaphor for ending the massive wealth inequality through economic reform.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      Maybe I’m missing something. How is wealth related to death? We all die when we get old.

      I’m my town even the homeless are fed and clothed. This is a strong contrast to people starving to death because the food can’t get to the table

    • FrenLivesMatter@lemmy.todayEnglish
      25·
      1 year ago

      Yes, I understand that, and I already answered that argument here:

      Are you saying that because they went by income instead of by race, it technically wasn’t genocide, just mass murder? I’m not sure that makes it any better. Also, don’t forget that a lot of the poor people died as well, so it didn’t even help those it was supposed to benefit.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        41·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think any sane person really wants to just kill all of the rich people. It’s more about wanting their wealth to be redistributed fairly. I don’t think that most of these kind of revolutions start with violent ambitions. They start with demanding the wealthy to give up their excess wealth. The problem is that some people will defend their money to the death, and respond with violence when their wealth is threatened. So they do tend to turn messy pretty quick just thanks to greed, mostly. Some people would literally rather die than have to live like everyone else.

        Anybody who thinks that every rich person should be murdered is definitely unhinged and on the extremist side. I think those kinds of people are few and far between for the most part.

        • FrenLivesMatter@lemmy.todayEnglish
          24·
          1 year ago

          Right. I believe that idea is called socialism, not communism. Unlike communism, which demands a complete overthrow and reform of the system in order to be established, socialists are generally happy to bring about reform within the system by just passing laws requiring various amounts of wealth redistribution.

          I’m certainly not against it as long as it doesn’t remove too many incentives for people to be able to improve their standard of living by working harder. Having a reasonable social safety system that ensures nobody has to live on the streets unless they absolutely want to certainly seems desirable. And yes the US could probably improve in that area.

          • Cowbee@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            That is not the distinction between Socialism and Communism. Communism can be achieved via reform (theoretically), and Socialism can be achieved revolutionarily.

            Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.

            Communism is a post-Socialist “Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society” achieved via abolition of Private Property.

            Communism does not remove incentives for people to be able to improve their standard of living by working harder, this is just a false statement due to a lack of understanding.

            Hope that clears things up!