• DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let me copy pasta myself here to save time and just say - they are already murdering us in the millions, any harm that might come to them is an act of self defence.

    Look around - the violence is already here, it has been inflicted on to the working class for centuries, killing hundreds of millions (at least, in all that time) for profit in war, with hunger and restricted access to water, with homelessness and poverty, with preventable disease, with climate change, with immoral laws and entire systems designed to keep large segments of the population as slave labour, which is what they used to gain their power and wealth to be in the position to impose all of this in the first place. And all that just off the top of my head, there is so much more violence that is inflicted on us daily, they’ve just got most people convinced that’s just life, when it really really isn’t. And those who actually benefit are never just going to give all of that up.

    • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      EDIT: I think I misstated myself. I’m going to be crossing some stuff out.

      But they did though. Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Alexander H Stephens, plus countless slaveowners all just… surrendered, and went back to owning the exact same plantations their slaveowning had provided the startup capital for.

      Was it right? Hell no! Their plantations should have been given to their slaves. We would live in a better country if they had.

      But it’s worth repeating that people who blew out their chest and blustered about how it was better to die than to lose this fight just went right back to comfortable lives after a heinous, sadistic, brutal form of capital exploitation was abolished right out from under them.

      If you can abolish slavery without killing Dolly Sumner Lint or Jefferson Davis, then it stands to reason that even after sending Pinkertons, cops, and bootlickers to die by the thousands, [EDIT: at least some of] these billionaires will surrender at the first sign of blood on their doorstep.

      Meaning you can abolish capital without killing Jamie Johnson OR Jeff Bezos.

      [EDIT: Meaning, in the course of abolishing capital, you will not necessarily need to kill every, single Jamie Johnson and every, single Jeff Bezos.]

      Which in turn means the killing of those particular people – [EDIT: those who surrender] – ends up peripheral at best.

      They [EDIT: At least some of them] will not throw their bodies in front of the bullets aimed at their orphan killing machines.

      As much closure as they would bring, as good as that would feel. [EDIT: Not all of them will make it that easy.] It’s just not going to happen.

      And then, at that point – when they have surrendered – it’s like torturing a serial killer. We gain nothing. It doesn’t bring anyone back to life. It doesn’t put the aerosolized carbon back underground or bring the temperature back to livable levels. It doesn’t give back all of the years robbed from people by stressed and missed medical treatments. All it does is introduce a little bit more pain to the world.

      Again: at best.

      At worst it could potentially set a precedent that anyone perceived as “aligned” with billionaires deserves the same death inflicted on those billionaires.

      In other words, at worst, it could turn the person holding the guillotine into the de facto capitalist controlling all of the factories, all of the land, and all of the equipment single-handedly. Because who is going to stop them? Anyone who challenges that person can be easily labeled a “reactionary capitalist counter-revolutionary” and punished according to that label.

      • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps because even after they lost the slaves they were still rich as fuck and powerful. And then they passed laws to still enslave black people and fuck them over so shit didn’t really change all that much. Think about how much better life would be today if every slave owner and klansman were put to death for their heinous crimes instead of slapped on the wrist and given back control of their slaves

      • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a pretty ahistorical statement.

        Plantation owners and slaveholders used the legal system to enact a second set of laws specifically intended to make freed black Americans subject to white rule and operated workplaces, schools and public spaces with separate rules.

        The American prison system even has a carve out in the 13th amendment that allows the operation of a majority black prison in the south as a plantation where prisoners aren’t paid for their labor. To this day. There is an actual factual black slave plantation right now.

        • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes. And it’s horrible! And we should have done more!

          We should – like I said – have stripped property from the slaveowners. They surrendered unconditionally! The North could have done with them as it liked.

          It should have confiscated the property of everyone who profited from slavery prior to the war, and given that property to the slaves. And yes, the North should have killed as many people (be they slaveowners or bootlickers) as was necessary to carry out that transfer of property.

          Station troops on the plantations. Shoot everyone who shows up with torches to burn them down and deprive former slaves of their newfound wealth.

          But what I’m trying to say is: no more than that number. No more killing than is absolutely necessary to achieve that goal.

          We should be imagining Jeff Bezos in prison, not dead. You don’t want to make allies out of the people who want him dead. Those people are not good friends.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How do you think Jim Crow was established? With violence.

            It was not simply due to congressional reconstruction that programmatic land reform wasn’t attempted in the south. People were actively pursuing campaigns of violence during reconstruction.

            There was no alternative to violent resistance.

            There is no alternative to violent resistance.

      • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reconstruction was ended through assassination. This was hardly a resounding conclusion to slavery but a re-systemization of oppression. For starters, the slaves never received compensation, whole many of the previous slave owners did. Same goes for the GI Bill.