This is so stupid it makes me worried for the human race that people actually fall for that. Do people honestly think that the problem of emissions goes away by taking out the people owning the companies producing the emissions? Isn't it extremely obvious that the same companies will produce the same emissions regardless of who owns them as long as the demand for their goods, services and laws governing them stays the same?

I mean sure, lets blame the owner of exxon for the emissions caused by cars and powerplants. I'm sure people will enjoy riding to work on a horse amish style if it means limiting global warming to 2 degrees instead of three, how about you pitch that idea to a large group of people an see how that goes.

You know what would actually help? Electing the right people. Not just caring about this on election day when you have the choice between two shades of shit, get the right people primaried. But you know whats the truth? The truth is that it's not the billionaires fault. The truth is the majority of people don't care about saving the planet, not if it inconviniences them and thats why democracy doesn't nip this in the bud. Because it works. It actually represents the people and their will and the people who care are represented by the guys that loose by 30% in the primaries, as in getting 3% instead of 35%.

You take out the billionaires and the industries will be run by the workers, the state or whatever anarcho socialist conglomerate you can think up, but nothing will change. Because 90% of people are too busy with their own little lives to care about 3 degrees global warming and nothing will change that.

[–] ooli@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're right people will never ride a horse instead of their car. (Plus it seems horses would be worse for the environment) But the 2k people who own 50% (?) of world wealth have more say on how the resources are used than the 99.99% of other people. And like them those 2k don't want to ride horses. On the contrary they want to use all the resources for their own benefit. So getting ride of them could allow to implement some sustainable practice they are fighting against.

But it is a joke in the end: Having 2k oligarchs run over by a trolley wont save the planet. What need to be run over is the system that allow 2k people control the fate of all the others through greed.

[–] Sbauer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But thats just not true. Well maybe it's true for a country like china or north korea. But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do. Sure they can influence elections to some degree, but if there was a true will for change? The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.

But again, the oligarchs ain't the problem. Getting rid of them just changes the ownership of the companies producing the pollution, what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation. And that legislation is not supported by the majority of people. I mean look at east germany during the cold war if you don't believe me, not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don't cause pollution, people do.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do

Lol. Lmao, even. No, you cannot.

what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation

Will never happen in bourgeois dictatorships. You have to wrest their control via force.

[–] Sbauer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure you can, happened many times in history. US independence, French Revolution, suffrage movement, civil rights movement. Elect radicals and they will change the system. But only if people wanted change, which they don’t.

People that want to get rid of billionaires, corporations in politics and people getting fairly represented are the minority. The majority want a wall on the border with Mexico, arming teachers or abortion rights and lgbtq rights etc. That’s what they care about. Highly controversial topics that ultimately change nothing about how the show is run.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Sure you can, happened many times in history. US independence, French Revolution, suffrage movement, civil rights movement. Elect radicals

These were none via election, this was done through mass popular struggle.

People that want to get rid of billionaires, corporations in politics and people getting fairly represented are the minority. The majority want a wall on the border with Mexico, arming teachers or abortion rights and lgbtq rights etc. That’s what they care about. Highly controversial topics that ultimately change nothing about how the show is run.

You'd be surprised, but even then trends are changing as Capitalism declines and dies.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do...The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.

which one of your two options is offering to change the system? Who owns the media that propagandises the masses not to support such change because "cOMmUnISm" and instead be bombarded with "aspirational" content designed (at the cost of trillions of dollars) to make us overconsume? (E: depending on where you live there could of course be more than two options, but I guarantee none of the top contenders are there to change the system, those who do aim to, get slandered by the media long before they get to a position where they're a serious threat to the status quo)

what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation.

Who is legislating? And who do they actually serve (see above)

not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don’t cause pollution, people do.

Lmfao. It isn't poor people who wage and fund war that leaves more poverty and destruction for them, and billions for those calling the shots. The fact that in one place at one time the people making the money weren't local doesn't change that.

Billionaires don’t cause pollution, people do.

Billionaires are people, people who use their vast power and money to maintain a system that is and always has been rigged in their favour, and that is designed to keep you trapped, along with the rest of us.

[–] Sbauer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The two candidates don’t come from nothing, there is primaries etc. My point is if people wanted change they could have change, but they actually don’t. Look what the French did to their monarchs and aristocrats when the people actually got fed up.

But step one is getting fed up, and most people ain’t fed up. They actually resist change, that’s why they go with the transparent lies the media and politicians feed them. They want minor change, not revolutionary change.

[–] SitD@lemy.lol 1 points 1 month ago

one of the few upvoters here 😂 this is mostly not wrong. most people don't give a shit, don't be mad just because you don't like the truth. however, I'm still gonna blame billionaires, or by extension anyone with the mindset of trying to become a rich person. all of these rats actively undermine democracy using highly effective lobby campaigns. you can only blame the plebs to some degree. they're stupid but also too stupid to fix it. meanwhile most people with higher education have no sense of compassion and just afford themselves a few more blissful years. we're cooked, guys, time to finish what you wanted to do in life and get ready for the bad days 😂