8 billion people vs. 3000 billionaires: Who would win?
-
Elaborate and explain
Depends on the situation.
If we were all put into an arena with zero weaponry, the 8 billion. Under no circumstances would the 3000 win because the 8 billion would most likely end up murdering them, even if by accident.
Under the current world conditions, not looking good.
-
Oh. Never watched the show or read the comics...
I mean, it was a bit of a reach, but I went for it
-
Elaborate and explain
Assuming the 8b were all of the same mind, they would win. But we all know there are quite a few that the billionaires could buy to fight for them
-
I mean, it was a bit of a reach, but I went for it
It's always worth a try!
-
Elaborate and explain
Seems like the billionaires are winning
️ ?! -
Elaborate and explain
The game is rigged.
-
Seems like the billionaires are winning
️ ?!Nobody is winning, except that demon capital. The billionaires are just losing less.
-
Elaborate and explain
Nature seems to be helping out recently as well.
-
Ignoring the most basic attention to detail is much worse than over-attention to detail. While they deserve consideration, optics are secondary to functionality. The most popular plan in the world is useless if it doesn't actually function.
Engagement is nothing without substance. You're putting the cart before the horse.
You are well beyond "most basic", and also I disagree. Over-attention to detail is a very easy way to make nothing happen at all, which is currently killing people. I'm not the person who's going to map out a detailed plan to get to that society, nor do I think an internet comment section is the place to do that. Especially when what we're talking about is global revolution which absolutely necessitates broad engagement with many many people who don't know all the details and really don't need to. This is a very appropriate context to be talking in broad strokes. And if you want to wait for some perfect plan with every detail in exactly the right place, you'll be waiting until the heat death of the universe.
-
Elaborate and explain
I mean... Look around? Maybe billionaire is a new thing, but it is just modern royalty. We still have kings, they just got better PR.
-
Elaborate and explain
The billionaires, by convincing people the rich have a monopoly on violence.
But if anything sparks collective violence, the rich are overthrown within a month.
-
Nobody is winning, except that demon capital. The billionaires are just losing less.
Stop being so rational!!
-
You are well beyond "most basic", and also I disagree. Over-attention to detail is a very easy way to make nothing happen at all, which is currently killing people. I'm not the person who's going to map out a detailed plan to get to that society, nor do I think an internet comment section is the place to do that. Especially when what we're talking about is global revolution which absolutely necessitates broad engagement with many many people who don't know all the details and really don't need to. This is a very appropriate context to be talking in broad strokes. And if you want to wait for some perfect plan with every detail in exactly the right place, you'll be waiting until the heat death of the universe.
You are well beyond "most basic"
No, I'm not. You've provided nothing except some vague allusions to libraries and the Incas. That is not even the most basic level of detail.
Over-attention to detail is a very easy way to make nothing happen at all, which is currently killing people.
Under-attention is a very easy way to make things worse in your recklessness. You think people are dying now, what do you think of going to happen when the entire global economic system is plunged into chaos?
And who is disengaged when discussing details? You think someone like that it's going to be useful at all in a revolution? Under-attention will scare off practical detail oriented people in exchange for the vague approval of lazy dullards. Lazy dullards are not useful to the cause at this stage. Practical detail oriented people are. Under-attention hurts more than over-attention.
nor do I think an internet comment section is the place to do that.
If a worldwide network of like-minded people of various specialties and expertise isn't the place, where is?
Especially when what we're talking about is global revolution which absolutely necessitates broad engagement with many many people who don't know all the details and really don't need to.
You're still putting the cart before the horse. Engagement isn't enough, you actually have to have the plan first before you worry about engagement. I see no plan. You can't have a successful global revolution without a plan, no matter how much engagement you have.
This is a very appropriate context to be talking in broad strokes
You're not taking in broad strokes, "Money bad" isn't useful engagement. You have to pair that with what's good, or you look like a foolish child with cardboard wings.
wait for some perfect plan with every detail in exactly the right place
Again, not talking about a perfect plan, just a plan. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be practical. "Money bad" is not a plan, "the Incas" is not a plan. I'm not going to encourage jumping off the roof base on stitch vague notions, and I won't sit by while fools do.
Figure out what the replacement is before you dismantle the global economy.
-
You are well beyond "most basic"
No, I'm not. You've provided nothing except some vague allusions to libraries and the Incas. That is not even the most basic level of detail.
Over-attention to detail is a very easy way to make nothing happen at all, which is currently killing people.
Under-attention is a very easy way to make things worse in your recklessness. You think people are dying now, what do you think of going to happen when the entire global economic system is plunged into chaos?
And who is disengaged when discussing details? You think someone like that it's going to be useful at all in a revolution? Under-attention will scare off practical detail oriented people in exchange for the vague approval of lazy dullards. Lazy dullards are not useful to the cause at this stage. Practical detail oriented people are. Under-attention hurts more than over-attention.
nor do I think an internet comment section is the place to do that.
If a worldwide network of like-minded people of various specialties and expertise isn't the place, where is?
Especially when what we're talking about is global revolution which absolutely necessitates broad engagement with many many people who don't know all the details and really don't need to.
You're still putting the cart before the horse. Engagement isn't enough, you actually have to have the plan first before you worry about engagement. I see no plan. You can't have a successful global revolution without a plan, no matter how much engagement you have.
This is a very appropriate context to be talking in broad strokes
You're not taking in broad strokes, "Money bad" isn't useful engagement. You have to pair that with what's good, or you look like a foolish child with cardboard wings.
wait for some perfect plan with every detail in exactly the right place
Again, not talking about a perfect plan, just a plan. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be practical. "Money bad" is not a plan, "the Incas" is not a plan. I'm not going to encourage jumping off the roof base on stitch vague notions, and I won't sit by while fools do.
Figure out what the replacement is before you dismantle the global economy.
We have to agree "money bad" before making a plan to move beyond it.
My talking about about the Incas and different non-monetary systems isn't me trying to make a plan, it's trying to show the possibility of the concept.
We're never going to pull off a revolution without numbers. And only giving air to the "practical detail oriented" people while name calling the rest is a great way to make sure you never get those numbers.
And yes, there is a plan that I did mention, socialism. But that's not how you phrased your initial engagement with my comment.
-
Assuming the 8b were all of the same mind, they would win. But we all know there are quite a few that the billionaires could buy to fight for them
so basically the billionares
-
We have to agree "money bad" before making a plan to move beyond it.
My talking about about the Incas and different non-monetary systems isn't me trying to make a plan, it's trying to show the possibility of the concept.
We're never going to pull off a revolution without numbers. And only giving air to the "practical detail oriented" people while name calling the rest is a great way to make sure you never get those numbers.
And yes, there is a plan that I did mention, socialism. But that's not how you phrased your initial engagement with my comment.
We have to agree "money bad" before making a plan to move beyond it.
Yes, but that's not the thing you said that I disagree with:
humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now
Replace "ability" with "potential" and I agree with you, but as written this is misleading. It assumes the planning has concluded, and a new system is ready to be implemented. This is not the case.
there is a plan that I did mention, socialism
Either "socialism" refers specifically to the USSR's plan, in which case we've seen that fall to corruption, or it refers to a more general concept, in which case that's more of an ideology than a plan. At best it's a general roadmap, but it's not policy by a mile.
Socialism is not immune to corruption. No matter what system you use, people will find the loopholes and vulnerabilities and blind spots. You're just trading billionaires for bureaucrats. Even in a direct democracy, they'll start podcasts to sway public opinion. They'll steal from library economies, they'll loaf in spontaneous mutualism.
You cannot eliminate this element, you can only change its form.
-
We have to agree "money bad" before making a plan to move beyond it.
Yes, but that's not the thing you said that I disagree with:
humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now
Replace "ability" with "potential" and I agree with you, but as written this is misleading. It assumes the planning has concluded, and a new system is ready to be implemented. This is not the case.
there is a plan that I did mention, socialism
Either "socialism" refers specifically to the USSR's plan, in which case we've seen that fall to corruption, or it refers to a more general concept, in which case that's more of an ideology than a plan. At best it's a general roadmap, but it's not policy by a mile.
Socialism is not immune to corruption. No matter what system you use, people will find the loopholes and vulnerabilities and blind spots. You're just trading billionaires for bureaucrats. Even in a direct democracy, they'll start podcasts to sway public opinion. They'll steal from library economies, they'll loaf in spontaneous mutualism.
You cannot eliminate this element, you can only change its form.
If you're asking what I think the best way forward is, please just ask that from the beginning. My answer might've been that I've been working with the PSL and think they have a pretty good idea of a socialist America. Instead we're bickering over the definition of "ability".
Otherwise, you're just arguing for the status quo that everyone hates.
-
Nature seems to be helping out recently as well.
So 8 billion + nature team up?
-
Elaborate and explain
Trick question, we all lose
-
Elaborate and explain
The billionaires have already won.
