I also respectfully disagree. Tit for tat, taken to its logical conclusion, eradicates all life on the planet; if that's your goal, fine, you can make that argument, but that's ultimately a separate discussion. There were literal slaves and serfs around the time of the French Revolution---now you could make an argument that "wage slaves" or whatever exist in the first world, but that is pure abstraction when compared to the absolute widespread human suffering in France during the late 1700s. You would have to be entirely disconnected from reality to think that people, en masse, have it worse in first world countries than they did in France during the 1700s; that's a "log off" moment, for sure. If you want to expand the scope to the world at large, then, yeah, there is some fucked up stuff going on, and people (millionaires, billionaires, &c. &c.) do hoard wealth, but murdering them is not the solution; that won't even do anything to their accumulated wealth, as most of it is tied up in corporate assets; instead, harsh regulation needs to be enacted on the system that allows these people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. But instead, we have these very surface level takes that are just like "kill the billionaires", which solves nothing and actually makes our side look insane, which hurts our cause—frankly, its stupid. Now, if you want to alter the claim to "the threat of violence is needed," then I would be more inclined to agree; however, individually murdering certain billionaires is not productive; I don't know about you, but I don't want to match whatever vitriolic bullshit eye for an eye sentiment that these billionaires might have, and maybe that's an idealistic take and naive, but it feels right.