While it’s very unlikely that someone has a definitive answer, this question popped into my head after the assassination of the UHC CEO and it’s been bothering me that I can’t shake off this feeling that more is likely to happen (maybe not in higher frequency but potential).
Usually I could provide counter-arguments to myself in a realism/(should I buy apples or oranges comparison) kind-of sense but this one I feel more unsure about.
I wish I had more diverse exp in systems analysis as these kinds of questions that linger in my head really irritates my OCD brain as I just want to know what’s the most likely answer.
Hopefully
As John F Kennedy said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”
Either we fix this peacefully through the democratic process, or people are gonna riot.
Billionaires: yeahhh I’m just going to buy all the media, all the politicians, and make sure enough of my guys win that they stop any legislation that would cost me anything. Nothing could ever go wrong with effectively taking away people’s choices right?
I’m thinking all we have left is roit. We’ve already lost the democratic process through propaganda outlets and bought and paid for candidates a while ago. There is no party for the working class. There is a party that likes to talk big, but when push comes to shove they don’t do shit and have their chosen “enemy of the term” to pop up and take the fall to stop anything from passing.
I’m honestly not sure which party you’re talking about. It’s just vague enough…
as much as i hate the “both sides are the same” argument when it comes to actual individual politicians, their actions, and policies. this is the one thing that the vast majority of them do have in common. taking billionaire money and letting it affect their decisions.
we were fucked as soon as citizens United passed. that was probably the inflection point that made violent revolution inevitable. when political bribes became legal.
That’s the beauty of it, they’re not wrong either way.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”
I’m a fan of this belief because it provides hope in that with the increase of peace and harmony, humanity could course-correct towards a realized utopia.
The publicized hope of increased violence is a scary indicator that we’re approaching closer to commonly associated fiction-based dystopias🫠
The publicized hope of increased violence is a scary indicator that we’re approaching closer to commonly associated fiction-based dystopias🫠
Honestly, I realized a few months ago that we’re already way into dystopia territory. It clicked for me when I read a news story explaining how there are people in Los Angeles that make it their business to rent old, beat up vans and RVs parked on the street for homeless people to live in, for several hundreds of dollars a month. I did a search and found another article about it, linked below. How much more dystopic can things get? In fact, any of the massive homeless encampments we’ve been seeing are already plenty dystopic.
Edit: oops, it seems I had left out the link - https://abc7.com/los-angeles-vanlords-rv-renters-rvs/13322319/
John F Kennedy said that at a time when the majority of Americans weren’t overweight, undereducated, overworked, utterly dependant on their cars (which need the roads maintained by the government to work), and addicted to their phones. I don’t think Americans have the physical or mental capability to wage an effective protest like what happened in the 20th century.
Considering the US (and most modern militaries) struggle against insurgencies and irregular militia (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam) there’s no reason to doubt the american public.
Much of the Vietcong were uneducated, underfed, impoverished rural farmers but they were a devastating force to GIs.
The main US motivation in all wars, is to enrich weapons and oil industries. Winning or losing is both an end to a war. Only the process of losing motivates more funding, because the alternative is that the enemy wins… until the boondoggle seems too hopeless. The US would take civil war more seriously.
Give it a decade and people might become a lot leaner and a lot stronger though, I hope. Admittedly I don’t have a lot of faith in my compatriots but it could happen.
Luckily for us we’ve set things in motion to destroy most of the benefits that allowed us to live such a sheltered existence, so it doesn’t look like most of us are going to have much of a choice about it. This isn’t self sabotage, it’s a training montage.
as an outsider I would think no. you don’t have much political force to cultivate this sentiment. democrats are already acting shocked and devastated for their buddies. they’re on the side of ceos, don’t forget. insider trading party can hardly pretend to give a shit about the average person. they will wait for the flame to burn out. return to business as usual: protecting the rich, losing elections and all that.
Feels too good to be true. It’s only one shooting.
Now if some second evil CEO were unfortunately victimized, I might be tempted to call it a trend…
two is just a mere coincidence; but three would be the start a pattern or trend.
And if there were FIVE evil CEO’s suddenly victimized, why we could have a movement!
Are there even five evil ceos out there? Come on, be real.
spoiler
/insert_meme_about_making_question_too_easy
It happened in Europe during the “years of lead”, mostly in Italia, France and Germany.
Skimming through [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)#:~:text=The_Years_of_Lead_(Italian,political_terrorism_and_violent_clashes.), most of the attacks seemed to focus on politicians, police, and (disproportionately) members of the public.
A lot of the glee about the CEO murder is that his company’s actions are indefensible, and, as CEO he is responsible for them. It’s very difficult to say the same of the victims of the Years of Lead - many seem to be police, random members of the public, or other members of the same group. With the possible exception of some politicians, it’s hard to see how the victims were responsible for much.
Absolutely right. The aim at large was to free the masses from the grip of modern capitalism. The actual targets were mostly unlucky blokes.
I feel like victimized is the wrong word for someone reaching the find out part of fucking around.
It was tongue-in-cheek, along with “unfortunately”
But is it? This same year a kid was an inch or two away from making a bullet enter Trumps brain.
He’s not the CEO of a healthcare company, but he’s certainly at the helm of many companies, and will soon be president of the states.
Honestly, even if 100 CEOs or similar were mowed down I don’t know that I would think that meant we were headed any particular direction as a society, if they’re all done by a single person or group. Now, if many different unaffiliated people start making billionaire swiss cheese, even if it’s only 3 or 4, then I think we start to see a pattern at a societal level.
Of course, if that were to happen, they’ll take all the guns and start throwing people in reeducation camps and probably publicly executing sympathizers. Remember, the police exist with the main purpose of protecting that class. Any kind of class war is going to be met with overwhelming force that would rival any military conflict, and that’s before they start bringing in actual military if it got to that point.
Y’know, this comment started off trying to be playfully optimistic, and now I’m sad :(
You also have to keep in mind that both the police and military are “outsiders” to capitalists. They are often poor, and can side with the public. Capitalists rely on total obedience of the military and police, if that breaks, they’re done.
The whole “seizing guns” thing is a red herring. One general strike and no amount of guns will matter, capitalists need constant, increasing wealth. To not just lower their money but stop incoming money is death to them. Imagine every port, airport, train station, service industry business, etc, all with no workers.
They can call all the cops and infantry they want, those same people will constantly be asked to kill friends and family. The ones willing to do so will decrease in number until the inevitable toppling of the governing body.
A (former) leader of Japan was killed with a makeshift weapon. Imagine CEOs trying to dine out when any person in the kitchen staff could poison them.
Look to history for some answers.
The Denver Post had a opinion piece that talked about how America has seen something like this before.
The Gilded Age, the tumultuous period between roughly 1870 and 1900, was also a time of rapid technological change, of mass immigration, of spectacular wealth and enormous inequality. The era got its name from a Mark Twain novel: gilded, rather than golden, to signify a thin, shiny surface layer. Below it lay the corruption and greed that engulfed the country after the Civil War.
The era survives in the public imagination through still resonant names, including J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt; through their mansions, which now greet awestruck tourists; and through TV shows with extravagant interiors and lavish gowns. Less well remembered is the brutality that underlay that wealth — the tens of thousands of workers, by some calculations, who lost their lives to industrial accidents, or the bloody repercussions they met when they tried to organize for better working conditions.
Also less well remembered is the intensity of political violence that erupted. The vast inequities of the era fueled political movements that targeted corporate titans, politicians, judges and others for violence. In 1892, an anarchist tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick after a drawn-out conflict between Pinkerton security guards and workers. In 1901, an anarchist sympathizer assassinated President William McKinley. And so on.
As historian Jon Grinspan wrote about the years between 1865 and 1915, “the nation experienced one impeachment, two presidential elections ‘won’ by the loser of the popular vote and three presidential assassinations.” And neither political party, he added, seemed “capable of tackling the systemic issues disrupting Americans’ lives.” No, not an identical situation, but the description does resonate with how a great many people feel about the direction of the country today.
It’s not hard to see how, during the Gilded Age, armed political resistance could find many eager recruits and even more numerous sympathetic observers. And it’s not hard to imagine how the United States could enter another such cycle.
I’m honestly just glad it brought the left and the right together! 🥰Give more CEOs bunnies, get more unity? Working class solidarity, ya’ll. 🥳
“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
And that’s how you get fascism!
Edit: from the backlash, I guess my contribution was misunderstood :-/. I meant that the top trying to hold on to its power against an increasly conscious base is how you get fascism. I’ll try to make myself clearer next time
From my point of view; death at the top of the pyramid is more of a symptom/resultant of fascism rather than it being the source.
I could be wrong though
I wouldn’t even say it’s a symptom of fascism, more just a symptom of the same things that give rise to fascism
Robin Hood, famous fascist.
Nuh uh. Oppressing and brutalising the bottom layer of society is how you get fascism. Assasinations of the rich and powerful is how you get freedom.
Don’t eat shit, mulch the rich.
It’s certainly part of the catabolic stage in the system’s decay. Due to many reasons, both at the input side and the “drowning in waste” side (example: GHGs waste causing climate destabilization), growth is going to falter which means that the “sharing” strategy of the rich, of the oligarchs, is going to stop working. You may know it as “grow the pie” (instead of “share the pie”). The rich get richer, the rest get poorer, and there are going to be a lot of poor people. That means a lot of desperate people and a lot of people with nothing left to lose.
What you have to watch out for is perhaps two strategies that can stop this:
- Scapegoating: vulnerable minorities and more. The rich of a certain ethnicity may become the scapegoats, instead of … you know, ALL of that class. This would be a misdirection of attention.
- Jingoism, chauvinism and various forms of ultra-nationalism. This would be a misdirection of violence… instead of “punching up”, it becomes “punching the foreign threat”, which means war.
- Combined 1 & 2. It’s usually called fascism.
Something to print:
On a related note, I really liked the recent season of “Arcane” (both seasons are great). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11126994/
Just curious but are we heading towards an “eat the rich” society?
I guess we should be, but that’s just my personal opinion.
Realistically, no. The people have clearly expressed how dumb they are and what they desire in the November election. They want dumb Republicans, they get asshole CEOs. I don’t see it any other way.
Honestly, I believe voting is the best way to bring change about a society that wants to change. It’s just that I have given up the thought that the US wants to change in the direction that I would go. So no, it’s not gonna happen.
They voted for Trump, but not because they actually wanted a bunch of asshole CEOs in power. The electorate wanted real transformative change; they’re looking for anyone who can offer even a hope of some bold transformative change. The only party offering real change right now is the Republicans. Democrats just want to offer a few piddly means-tested tax credits like they usually do, while doing absolutely nothing to actually rein in corporate wealth and power. Kamala’s flagship domestic policy was a $25k home tax credit that only a sliver of the populace would be eligible for; and it would only serve to bid up housing prices.
Like it or not, the Republicans did actually have answers for people. They aren’t good or noble answers, but they were answers. Democrats were too chickenshit to run on a platform of “CEOS are ruining your life, we need to come down like the hammer of God on the greedy oligarchs.” The Republicans in turn ran on a platform of, “the reason your life sucks is a bunch of DEI programs are putting unqualified people ahead of you. We’ll end that. Illegal immigrants are taking your job opportunities, and we’ll deport them all. House prices are too high, so we’ll deport 20 million immigrants and lower them!”
Those are abominable answers to the problems we face, but they actually had an answer, however evil and ultimately unproductive. Yes, obviously deporting millions of immigrants won’t actually help people, but it doesn’t matter. The Republicans actually had an answer to the question, “what transformative change will you do to improve the lives of Americans?”
Democrats had no answer. And for that, they lost.
People are hungry for dramatic change. They feel the system is rigged, and they are right. Democrats were too cowardly to take up that message and push for change against the corporate class, and that left Republicans as the only party offering any real change.
You don’t need to radically transform society to want change; the country already clearly wants change. The fundamental problem is the only ones offering change are the Republicans.
Thank you for taking the patience to put this into words so nicely! I really appreciate your perspective. Maybe I was being too rude calling Republicans “dumb”, I apologize. I guess I’m just as angry as many other people at seeing the proposed Republican plans (especially “slashing public spending” a.k.a. reducing social welfare) and seeing people actually vote for that.
Yeah, people in the US want change. I’m not sure what would be a productive and viable proposal that doesn’t completely fuck up the country. I’m European and have a non-interference policy for myself when it comes to the internals of the US. In other words, I don’t want to meddle too much with what’s going on in the US.
This is the only correct answer. Billionaires already control the masses.
Short answer: no.
One CEO getting shot is not going to change much. The American public’s attention span is two weeks, if that. Another CEO in the endless line of corporate douchebags will take the spot of the murdered one and so on. All the lousy crap that led to our fucking useless health care system is still in place: CEOs with no heart/conscience, health industry lobbyists, spineless politicians for sale to the highest bidder.
For sure, this was an exceptional event, but it’s not going to lead to any lasting change. Disagree with me? Post your prediction for what will change one year from now and let’s see what happens. My guess is NOTHING.
in a year from now, ceo’s will probably have a bit more private security and do less walking around in cities at 6 in the morning alone. I agree with you on the rest though
Go price out the cost of 24/7 coverage for an individual and then think about the need to restrict your life to places that can be easily secured. These CEOs will be jumpy for a few weeks and then life will go on. I predict this is not going to be a trend. We aren’t going to see 10+ CEOs shot a year. If I am wrong about that rate, then the rest of what I said would no longer be true. I believe this will be an isolated incident.
Never underestimate the laziness of a disaffected but mostly not quite yet starving population.
tl;dr: Patience, grasshopper.
If people can protest for higher taxes on the wealthy, and ensure that money is spent on social services that would be a great start. I don’t know about other countries, but why the fuck can’t America do a Nordic model of socialism?
Swede here, first of all, we don’t have socialism here, we have a social democratic system here.
Secondly, the words socialism/communism have been tarnished over decades in the US, people have been taught to immediately reject those words regardless of their context.
So if the US can ever get a social democratic system, it needs a rebrand.
It needs something like “The Great America Deal”
Couldn’t agree more. Socialists with their hammers and sickles and Che Guevara t-shirts are accomplishing nothing. People need to let go of their fantasy of having people they disagree with them someday saying “I was completely wrong about socialism, you were right, I will never doubt you again!”
Though at this point Americans don’t even like the term “New Deal” because they’ve been told the economic policies of FDR (which pulled the country out of the Great Depression) were bad. So “Great America Deal” may not work. Biden tried “Build Back Better” but that was too lame. But yeah, gotta find a phrase people like and put it on a hat.
“Make America normal again”?
MANA from heaven. But without the god bullshit.
Hopefully we will move towards a more equitable society, but Fascists also have a track record of exploiting the sort of instability American society has been faced with during this century so far. If we don’t handle this carefully, it could go badly. Which is saying a lot, given the last decade.
Aren’t we primarily ok with this guy being assassinated because he was the face of a terrible company not because he was CEO in general? If someone from middle management or even low level worker who personally denied this guy′s insurance claim would have been assasinated, would we suddenly feel sorry?
Also remember that people like surgeons or dentists also can be considered ″filthy rich″ by your average Joe standards.
We wouldn’t feel sorry because we wouldn’t know it happened, the only reason anyone is talking about this is because the guy was rich.
There is a gulf between people who are paid well for their valuable labor (even into the millions of dollars) and the capital class who primarily profit on the labor of others.
Rent seeking is a big driver of “eat the rich”.
“If someone from middle management or even low level worker who personally denied this guy′s insurance claim would have been assasinated, would we suddenly feel sorry?”
Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.
Not just CEO. I would say he might have known even less of procedures in detail than middle management. You wouldn’t pardon all Nazis just because Hitler was on top, would you? If what you do willingly is non-ethical even if you don’t call the shots, you are just as bad.
Well yeah there is a gradient of culpability but it roughly follows the gradient of power and compensation, which is an exponential curve with the lion’s share of the area under the curve contained within the very very top.
If you want to get technical about it, if the average CEO earns 300 times the average (not the lowest) pay of employees at the company than sure, the average employee has culpability but it is 1/300th or less of the culpability of the people truly at the top and that is likely a conservative estimate of gulf between those two values.
Obviously one doesn’t somehow nullify the other but the structure of culpability here has to be taken into account in order to make an honest analysis.
Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.
I would argue anyone participating in the company, even someone washing the floors at night is helping to perpetuate it. Definitely not to the degree of the CEO, but every single worker there is helping to sustain the system.
