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.
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.
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
Well, there was that guy who took a pot shot at Trump, so if you count that, we’re already at two…
You make it sound like he didn’t successfully shoot him. Honestly if trump wasn’t so goddamn fidgety on stage I think he would be dead right now.
successful
Even your second sentence implies that he wasn’t. Not in his goal anyway.
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”
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.
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.
“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.
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/
The rich have exceptional resources to protect themselves. Money is just another form of power.
For instance, even in a doomsday scenario (for them) of the French Revolution, the rich will have personal security guards. These people will be paid very well (relative to the general population), which will keep them loyal enough. They will eat at secure restaurants (similar deal), and enjoy activities in secure locations.
Beyond that, you already see the rich buying private islands (Larry Ellison) and preparing for an uprising (Peter Thiel).
But if you let your imagination run wild, they can even distort the blame, and set up patsies. Owning the media and controlling the narrative (propaganda) is highly effective and already happening in earnest. Plenty of blame is being shifted to immigrants and (because it works, somehow) LGBT+ groups.
I would even say the UHC CEO is himself a fall guy. The buck doesn’t stop at the CEO. There is a step above him. The board of directors is responsible, and they will replace him with another just like him. They are the ones that ultimately choose the direction.
I don’t think the guy making 12 million dollars a year off the suffering of the poor counts as a fall guy.
He’s a willing participant, for sure. But the board and shareholders make even more than that.
It’s hard to defend yourself from guns. Considering Trump, with the resources, intelligence and defense of the entire state still had 2 close calls with assassinations being an example of this.
The second time was in a secure, exclusive, golf resort.
Rifles can reliably hit a target within 200 meters in a single shot with practice. They maintain an effective range from 500 to even 800 meters.
Unless CEOs are okay with living and working in extreme solitude and isolation, there will always remain the possibility of assassination.
It’s mostly irrelevant to your point, but I’m pretty sure the second one at his golf course was an unrelated shooting where someone else got shot. I guess it could be a cover story where they shot the attacker and didn’t want to make it seem like a trend for the media, but I don’t think we have any confirmation that the was
