Of course not. This will get them to waste effort making even more enemies in the working class. It will give them no home outside of licking the boots of fascism, or making major concessions to have working class support. The corprocrats will die off, as they do nothing but hold us back now that liberal democracy is gone.

Liberals can fight the good fight against fascism, but they need to work with left wing populism to accomplish that. As soon as fascism falls, they’ll try to crush the left, so we can’t have them be a popular voice. If we go right back to neoliberal capitalism, fascism will rise again. We need to give them no political choice.

I’m think the reactions to the killing of the CEO highlights how people fetter have no control changing the healthcare system. The recent events is seen as some form of justice, and a feeling that someone is standing up for the little man.

While I think most people don’t usually like to celebrate murder, it does put the things in to perspective, and highlights the unjust system, because you can compare the unjust acts of the murder and the acts of insurance companies. You need to understand the context of these reactions and not just say people are “bad” for thinking it’s somewhat fair.

Politicians should take these reactions as a sign that things need to change. Hopefully this will be a catalyst, so something good comes out of it. Otherwise I think resentment will keep brewing and might cause more violence.

capitalism can not be reformed. the core value system of it and it’s prevalent iteration of neoliberalism is based solely on exploitation, individualism, differential advantage and monetary profit and is antithetical to life and thriving of life. you can’t fix this system with minor tweaks and reforms

the structural violence the plutocrats participate in and reinforce through myriad means like advertising and economic coercion is exponentially more devastating and deadly than someone venting like with this ceo shooting

The only real solution is to change laws and pass sweeping reforms of the system,

Right. So what’s your plan for doing this then?

…

Oh, right, you can’t do it because $200 Billion are leveraged against you being able to do this.

Violence is the authority from which all other authority is derived. We respect laws and governments because we have ceded them the right of violence to maintain and enforce those laws. Governments and corporations do not respect us because governments (and by America’s extension, corporations) hold the monopoly on violence.

Therefore, the credible threat of violence is required for a fair and equal negotiation. We don’t need to go in and gun down every C-level executive in the country, the same way the cops don’t need to arrest every single person in the country to impress upon the rest of us what they are capable of. The opponent merely needs to think that you might do it in order to fear and respect the prospect appropriately.

This assassination hasn’t solved any problems directly, not in the least, but what it has done is hand us a bargaining chip that is now ours to squander. We have proven that we, citizens as a block, are capable and perhaps willing to exercise the authority of violence, and the corpostate no longer holds the monopoly. This has the corpostate immediately scared, and puts us in a position to negotiate to prevent more of these, or even for someone else to wield us in their own negotiations (think some politician in a back rooms talk with insurance reps, “look do you want the citizens to keep taking pot shots at you forever or do you want to actually do something about it?”)

We, the people, don’t want violence. It isn’t ours to wield. We gave it up intentionally when we wrote the laws of our lands. But it is the last tool left to us when all others are taken away. The lesson that should be learned here and the real solution we should be looking for is to return to us the other tools we had for negotiation, so that violence isn’t the only remaining way for us to voice ourselves. When corporations were busy union busting and warping tax code and shrinkflating and lobbying down the minimum wage, they forgot that the reason all those things existed was to keep the people happy so they don’t rise up. We already had a corpo hellstate in America once before, and by the end of it, companies gladly instated all these worker benefits after mass general strikes and the third or so time all their corporate offices were firebombed. Skip a few generations and they’ve either forgotten why those policies existed, or they’ve ignored it completely in some show of demented grandeur.

But if I’m being honest I fully expect this opportunity to be thoroughly wasted and for us as a whole to generally learn nothing. It is possible that I will be pleasantly surprised. But I’m not really holding my breath for anything these days.

The killing in the street included, except for the fact that they changed their decision.

Will it be implemented again later? Probably. But this event caused change now.

Go read the book, then go ahead and edit your comments so you don’t look as silly.

Buddy, we are just animals trying to survive. The wealthy lack every transcendental value that makes humans special. They’re more like orcs. You want me to say please and thank you as they destroy my world and poison my family?

Well, yes, you’re right. People will continue to do it forever. So long as accumulating capital is the goal of the country, companies like United Healthcare will exist, and will be free to ruin people’s lives in the name of gaining more capital. However, unless we literally overthrow the system, it too will never change. Currently, the only viable solution that I can see actually happen is that every few years we need to remind the CEO’s that they’re not entirely safe by culling a few. Because we literally have no other way to influence them - the law is on their side, and we would need to overthrow the law itself to change that.

Your solution is only the right one in a hypothetical world where a legislative change is possible, but we do not live in that world. We might be able to change the world to make it a viable option, but to do that would require a lot more killing of a lot more powerful people, otherwise known as a revolution. Even then, in the scenario where we tear down this system and build a new one, greed will always exist in society, and those that seek power will always eventually worm their way into powerful positions. The new system would work for a while, but when greed and power inevitably come back together again, we’ll need to tear that system down and start over once more.

Judge them as correct maybe. Society is and has always been built on violence. Kings, emperors, dictators, CEOs all leverage violence directly and indirectly to maintain power. Every successful social movement has been backed with violence or the threat there of.

We’ve mostly not been and yet that is exactly what’s happening now. I’d at least like to try something else.

Let’s step back and contextualize. The Russian Revolution, for all its flaws and tragic outcomes, was not a singular, isolated event floating in a vacuum of historical inevitability. It emerged out of unimaginable conditions: the ruins of Tsarist autocracy, a regime that was arguably one of the most backwards and repressive in Europe, compounded by the catastrophic toll of World War I, which had already thrown the region back decades in terms of development. The Bolsheviks inherited a situation of near-total collapse: famine, mass illiteracy, civil war, and an international blockade that strangled the new state at its infancy. To blame the USSR’s trajectory solely on Bolshevism or communism is to ignore this harrowing historical reality.

But there’s more to this story. Ask yourself why we don’t have multiple socialist success stories from the early 20th century. Why does history offer us no alternative points of reference? Let us turn to Germany, Austria, Italy, or Poland, where proletarian revolutions flickered between 1918 and 1924. The harsh truth is that the social democrats of the time, ideological forebears of today’s reformists, drowned these revolutions in blood. In Germany, the SPD actively collaborated with the Freikorps—proto-fascists, no less—to crush revolutionary uprisings like those of the Spartacists. The betrayal in Poland was no less devastating: under the leadership of a reactionary regime tied to German imperialism, Poland waged war against the fledgling Soviet state, attempting to reimpose the draconian terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

These betrayals left the Soviet Union in complete isolation, surrounded by hostile capitalist powers eager for its destruction. Without the support of an international revolution, the USSR faced an impossible dilemma: build socialism in one country or perish. The resulting “Stalinist caricature” of socialism was as much a product of this isolation as it was of internal contradictions.

From the ashes of Tsarist oppression, the Soviet Union undertook a massive and unprecedented experiment in societal transformation. This was no small feat. Lenin himself repeatedly warned of the dangers of bureaucratization and made efforts to curtail the growth of the party and state apparatus. However, his health declined rapidly after 1922, and contrary to the reactionary trope of Lenin as a dictator, his influence waned with his incapacitation. By the time Stalin rose to power, the bureaucracy had grown into a powerful force that would shape the course of Soviet history.

Nonetheless, for nearly a decade, the USSR remained one of the most progressive societies in the world, even under unimaginably difficult circumstances. Consider this: while half of the so-called “land of the free” still languished under Jim Crow apartheid, the Soviet Union was rapidly urbanizing, eradicating illiteracy, and introducing women’s suffrage and workers’ rights in ways that were unprecedented for the time. This was a country transitioning from a predominantly peasant society to an industrial power in record time.

Yes, concessions were made to private property owners. Yes, the Stalinist obsession with quantity over quality—manifested in the chaotic implementation of the Five-Year Plans—led to inefficiencies and waste. But here’s the rub: even with its deformations, the Soviet economy achieved staggering feats. It not only survived but outpaced many capitalist economies during the Great Depression. By the late 1930s, it had transformed a feudal backwater into an industrialized powerhouse capable of withstanding and defeating the Wehrmacht, the most formidable military machine of its time. And this was after enduring one of the most devastating invasions in human history.

And let’s not ignore the strides made in education, healthcare, and gender equality. The USSR turned an overwhelmingly illiterate population into one of the most educated in the world. Women gained access to professions and education in ways that far outpaced their counterparts in the West. And while Stalin’s purges and bureaucratic authoritarianism gutted much of the early revolutionary spirit, the foundations laid by the October Revolution persisted in remarkable ways. Even amid the Stalinist counterrevolution, the USSR managed to rebuild itself at an astonishing rate after the destruction of World War II, without relying on the Marshall Plan.

In conclusion, the failure of the USSR was not an inherent failure of socialism but a tragedy born of historical contingency: isolation, betrayal, and the crushing weight of imperialist opposition. The same forces that scoff at the USSR today—bourgeois ideologues and their reformist allies—bear responsibility for sabotaging the international revolutions that might have prevented the Stalinist degeneration. To use the USSR as a strawman against socialism is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. The real question isn’t whether the USSR “worked out” but whether the world’s workers were ever given a fair chance to build a socialist alternative in the first place. The answer, dear reformist, is no—because your ideological ancestors made damn sure of it.

(1/2)

Your comment reads like a manifesto for maintaining the status quo dressed up as pragmatic wisdom. It’s almost charming, in the same way, an infomercial about a “miracle” weight-loss pill is charming, assuming the audience hasn’t read the fine print. But let’s get to the real business of dismantling this labyrinth of myths you’ve built.

The number of people who ‘broke free from the defeatist disbelief in the possibility of upending the rule’ don’t have any impact on the system that creates and restrains billionaires.

Oh, so now we’re pretending that mass shifts in consciousness are irrelevant? History begs to differ. The abolition of feudalism, the rise of unions, civil rights movements—all were powered by collective awakenings. The Paris Commune was ridiculed as a blip, yet it shaped proletarian strategies worldwide. The suffragettes, who were once dismissed as a hysterical sideshow, rewrote the political landscape. Sure, individual enlightenment alone won’t topple billionaires—but dismissing the transformative potential of collective action? That’s some industrial-strength cynicism masquerading as “realism.”

Real change has to come from ballots. From pen on paper.

This Hallmark sentiment belongs on a motivational poster, not in a serious discussion about systemic change. Who controls the ballots? Capitalist elites, through gerrymandering, corporate media, voter suppression, and lobbying. Let’s talk specifics: Tsipras in Greece was democratically elected to resist austerity. What did ballots deliver? Betrayal. Ask the Greeks who were prevented by the banksters from withdrawing more than 50€ a day. Bernie Sanders inspired millions, only to capitulate to the Democrat machine with imperialist war criminals at the helm, because Democrats were never a party that served the working people. They had so many chances to e.g. codify abortion when they were in power, before Roe v Wade got struck down. Meanwhile, Corbyn faced a relentless smear campaign and sabotage from within Labour and now virtually all of the Labour left is purged and Sir Starmer happily approves more and more money being wasted on warfare while denying the possibility of renationalizing the water companies which have turned British rivers into one of the most polluted in Europe, because his narrow reformist mindset rejects the possibility of expropriation without compensation, even if it’s something so indusputably belonging to all, a common (outside_ the WEF and other ultra-rich psychopath meetings, of course).

The conclusion? Ballots are a tool wielded by the ruling class to manage dissent, not overthrow it.

If you utilize violence to the extent of permanent systemic change, you will absolutely have a worse system at the end of it.

Ohh the old pearl-clutching “violence begets chaos” trope. Conveniently ignores the systemic violence baked into capitalism: poverty, imperialist wars, environmental destruction, police brutality.

Over 100 million people displaced in the last year.

56 wars raging worldwide, the highest figure since WWII.

Nuclear warfare back in business after three decades.

Approx. 5-20 million people dying annually due to preventable causes

Revolutionary violence isn’t arbitrary carnage; it’s the oppressed defending themselves against the daily brutality of the ruling class. In fact, it is out of the fatigue with the incessant brutality, injustice and deprivation of the existing order that revolutions are born. Look at the revolutionary wave that followed after the Great Slaughter of WWI.

Capitalist states routinely murder and displace millions to maintain power. Revolutionary violence seeks to end that barbarism, not perpetuate it.

Take again the Russian Revolution—initially a relatively bloodless overthrow. More people got trampled over when the storming of Winter Palace was being reenacted 10 years later for a movie than during the actual event. The ensuing violence was primarily defensive, against counter-revolutionaries and imperialist invaders. Without the Red Army, the October Revolution would’ve been a footnote. If you don’t believe me, read Ten days that shook the world by John Reed.

Capitalism’s birth was hardly a bloodless affair—whether through the American or French Revolutions, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, La Conquista, Opium Wars, colonialism in Africa, India or Indonesia, it was drenched in violence. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and freedom of the press. The civil war resulted in the death of roughly 2.5% of the U.S. population. During the Russian Civil War, about 0.7% of the population died, a large portion of which can be attributed to the White Terror. Yet, the Bolsheviks, despite the brutal conditions, attempted to minimize violence. They first sought to rely on agitation among intervention forces, and even amid famine, Lenin organized the largest international aid operation of its time, importing vast amounts of grain into the USSR between 1918 and 1921—much of it sabotaged by the Whites, Esery or kulaks. The mutinies within the foreign troops and the strikes and blockades organized in solidarity by French or British workers also contributed to the withdrawal of many of the Allied troops. Still, you wouldn’t think of questioning the legitimacy of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions or the U.S. Civil War, would you? And in fact, if not then rightly so. Beacause freedom is the recognition of necessity. They played their progressive role at their time, along with capitalism. But that potential is long gone and now capitalism is holding human potential back.

(2/2)

A system where the faction with the most absolute and unquestioned loyalty wins fights and slaughters their intellectual betters.

This reeks of a bourgeois fear of the masses rising up to demand what’s rightfully theirs, of thinly veiled elitism and misunderstanding of the basics of class relations. No, it’s not blue vs white collars but people living off others’ toil and the toilers.

Who are these “intellectual betters”? Capitalist apologists? Corporate technocrats? The same people whose “brilliance” built a world teetering on ecological collapse? Spare us the melodrama. Revolutions don’t thrive on blind loyalty; they’re built on solidarity and the shared understanding that the status quo is unsustainable.

Your argument boils down to a defense of complacency: ballots over barricades, submission over struggle. You seem more afraid of the risks of change than the certainty of suffering under capitalism. But history teaches us that systemic change demands courage—not the cowardice of hoping billionaires and their henchmen will play nice. Keep clutching those ballots; the rest of us will be busy building a world where they aren’t needed to decide who gets to live with dignity.

Voting is over. I’m not kidding when I say that. Trump is a fascist, and until he dies, there will be no more fair elections. We won’t be able to restrain the rich with the state, as there will be no more rule of law. It’s only the rule of one man now.

Even if you have total faith in liberal democracy being the best system, you need to understand that we lost it. The liberal experiment came to an end at year 248. The system is toast. The Leviathan of the state will no longer listen to us, and the social contract has been irreparably burned by the fires of fascism.

We’d need a new contract to get that system back. Trump will cause a level of change to our government that we haven’t seen since FDR.

Yes because if you don’t pay the taxes, armed men will come and put you in a prison where you’ll work for fucking dogshit, taxation is not chipping in some spare cash for a fundraiser like in some ancap wet dreams.

Oh and they’ll make damn sure you do not cheat on your taxes either, because the tax authorities in most countries have the prerogatives comparable to those of intel agencies, which means encroaching upon your privacy.