No, Brian Thompson Wasn’t a “Working-Class Hero”
No, Brian Thompson Wasn’t a “Working-Class Hero”
Commentators like the New York Times’ Bret Stephens have called slain CEO Brian Thompson a “working-class hero.” You don’t have to condone murder to see through that ridiculous claim about a man who was at the helm of a legalized extortion racket.
You're viewing a single thread.
Vigilante violence doesn’t lead to enduring systematic change.
Normally I agree with most of jacobin's articles but I don't agree with this. It's pretty obvious that things have already changed, even if it's just temporary. (Speaking as a non American spectator at least tbf)
It's strange to cite what may be "just temporary" changes when you're quoting "enduring systematic change"
Yeah that's fair, I did actually notice what I wrote kind of argued against itself 😅. My counterpoint would be that it's clear there's more work to be done to make it not temporary
We could just depose them all and find out. I mean, that’s what they do to us.
This is a historically illiterate reply. The French Revolution was enacted by organized political resistance, not random assassinations. As the author points out, such acts never achieve any substantial or lasting change.
I keep telling people here that you usually cannot cure a systemic issue with violence but they refuse to believe it.
Please cite all the systemic issues solved with peace
I don't think a CIA-backed movement qualifies.
I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power.
Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later?
"Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail.
And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing.
The only recent-ish example I can think of that actually applies is Gavrilo Princip, and the consequences were mostly accidental.
And also wildly catastrophic
Well I meant lasting positive change. This means building better systems—there’s just no other way to do it. Some assassinations have clearly altered the course of history but they didn’t really improve society.
Organized vigilante violence, then.
Vigilante violence can be distinguished from revolutionary violence because it is carried out without a Party. It's just random people on their own deciding to do violence i.e. adventurism. It can't bring enduring change.
No, but it can inspire a populace to rise up and challenge their oppressors.
It can also lull a population into complacency rather than getting organized, and it can provoke the government into counter-revolution before the masses have reached a revolutionary stage. Adventurism can strangle any potential revolution in the crib.
Has he heard of the French revolution? That was a bit of lasting change
looks at current French government
Looks at Napoleon being crowned absolute monarch 15 years after the king was executed.
Did you actually read that link?
The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.
In fact:
In May 1913 another attempt had been made to pass a bill in parliament which would introduce women's suffrage, but the bill actually did worse than previous attempts when it was voted on, something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes.[116] The impact of the WSPU's violent attacks drove many members of the general public away from supporting the cause, and some members of the WSPU itself were also alienated by the escalation of violence, which led to splits in the organisation and the formation of groups such as the East London Federation of Suffragettes in 1914.
And women didn't get suffrage in the UK until 1918.
Yes. And I feel the amount by which the 'terrorists' made it a public issue was more important than the quoted analysts believe. It may have been so overly strong that it scared some away. But it also showed that it was a real issue to solve NOW. No more putting it off untold decades; and that is what I would hope from militant activism today. May America get Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world within 5 years now. And we will know who to thank.
May America get Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world within 5 years now.
You forgot who Americans elected as president last month, didn't you?
I know it's a long shot, but it's possible Trump could be manipulated into doing some actual good. He's at the phase of life where even he must realize he can't take his material wealth with him in death, and might want to send a final "fuck you" to all his pathetic suck-up followers when he realizes that they just want to use him.
I appreciate your optimism, but I think civilization getting wiped out by a giant meteor in the next four years is more likely.
something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes
I'm sure the press of their time was pure and true reporters of fact rather than manufacturers of consent defending the status quo.
And yet, just as now, the press drove public opinion. PR is everything and I don't know why people don't get that.
So do the ends justify the means?
Remains to be seen
That's an answer to the underlying questions. You think the means can justify the ends, but you aren't sure because you don't know the ends yet.
Yes.