847
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

I don't disagree with a lot of what the Unabomber wrote. I don't disagree with this person's hatred of the healthcare system.

But you cannot assassinate your way out of capitalism.

It just does not work that way. You cannot assassinate corporations into putting people over profits when they are legally required to do the opposite and you cannot assassinate your way into a law being changed.

[-] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 29 points 2 weeks ago

The current system was forged with violence. What so you think is gonna beat it? Thoughts and prayers?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Whether or not it can be resolved with violence, it will not be resolved with targeted assassinations by a handful of people.

There is no example where a capitalist system was toppled with targeted assassinations. There are lots of examples where the security state got a whole hell of a lot more oppressive after them though.

I'm sure that totally won't happen this time in the U.S. for sure.

[-] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 10 points 2 weeks ago

That's such bullshit, security escalation happens either way, they don't need any excuse, just see the track record. Also, it's not like anyone is saying this killing solved capitalism, they just know its impact has shaken the ideological foundation a lot more than finger-wagging at people on the internet

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

People are absolutely saying that this will change everything.

[-] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 2 points 2 weeks ago

I never implied that, but it's definetely something that didn't seem possible in many mines before

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FundMECFSResearch 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It doesn’t hurt to remind the ruling class once in a while whose boss.

But yeah. A revolution will take a lot more than a targeted assination of a couple CEOs.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Does it help? Because I'm guessing what will happen here is CEOs will just get big security details and less-discerning copycats will end up killing innocent people.

And rates will continue to rise and not one less person will be denied.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 11 points 2 weeks ago

In the short term yes you’re right.

But look at the populist anger this action sparked. These kind of extrajudicial killings that rile up the population, are very much associated with revolutions and changes in power. (Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Dude, America just elected a plutocrat dictator. There's not going to be socialized medicine any time in the near future and insurance companies will pass the cost of their security teams on to the people forced to pay for their needless existences.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 10 points 2 weeks ago

That plutocrat was elected through a manipulation of populist rage.

Check out the policy proposal forums RFK and Trump set up for their supporters. Expanding Medicare has more upvotes than downvotes

Paul Krugmann wrote an interesting piece touching on this yesterday (Gift Article) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/opinion/elites-euro-social-media.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gU4.cSdP.OL0VogKNmVT3&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What difference does that make now? Why do you think they actually care what their supporters want?

[-] FundMECFSResearch 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don’t. But it means that these people may not be so far from the same ideal as us. Which matters in convincing people for a revolution, and elections later on (if they still will be free and fair after Trump).

In fact, polling showed, a substantial number of people in 2016 and 2020 went from Bernie voting in primaries to voting Trump. The people want someone who isn’t scared to criticise neoliberal elitism.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, the famously free and fair elections under dictatorships.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well Trump was president in 2016 and we had a free election in 2020. But even if 2028 is not free, the current situation is that the vast majority of the country is boiling in anti-elite sentiment, this could lead to a revolution.

I’m sorry if I’m not conforming with you pessimistic or what you might call “realist” views. But I’m not going to give up. I’m not going to let facism win. We can only achieve a better future if we start imagining it and believing in it. If Facism wins I get murdered. I’m doing everything to not let that happen.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Trump didn't have all three branches of government on his side. He also didn't literally say he was going to be a dictator. It's not pessimism, it is realism.

Do you think he was just joking when he said he was going to be a dictator?

[-] FundMECFSResearch 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It’s not pessism to admit Trump is a wannabe dictator.

It’s pessimism to sit there complaining about it without imagining paths and working towards a better alternative.

I’m not one of these “anti-electoralism” people. I vote, and I think voting maters. But a lot more matters than just voting.

You can’t just say “oh well we did our best” after you lose the electionand let facism happen. You gotta fight, you gotta advocate, you gotta defend those who need it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

He's not a "wannabe dictator." He made it very clear what he is going to be and he controls all three branches of government. On top of that, they've given him permission to do anything as an "official presidential act" (i.e. declare himself dictator) and it would be up to congress, who are on his side, to say he can't.

Fighting fascism doesn't mean living in a pipe dream world where It Can't Happen Here.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You’re arguing against someone who isn’t me.

Whatever Trump is is irrelevant to my point. My point is its pessimistic and problematic to surrender to facism happening without putting up a fight.

I’m basically saying: We gotta use all means necessary to fight facism.

And to me it seems you end up replying: But Trump is a dictator.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

When did I say anything about surrendering or not fighting?

People sure like putting words in my mouth.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I didn’t say you did. But it’s been a confusing conversation because it feels like I make a point in every message, and then you disagree with a minor detail of my point, instead of having a conversation about the big picture.

To me it feels like we aren’t talking to each other really.

I’m basically saying: We gotta use all means necessary to fight facism.

And to me it seems you end up replying: But Trump is a dictator.

Which confuses me because not very relevant to my point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nomous@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's because you equivocate and dance around without saying what you mean.

Just say you think violence isn't justified and won't get the results you want. People will disagree but at least your stance will be clear.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago
[-] TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Jesus Christ man, do you even have a point or are you just spinning your own tires here? Lol that entire above exchange was painful to read

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No security is foolproof, and a security detail has precious little ability to withstand a raging mob. Importantly, there are only so many former spec ops for hire. Most of these psychopaths will have to settle for 3rd rate rentacops.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Anda security detail has previous little ability to withstand a raging mob.

Which, again, is not targeted assassination.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The same method probably won't work again.

[-] gaael@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

I agree with you.
Imo, we need something besides assasinations/sabotages. We have to educate ourselves and others into trusting each other, working with each other, having empathy and understanding solidarity.
But I don't see a way out of capitalism without violence, sadly.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Violence? Maybe. Targeted assassinations? No way. This will just make insurance premiums go up because the companies will all hire huge security details and pass those costs on to the people forced to pay for insurance.

[-] Shard@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Not with that attitude you won't...

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Not with any attitude regarding assassinating your way out of capitalism.

It simply will not work.

And if you think healthcare in America is going to get cheaper or fairer because of this, you know nothing about America.

[-] electricyarn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Is there a historical precedent you can point to that proves your statement here?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Are you serious? How about World War I?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

As much as people are disagreeing, you're right. The systemic pressure is too great to fix it using fear of assassination alone. We need to change the rules if we want to change the game.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
847 points (100.0% liked)

interestingasfuck

6122 readers
1 users here now

interestingasfuck

founded 2 years ago