547

No, Brian Thompson Wasn’t a “Working-Class Hero” (jacobin.com)

submitted 1 year ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 130 points 1 year ago

I think a lot of rich people don't understand that being rich precludes them from being a part of the working class. They think that because they're working, that must mean they're a working class person. And then that leads to shit like this, rich folk calling other rich folk working-class.

Obviously, there are more reasons for people calling the CEO a working class hero, but I think what I said is still one of those reasons.

[-] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago

Yeah the "hero" part doesn't equal "I made it big therefore I'm a hero"

A real working class hero is a person who did make it big and gave back to the ones beneath them.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On 9/11, Steve Buscemi, formerly a firefighter, son of a garbage man and a hotel worker, decided to don his old uniform and go back to his old station and help the rescue crews with no regard to his own safety. He worked 12-hour days taking living people and corpses (including the bodies of other firefighters) out of the rubble and did not bother doing anything like letting the press know about his selfless act. In fact, he said nothing about it. A firefighter posted on Facebook to thank him and that's how the world found out.

That is a working-class hero.

Brian Thompson was personally responsible for causing far more deaths than what happened on 9/11.

[-] ImADifferentBird 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly. This guy made it big and did nothing to use his power to help people. Hell, if anything, he made it worse. He oversaw the cruelest company in a cruel industry.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

No one is working class as long as they can live the rest of their life in relative luxury/comfort with zero sources of income. If they choose to continue to work, it's because it's their choice to enrich themselves further, not because they will lose their home or need to start living off rice and beans.

Even retirees who live off a few thousand a month from their pensions, retirement funds, and investment returns are no longer working class in my opinion.

[-] Wolf314159@startrek.website 61 points 1 year ago

More like working class traitor.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If you wrote a story about a class traitor murdering another class traitor in class, you'd get a failing grade for how ridiculous the concept was.

[-] Obi@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah this whole story is first grade script material.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So did Abe's assassin. Reality doesn't have to be believable.

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I get it!

Random acts of violence won't work.

Random acts of violence

Random acts

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

Doesn't matter that he came from money. He saw an imbalance of power and did something about it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

They're talking about Thompson, the guy that got shot. He is the one they are trying to paint as a working class hero because he wasn't born wealthy. It's just ignoring the reality of life in America and his part in it.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, an odd interpretation of "hero", that he found success for himself and I suppose those closest to him. Even if his success story was getting rich from some more innocuous retail success, it is hardly heroic.

Some may think it's a nice story about working hard to get ahead, but that wouldn't be heroic.

Also doesn't really need to be, a decent life (generally speaking, not making a statement about this CEO0) that shied away from heroism is hardly shameful. Just don't like folks ascribing heroism to merely being successful.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It shows that the owner class cannot understand that other people might not consider getting more for yourself at the expense of others to be an admirable thing. In their circles, exploiting others for your own gain is the only way life is lived, and the only way to impress others, and they jealously admire those who got more. So they expect everyone to admire does this, and working class people to admire an originally working class person who did this. They just don't understand that from an informed working class perspective (as opposed to one drowning in capitalist propaganda), getting rich at the expense of others just makes you an asshole.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't even necessarily begrudge the word "admirable" to describe getting wealthy through ones own efforts, but "heroic" is just too off the mark.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

It really depends what you understand to be "through one's own efforts." Capitalism stretches this concept to the point of absurdity.

[-] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

[-] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It's strange to cite what may be "just temporary" changes when you're quoting "enduring systematic change"

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

No, but it can inspire a populace to rise up and challenge their oppressors.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] CM400@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

The only recent-ish example I can think of that actually applies is Gavrilo Princip, and the consequences were mostly accidental.

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024

547 points (100.0% liked)

News

37547 readers

1310 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world