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.
Hopefully
I’m honestly just glad it brought the left and the right together! 🥰Give more CEOs bunnies, get more unity? Working class solidarity, ya’ll. 🥳
Don’t eat shit, mulch the rich.
Short answer: no.
One CEO getting shot is not going to change much. The American public’s attention span is two weeks, if that. Another CEO in the endless line of corporate douchebags will take the spot of the murdered one and so on. All the lousy crap that led to our fucking useless health care system is still in place: CEOs with no heart/conscience, health industry lobbyists, spineless politicians for sale to the highest bidder.
For sure, this was an exceptional event, but it’s not going to lead to any lasting change. Disagree with me? Post your prediction for what will change one year from now and let’s see what happens. My guess is NOTHING.
in a year from now, ceo’s will probably have a bit more private security and do less walking around in cities at 6 in the morning alone. I agree with you on the rest though
Go price out the cost of 24/7 coverage for an individual and then think about the need to restrict your life to places that can be easily secured. These CEOs will be jumpy for a few weeks and then life will go on. I predict this is not going to be a trend. We aren’t going to see 10+ CEOs shot a year. If I am wrong about that rate, then the rest of what I said would no longer be true. I believe this will be an isolated incident.
as an outsider I would think no. you don’t have much political force to cultivate this sentiment. democrats are already acting shocked and devastated for their buddies. they’re on the side of ceos, don’t forget. insider trading party can hardly pretend to give a shit about the average person. they will wait for the flame to burn out. return to business as usual: protecting the rich, losing elections and all that.
No.
The killing of the CEO was a one-off event.
There would need to be readily apparent will to revolt, or a slow buildup of tit-for-tat escalating action/reaction between have-not and the rich…. More killings and active attacks, more police trying to crush any protest or anyone rebelling, harsher and harsher punishment for resistance or protest, and a wealthy class protecting themselves as much as possible while telling everyone (most likely through the press and government they own) how bad it would be for everyone were they to be killed or the system disrupted.
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!
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.
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”
If people can protest for higher taxes on the wealthy, and ensure that money is spent on social services that would be a great start. I don’t know about other countries, but why the fuck can’t America do a Nordic model of socialism?
Swede here, first of all, we don’t have socialism here, we have a social democratic system here.
Secondly, the words socialism/communism have been tarnished over decades in the US, people have been taught to immediately reject those words regardless of their context.
So if the US can ever get a social democratic system, it needs a rebrand.
It needs something like “The Great America Deal”
Couldn’t agree more. Socialists with their hammers and sickles and Che Guevara t-shirts are accomplishing nothing. People need to let go of their fantasy of having people they disagree with them someday saying “I was completely wrong about socialism, you were right, I will never doubt you again!”
Though at this point Americans don’t even like the term “New Deal” because they’ve been told the economic policies of FDR (which pulled the country out of the Great Depression) were bad. So “Great America Deal” may not work. Biden tried “Build Back Better” but that was too lame. But yeah, gotta find a phrase people like and put it on a hat.
“Make America normal again”?
MANA from heaven. But without the god bullshit.
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.
“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/
Look to history for some answers.
The Denver Post had a opinion piece that talked about how America has seen something like this before.
The Gilded Age, the tumultuous period between roughly 1870 and 1900, was also a time of rapid technological change, of mass immigration, of spectacular wealth and enormous inequality. The era got its name from a Mark Twain novel: gilded, rather than golden, to signify a thin, shiny surface layer. Below it lay the corruption and greed that engulfed the country after the Civil War.
The era survives in the public imagination through still resonant names, including J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt; through their mansions, which now greet awestruck tourists; and through TV shows with extravagant interiors and lavish gowns. Less well remembered is the brutality that underlay that wealth — the tens of thousands of workers, by some calculations, who lost their lives to industrial accidents, or the bloody repercussions they met when they tried to organize for better working conditions.
Also less well remembered is the intensity of political violence that erupted. The vast inequities of the era fueled political movements that targeted corporate titans, politicians, judges and others for violence. In 1892, an anarchist tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick after a drawn-out conflict between Pinkerton security guards and workers. In 1901, an anarchist sympathizer assassinated President William McKinley. And so on.
As historian Jon Grinspan wrote about the years between 1865 and 1915, “the nation experienced one impeachment, two presidential elections ‘won’ by the loser of the popular vote and three presidential assassinations.” And neither political party, he added, seemed “capable of tackling the systemic issues disrupting Americans’ lives.” No, not an identical situation, but the description does resonate with how a great many people feel about the direction of the country today.
It’s not hard to see how, during the Gilded Age, armed political resistance could find many eager recruits and even more numerous sympathetic observers. And it’s not hard to imagine how the United States could enter another such cycle.
There are plenty of alternatives to eat the rich.
UBI does not make the rich any poorer. It just decentralizes power so that all can survive and eliminates crime.
While our electoral politics is divided between either “pro business” or “hamas supporting communist radical left”, it could seem reasonable to constrain oligarchy and Israel first rule while still being pro economic growth and prosperity. This requires an “eat the media stooges” who refuse to tell the difference along with a forceful message that the DNC doesn’t support.
Understanding that DNC are worthless pig fuckers meant to fundraise and not empower ordinary people is step 1 to progress.
Nah. That won’t happen until the Resource Wars begins in earnest.
Never underestimate the laziness of a disaffected but mostly not quite yet starving population.
tl;dr: Patience, grasshopper.
Hopefully we will move towards a more equitable society, but Fascists also have a track record of exploiting the sort of instability American society has been faced with during this century so far. If we don’t handle this carefully, it could go badly. Which is saying a lot, given the last decade.
Just curious but are we heading towards an “eat the rich” society?
I guess we should be, but that’s just my personal opinion.
Realistically, no. The people have clearly expressed how dumb they are and what they desire in the November election. They want dumb Republicans, they get asshole CEOs. I don’t see it any other way.
Honestly, I believe voting is the best way to bring change about a society that wants to change. It’s just that I have given up the thought that the US wants to change in the direction that I would go. So no, it’s not gonna happen.
They voted for Trump, but not because they actually wanted a bunch of asshole CEOs in power. The electorate wanted real transformative change; they’re looking for anyone who can offer even a hope of some bold transformative change. The only party offering real change right now is the Republicans. Democrats just want to offer a few piddly means-tested tax credits like they usually do, while doing absolutely nothing to actually rein in corporate wealth and power. Kamala’s flagship domestic policy was a $25k home tax credit that only a sliver of the populace would be eligible for; and it would only serve to bid up housing prices.
Like it or not, the Republicans did actually have answers for people. They aren’t good or noble answers, but they were answers. Democrats were too chickenshit to run on a platform of “CEOS are ruining your life, we need to come down like the hammer of God on the greedy oligarchs.” The Republicans in turn ran on a platform of, “the reason your life sucks is a bunch of DEI programs are putting unqualified people ahead of you. We’ll end that. Illegal immigrants are taking your job opportunities, and we’ll deport them all. House prices are too high, so we’ll deport 20 million immigrants and lower them!”
Those are abominable answers to the problems we face, but they actually had an answer, however evil and ultimately unproductive. Yes, obviously deporting millions of immigrants won’t actually help people, but it doesn’t matter. The Republicans actually had an answer to the question, “what transformative change will you do to improve the lives of Americans?”
Democrats had no answer. And for that, they lost.
People are hungry for dramatic change. They feel the system is rigged, and they are right. Democrats were too cowardly to take up that message and push for change against the corporate class, and that left Republicans as the only party offering any real change.
You don’t need to radically transform society to want change; the country already clearly wants change. The fundamental problem is the only ones offering change are the Republicans.
Thank you for taking the patience to put this into words so nicely! I really appreciate your perspective. Maybe I was being too rude calling Republicans “dumb”, I apologize. I guess I’m just as angry as many other people at seeing the proposed Republican plans (especially “slashing public spending” a.k.a. reducing social welfare) and seeing people actually vote for that.
Yeah, people in the US want change. I’m not sure what would be a productive and viable proposal that doesn’t completely fuck up the country. I’m European and have a non-interference policy for myself when it comes to the internals of the US. In other words, I don’t want to meddle too much with what’s going on in the US.
