You're viewing a single thread.
My problem with this is, who gets to decide where bourgeoisie start and ends. Because for the majority of the world, the average American is a selfish bourgeois with a big house and two cars, who thinks oppression is when the gas price rise. Kill all the bourgeois fine, but who gets to decide who lives and who dies?
edit: jeez americans, we dont have to agree on everything and downvote to hell just because someone says something we dont like. Maybe in the US shooting people you dont like seems like a resonable solution, but I'm sorry it's not that simple in the rest of the world.
Class is about relation to the Means of Production, not simple wealth. The US is largely made up of labor aristocracy who benefit from Imperialism, like you pointed out, but aren't bourgeoisie.
Secondly, putting people to death isn't the goal, changing property relations is. Adventurism is cool to see, but doesn't actually change anything.
So who gets to decide?
It's, again, a relation to production. Capital Owners, ie business owners and whatnot, are bourgeoisie. I suggest reading the first section in my introductory Marxist reading list.
So business owners must die got you. If I do some freelancing sometimes, should I kill myself? Asking for a friend.
if I do some freelancing sometimes, should I kill myself? Asking for a friend.
It seems that you are intentionally missing the point. If you are selling your own labor, you my friend are working class.
You guys are all really smart and interesting, seriously, but I'm still not convince one can just decide to kill a CEO because he considers them to be part of the bourgeoisie. My original question, is who gets to decided where to draw the line.
No, I literally stated that the goal isn't to kill people, but collectivize property. If your only way of dealing with alternative viewpoints is to lie about them, then you should reconsider your own viewpoints.
My comment was going back to the original question: if it's ok to kill this CEO, who decided who else it's ok to kill.
My problem is that, while I fully agree that capitalism is the principal cause of injustice in the modern world, taking justice into one's own hands through violence will only lead to more violence. The day citizens as a whole are ready for a real social revolution, I might re-evaluate my position on violence, but the majority of US voters have just elected, again, Epstein's closest friend as president so I doubt that what they want is a way out of capitalism.
I agree with you somewhat and I don't like how much downvote spam you're getting. You bring up some good points we ought to be mindful of.
Right now it seems very clear who the oppressors are, but the scary thing about reactive movements is that even if they accomplish their goal, they tend to seek to justify themselves indefinitely before everyone gets bored and it dissolves.
Everybody wants a revolution on paper, but things get messy and blurry once the powder keg goes off, and people en masse would be looking for the next enemy, the next oppressor, that must be hunted down to finally secure Utopia.
While I'm an anarchist and want the "ownership class" to answer for their wicked ways, I also don't think a bunch of independent actors picking targets and gunning them down based solely on their own justification is an ideal solution. Even if I understand why it happens and don't defend the perpetrators that push people to such extremes in the first place.
Except others above are literally calling the middle class bourgeoisie.
Maybe you should all start reading, because itās obvious this community isnāt politically savvy enough to understand the words it throws around.
What do you mean "middle class is bourgeoisie?"
One other person in this post said that, therefore everyone in the post is stupid, except for slartibartfast.
Yep, seriously confusing behavior.
This is two questions in one. Cowbee is addressing who is and isnāt bourgeois.
As to who lives and who dies: nobody has to die, but history has proven that the capitalist class wonāt relinquish power peacefully. They will utilize state violence to retain control of the state and to protect their private property.
USA is pretty much the most capitalist country in the world so that's a lot of people that might die. But again, who gets to decide who will die (or be rehabilitated)? Cowbee?
How would I know, it hasnāt happened yet. You think youāre asking an ethical question, but youāre basically asking a historical question about the future. One canāt predict how violently the capitalists will react to a socialist revolution in an indeterminate future moment that becomes ripe for one.
How many people will die if US monopoly capitalismāotherwise known as imperialism[1]ācontinues? Because lately itās been killing by the millions.
Yes, but.... It's seems most people WANT to live in a capitalist system. It's not my first choice either, but IMO shooting CEOs will just bring more repression and give an authoritarian government a sens of legitimacy,
IMO shooting CEOs will just bring more repression and give an authoritarian government a sens of legitimacy
I agree. Thatās what I said on Wednesday: https://lemmy.ml/post/23216334/15339156
<davel>As cathartic as it may be, assassinating CEOs will do nothing but embiggen the police state.<xxxxx>So centrist of you.<davel>This is not coming from a centrist position: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/AdventurismSo we agree on that. It's my main point, I'm not defending CEOs, I'm just not going to cheer for some random street execution. The fact that the video of this murder is being shared and celebrate that much really makes me inconfortable. Seems to me like a very american solution to a very american problem. I wouldnt have thought people here would be that much pro-violence. People can ball me a "lib" or a centrist as much as they want, I'm not celebrating arbitrary murder nor watching that video.
I think youāre reading more bloodlust in this outpouring of catharsis & outrage than is actually there. People are expressing righteous anger, not murderous intent.
Maybe. I hope so.
Yes. All hail Cowbee.
This is why an actual democracy - not an oligarchy masquerading as one - would reduce overall violence.
This dude saw a bunch of rich people unilaterally deciding who would die, and he did the same.
Think of it this way: Systems vs Demographics
We as a society should never condone a system (government/CEOs/billionaires) killing a demographic (individual or group), like the death penalty. Because the system already has greater power and control.
However, the demographic should be able to kill or dismantle systems, especially when they feel threatened by those with power.
So "the people" can take the lives of the rich into their hands, but the rich can't take the lives of "the people" into their hands. Ideally.
Which is why it's okay to be pro assassination of a CEO, but not pro death penalty of a serial killer. Government (system) sanctioned murder (of a demographic) should never be okay.
Which is why itās okay to be pro assassination of a CEO,
So would you kill one? Like, if it's okay, and apparently the right thing too do, why don't people do it more?
I'm poor, I can barely afford to take care of myself, let alone afford a gun and the necessary steps to disappear after.
What if you had the money and a great plan, would you pull the trigger?
I condone what happened. And I hope it continues.
I'll take that as a yes. I mean, the rest of the world manages to give free health care to citizens without having to shoot each other but I guess americans have american solutions to their american problems...
Punching up is fine. It's like comedy.
Because for the majority of the world, the average American is a selfish bourgeois with a big house and two cars, who thinks oppression is when the gas price rise.
I mean I fucking live here and that's pretty much my assessment as well to be honest. Maybe not your average american if we're working on like, who's right just based on home ownership statistics, but certainly, that's not really an invalid perception.
Whoever has the cajones, that's who