Sure I'll think about them, as soon as they cede all their wealth and give their companies to the workers.
Memes
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
Educate, agitate, organize. They will never do this willingly.
100% homie.
And if we don't get it?
SHUT IT DOWN
Sieze it. If you're interested, I have an introductory Marxist reading list.
I'm pretty well educated on marxist theory already, but I'll always take more book recommendations!
Thanks! 🫡
That's right, seize not freeze. :)
Any chance you could share, blurring out the names of course?
- Promoting murder
- Planning homicide
- Call for violence
- Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.
- advocating violence
Just a reminder but the bourgeoisie are the "middle class", and that the CEO who was killed is part of a capitalist oligopoly.
The bourgeoisie haven't been targeted here, an aristocrat has.
The aristocrats were largely disposed of via bourgeois revolution. Now there is a haute bourgeoisie, like Brian Thompson (net worth >$40M), and a shrinking petite bourgeoisie, A.K.A. the middle class.
Absolutely, I just meant that the inhuman monster who was killed wasn't bourgeoisie, he was an aristocrat. These are rich families that stay rich by exploiting the poor and (few remaining) bourgeoisie.
In end stage capitalism you're oligarchy, poor, or soon to be one of the two.
He wasn’t an inhuman monster, he was a product of the capitalist system. When he dies, someone else replaces him, as the the system demands.
And, in Marxists terms anyway, he was not an aristocrat. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy hundreds of years ago. Capitalism is a different mode of production from feudalism. He was a member of the capitalist class, he was bourgeois.
he's probably the closest thing that americans can have to an aristocrat; but, traditionally, aristocrats had more relative wealth and influence than this ceo did.
marxists & leninists have definitions for lots of words that have been adopted by everyone of the last century+ but pop culture likes to redefine those words every few years and seeing the pop culture definitions clash with the accepted definitions is a really common sight here, given pronounced m/l userbase and i love seeing it because it keeps reminding me that i'm so americanized that i can understand that aristocrats like this ceo are more bougie that the bourgeois. lol
and in a sense, he is an aristocrat because he has significant enough influence in government policy to permanently enrich himself and his allies just like the aristocrats of the past did and his children will likewise hold similar wealth and influence, effectively creating a modern day feudal dynasty.
Aristocrats were an offshoot of feudalism, the bourgeoisie are the Capital Owners. The "middle class" is the petite bourgeoisie, who are Capital Owners that must labor, ie small business owners. This was the bourgeoisie, not an aristocrat.
Just a reminder, if you think what happened on DDD Day was murder and not self defense, you don't have a problem with violence, you just hate when poor people do it.
a quick Google turned up nothing useful, what is DDD Day?
I guess this past Wednesday is unofficially Deny Defend Depose Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Brian_Thompson
Oh god. I was reading through the page and this gem was down in the section on the response from healthcare companies:
Another executive was quoted saying "What's most disturbing is the ability of people to hide behind their keyboards and lose their humanity."
Says the people who hide behind keyboards, phone calls, employees, doctors, guards, police as they hurt people they don't know. Talk about losing your humanity.
they've become like politicians or lawyers or police or soldiers who don't care about the damage they've inflicted on millions of people's lives and believe that what they're doing is justified because it's for some "greater good" and never mind that the people they're harming were never part of that greater good.
Your quote is included in this Financial Times piece (archived version) but it's immediately followed by my favorite.
One former Cigna executive recalled how the US health insurer used to frequently face threats when claims were denied. “We’d have times when you’d deny proton laser therapy for a kid with seizures and the parent would freak out,” said the former executive.
How dare those parents "freak out" just because you are refusing to cover their child's cancer treatment? These fuckers are completely out of touch. They honestly think they have the moral high-ground letting kids die in order to increase shareholder value. I now really understand why the guillotine was invented.
That has to be one of the most depraved and appalling things I've ever read. I just got a piece of mail from cigna telling me to sign up for their supplemental insurance before sonething terrible happens to me.
I think I'll use it to curse their CEO and lackeys instead. I don't know if that shit works, but it might offer some catharsis after finding out they deny epileptic children with cancer treatment and are baffled when parents "freak out." Seriously, those inhuman husks can eat shit and choke.
Seriously who do they think the behavior was learned from?
I will not hesitate to leave my keyboard and go fight the revolution to help seaze control of the means of production
Don't eat the rich 🥺😉
They're meat's no good. Compost the rich.
Compost them away from crops and use on ornamentals and pollinator plants only. Don't want lead contamination!
We got enough microplastics in the ground.
We got enough microplastics in the ground.
...and Micro penises too.
They're thought about all the time. So far only one person made it past that.
I just want dental insurance to be included in basic health insurance plans for all. Nothing too radical.
Too radical for the Republicans.
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 to 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?
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.
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.
Except others above are literally calling the middle class bourgeoisie.
Maybe you should all start reading, because it’s obvious this community isn’t 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.
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.
This is two questions in one. Cowbee is addressing who is and isn’t bourgeois.
As to who lives and who dies: nobody has to die, but history has proven that the capitalist class won’t 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?
Yes. All hail Cowbee.
How would I know, it hasn’t happened yet. You think you’re asking an ethical question, but you’re basically asking a historical question about the future. One can’t 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 capitalism—otherwise known as imperialism[1]—continues? Because lately it’s been killing by the millions.
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.