Burn the rich?

We got enough microplastics in the ground.

…and Micro penises too.

Do you think UHC is going to change its policies in any major way because of this? If it was self-defense, it was not very good self-defense. Like any other employee in a giant corporation, the CEO is easily replaced with someone else who will do the exact same job. Possibly an even better (from the company’s perspective) job.

This does nothing to help all of the people who are being destroyed by the for-profit insurance industry.

I would say revenge makes more sense.

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.

Sieze it. If you’re interested, I have an introductory Marxist reading list.

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.

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.

Yes. All hail Cowbee.

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.

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.

When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessities of life, places them in conditions in which they cannot live,—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual.

Surprised cowbee didn’t post this but I think you need this: Leftist Reading List

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.

Fair enough, and yes. Education should definitely be on the list

Yeah just add schools that but also let private schools to exist

Markets, not Capitalism, can be useful at lower stages of development. However, over time, they become more and more exploitative and inefficient, transforming into Imperialism across international lines. Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient with respect to the level of development of market industries.

in Austria we call it “sozialdemokratie” and i believed americans translate that to socialism. wich is not national socialism or communism btw. and yes i do because, as i said, you can have a social base for your country and still habe a capitalist economy structure.