• bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.

    But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.

    I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      So far, the UH CEO getting got has helped confirm suspicions that the Proletariat is more radical than previously thought, but no change has come of it. Without taking advantage of the moment to organize, nothing will change from it.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 minutes ago

        Ceos being scared for their life is a notable change IMO. Surveillance and repression are as usual.