You must log in or register to comment.
The ones that simp the hardest for the dead CEO were calling anyone who doesn’t love Netanyahu’s genocide a trumper.
Removed by mod
ShitLibs when somebody kills/harms/insults a capitalist, a warlord (“defense contractor”), a capitalist dictator, a war criminal, or anyone with power:
I don’t condone the murder of the CEO of a healthcare insurance company who reject 32% of claims…
But I understand.
I’ll condone it
Bourgeoisie is the middle class though. Not the rich
The Bourgeoisie was the “middle class” when the aristocracy were the upper class. The majority of the world is under Bourgeois rule, not aristocratic rule, any longer, ergo the Bourgeoisie is the upper class.
Bourgeoisie does not simply mean “middle class,” it refers to a class of Capitalists. You don’t adjust what the word means, but its context.
Removed by mod
Maybe define your terms, “bourgeoisie” and “middle class”, and explain where you’re getting these definitions from.
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Middle_class_(disambiguation)
The term “middle class” has been so hopelessly redefined in so many disparate ways that it’s best to avoid using it altogether. All it does is muddy the conversation.
Based admin
Curious, what are these turbolibs and how do I identify them on Lemmy?
They usually have lemmy.world handles. Not saying you are, but the admins and many of the mods of .world are said turbolibs and shaped their instance around it
Thank you, as someone newer to the lemmy.world, I’m just getting my bearings and have tons to learn here. Doing some poking around and it looks like lemmy.ml may be a better home for me 😁
If they’re “anti-violence” and it doesn’t even cross their mind that they’re defending wage slavery.
Or mass murder like the UHC ceo did
turbolib is a new insult
It’s been pretty common among the Left.
Nationalize:
- insurance
- hospitals
- prisons
- public transit
It’s perfectly possible to have your capitalist desires and still have a nice socialist structure to protect the people.
They can’t allow that. That’s called leaving money on the table. They will not be satisfied until they have every penny we earn, then, once that food source dries up, they’ll go after each other.
Social programs are not “socialism,” nor are markets “capitalism.” What determines the nature of an economy is what is dominant, the will of Capital or the will of the People. That’s why Social Democracies are sliding into austerity, because the Workers never actually siezed control Capital still dominates the system and disparity rises as a consequence.
Removed by mod
thats kinda every socialist countrys baseline (that works) and its also why the american propaganda associates it with CoMMuNisM.
What do you mean “socialist country thay works,” in a manner opposed to Communism? Are you calling the Nordic Countries “socialist,” despite reliance on hyper-exploitation of the global south and sliding worker protections, as a means to discredit AES countries?
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.
Social Programs within a Capitalist framework are concessions. In the European Countries, these social programs have been eroding over time, because the Workers do not have control. Moreover, the European Countries (and US, of course) rely on Imperialism, ie hyper-exploiting the Global South by exporting Capital and intentionally engaging in unequal exchange. These are parasitic countries that do not fund their safety nets inwardly, but externally, they only work like a leech works to produce food for itself, by taking from others.
The internet and all the other utilities.
Honestly anything that’s required to live in the society IMO should be socialized. That way no corporation can decided how much my life is worth. I also believe that capitalism has been an extremely powerful tool to bring wealth to the middle class. Socialized Capitalism maybe. Is that possible? Some European countries have done it I guess. I’m no expert or politician, just a working man. Maybe somehow it can be done.
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.
Education, too. With funding based on region and per student.
First of all in the list Education, without crucifixes above the blackboards
Housing should be on that list as well
From my experience living in a very socialist country; fair housing can be handled by rules instead of ‘nationalizing’. So the rules and pricing around them would be handled by the government, but not the houses themselves.
A big one I’m missing is schools.
Yeah just add schools that but also let private schools to exist
Allow private schools to exist but regulate them and give them no public funding.
If private schools are going to exist they should have a minimum curriculum actually enforced so that students attending them aren’t put at a disadvantage.
For example, sex education should be required as part of health and human biology. Not it’s own separate, needlessly controversial thing.
Many private schools are religious and refuse to teach certain topics, or replace them with nonsense and it hurts their students.
But also don’t give them tax money. They rake it with their excessive tuition already.
I agree, that’s what I meant by “regulate them and give them no public money”
Yes actually I think that’s what happening here
Yeah sure, allowing both nationalized and privatized sectors to coexist can lead to positive stuff.
Wait what is that sarcastic? I don’t get it. For us there is co existance of govt. and private schools, and both are being used by the public
I’m mostly talking in the general sense.
In my country there are a few private schools but employers don’t care for them. They need to follow the official curriculum and the students will have to do the same official tests at the end of the year.
Any time this happens it leads to greater social stratification.
Uh why?
It’s a great way for the rich to segregate themselves from the poor
Fair enough, and yes. Education should definitely be on the list
Turbolibs
Means nothing to me. What is a turbolib? It’s difficult to understand much of anything when everyone has a different name for everyone else.
Mega liberal, ie a radical supporter of Capitalism.
Lib is an American capitalist culture war word like woke. It’s a Schrödinger term. Capitalists both claim they’re libs without actually promoting any freedoms, but also libs are commies/sjws and the source of all moral decay because a strong boot on the neck is preferred. And then both of the variations keep repeated ad nauseam doing the capitalist bidding so who the fuck knows anymore.
I just want dental insurance to be included in basic health insurance plans for all. Nothing too radical.
And the occasional lenses for my eyeballs.
I know I’m asking for a lot because adequate vision is positively absolutely a luxury, and not at all necessary for doing the vast majority of work or existing in society…but y’know.
That’s crazy talk. Your teeth aren’t part of your body or anything!
Luxury Bones
Republicans: Best we can do is toothpaste coupons
Too radical for the Republicans.
They’re thought about all the time. So far only one person made it past that.
Don’t eat the rich 🥺😉
They’re meat’s no good. Compost the rich.
Food waste the rich.
Except maybe their heads… I’m thinking pikes down Wall Street
Brian Thompson looked pretty well-marbled for a CEO, to be fair. Cook 'im low, cook 'im slow.
We got enough microplastics in the ground.
Burn the rich?
Glue factory or canned dog food is a perfect fit for them.
We got enough microplastics in the ground.
…and Micro penises too.
Compost them away from crops and use on ornamentals and pollinator plants only. Don’t want lead contamination!
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
Took me a while to understand; fwiw, the above are explanations people are giving when reporting posts
Yeah, I was answering the question asked of me.
Hmmmm…
and?
I don’t know, what? And you think you’re being very clever with your alt account, maybe?
None of those things seem particularly terrible.
and your accusation is pathetic.
I think you might be confused about what conversation is going on here.
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.
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.
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.
Surprised cowbee didn’t post this but I think you need this: Leftist Reading List
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 it’s 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.
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.
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. That’s 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 you’re reading more bloodlust in this outpouring of catharsis & outrage than is actually there. People are expressing righteous anger, not murderous intent.
Yes. All hail Cowbee.
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.
So business owners must die got you. If I do some freelancing sometimes, should I kill myself? Asking for a friend.
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.
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.
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.
