15

Are GOP lawmakers fair targets for assassination by leftists?

Submitted by __deleted_ in Socialism (edited )

If you have actual power and you specifically choose to kill thousands upon thousands of people by taking away their health care, it's not at all the same as being a regular citizen who is voting for someone who is a bad candidate without knowing the future, or being a politician that simply didn't vote for more comprehensive health care. Republicans god damn well know what they're doing will kill people, and they don't give a shit. They might as well be out on a field shooting cancer patients, and in my mind there's little difference, knowing how the US health care system works. So if you're a very angry, tit for tat kind of person who is out for revenge, then people who sign death sentences from a desk might very well deserve a death sentence themselves.

Republicans are absolute monsters and it's hard to feel sympathetic for them even when something really bad happens to them. Of course a lot of folks view the crimes of the powerful rather differently than the crimes of the powerless too, that's just how society works. Many of our presidents have committed crimes that we hanged Nazis for at the Nuremberg Trials, but it makes people incredibly uncomfortable when you bring that up.

Now on a different level, as the safety net deteriorates, people get more angry and desperate, and both liberals and conservatives fall into their own conspiracy spheres (Louise Mensch for Democrats, Alex Jones for Republicans), more politicians are probably going to be attacked. And with good cause. That's not to be condoning this stuff, but our society is deeply ill and not getting any better. People are going to start fighting back...

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8

zod wrote

I mean, they're obviously not civilians. If you go to war with the bourgeois, I can't think of a better starting point than the curators of the corrupt system.

5

__deleted_ wrote

The only better target would be the bankers and CEOs themselves.

5

zod wrote

Yeah, that's true. But really, they're all equally liable as soon as you get into the 1% of the population. They support mass murder and tyranny to enrich themselves.

3

__deleted_ wrote (edited )

It's normal under capitalism to put your wealth and the well being of your family first, we shouldn't blame the rich for succeeding.

I don't think you realize just how many people there are in the 1% - we can't kill hundreds of millions of people just because they're million/billionaires. But the republican politicians are fair game because they're the ones with the hands on the trigger - directly making the policies that kill people, as well as the CEOs, lobbyists and bankers that directly control the republicans.

3

LeftUnityIsMeme wrote (edited )

we shouldn't blame the rich for succeeding.

Why not? Their success comes at the expense of our freedom. Anyone that enslaves you should be fair game.

-1

______deleted_ wrote

hundreds of millions of people

It's not 1% of the world population, it's just 1% of the big Western nations.

3

__deleted_ wrote

Just because the ruling classes of less affluent nations have less wealth than the rulers of America, it doesn't mean they do any less damage to their individual societies. They still keep the working and middle classes down.

7

Lenny wrote

I think so, if they're deliberately killing people with their greed-fuelled policies, then yeah you're right, they lose their right to life.

5

__deleted_ wrote

It's just completely hypocritical of them to act as if they deserve any kind of leniency when they're actively involved in murdering people.

8

zod wrote

Really, people that act as if violence towards the ruling classes is aghast are part of the problem. A revolution isn't pretty.

4

__deleted_ wrote (edited )

We need to keep up appearances so as to not turn off fence-walkers that aren't ready to hear that, but you're right, in the end, communism isn't going to simply magically arrive at our feet. We will need to go to arms against the state and its satellites.

6

sudo wrote

They're certainly fair game, but I think the real question is: will assassinating them bring us closer to revolution? I would say not at the moment. As it is, most Americans either support the Republicans, or are liberals who think all violence is bad. If we assassinate bourgeois Republicans now, there will be a backlash against us. Just look at what happened after Micah X killed some cops in Dallas - the backlash from the Blue Lives Matter people was much stronger than the support from the revolutionaries. So, in the grand scheme of things, it was a mistake, because 5 dead cops isn't that helpful, and it fueled counterrevolutionary sentiments. The same is true of the Reichstag fire. When we do direct action, it shouldn't be just because we are justified, but because it will move us closer to revolution.

0

BlackFlagged wrote

When there is no revolution anywhere on the horizon, and nearly everyone on earth has bought into liberalism hook, line and sinker, is it really worth worrying about counterrevolutionary sentiments?

5

sudo wrote

Correction: nearly everyone in the United States has bought into liberalism. There are far more socialists in the third world. Besides, you can create more socialists in the US by educating and organizing the workers. When there is no revolution on the horizon, the solution is not to give up and go out in a blaze of glory; the solution is to convince people that revolution is good and necessary. Whenever a Micah X happens, that makes educating people more difficult to do, because it convinces fence-sitters that we're terrorists, or whatever. Direct action is worthless without the support of the people.

-1

__deleted_ wrote

As an anarchist, I believe it prudent to practice permanent revolution. That is to say, the concept of a sudden grand revolution to overthrow the state is not very likely, and therefore, we should be permanently aggravating for change with our own micro-revolutions.

8

sudo wrote

the concept of a sudden grand revolution to overthrow the state is not very likely

I disagree. These have happened in the past, and we know how to make them happen again (namely, educating, agitating, and organizing the workers, then striking when the moment is right). Like I said to BlackFlagged, direct action without the support of the people is worthless. If you strike before the time is right, the people who should be supporting you will see you as an extremist, and be less likely to listen to you.

4

I_am_Slavojs_allergies wrote (edited )

Why wouldn't most US politicians be (from both parties ) for all the people they've voted to kill in other countries? Taking away health care from US citizens is hardly their first or worst crime.