cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/16040607
“Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare since 2021, was shot and killed outside an entrance to the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan, New York City, on December 4, 2024. He was in the city to attend an annual investors meeting for UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare. Authorities believe the attack was not random. Thompson had been criticized for UnitedHealthcare’s rejection of insurance claims, and his family reported that he had received death threats in the past. The shooting occurred early in the morning, and the suspect, initially described as a white man wearing a mask, fled the scene.”
(edit) I would like to point out that Luigi Mangione is only a suspect and there are currently doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
If he is who the police claim he is, and that really is his manifesto, then I hope he manages to bring a constant and unrelenting focus on the inhumanity of the US healthcare system, as he seems to desire.
As for what I think…
Yesterday I was reading through Means and Ends by Zoe Baker, which explores the history of Anarchist movements. There’s a chapter in there that goes over when Anarchists were all super into the idea of ‘Propaganda of the Deed’ back around the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They went after everything from Industrialists to Kings, thinking it would get people all riled up and inspired to start a revolution… But the problem was, it didn’t.
In fact, the overall gist I’m getting from it is it was almost entirely counterproductive. It didn’t garner the sympathy of the general public, and worse, it gave ample justification for the authorities to militantly crack down on Anarchist groups and disband or imprison them, forcing them to go underground or to flee to less hostile countries, which weakened the movement overall.
The reaction in this particular instance does seem to be getting people angry about health insurance, but I don’t think humans are much different from how they were back in the 1800’s when similar things did not bring lasting or positive change, and unfortunately I don’t think this event will be any different.
I agree. Often enough, some leader figure (even a really bad one) getting assassinated doesn’t change the situation for better.
There’s been a case where a high-profile assassination gave countries excuse to start a chain reaction of wars (Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip -> World War I). Arguably, they were ready to start it anyway and another spark might have lit a similar fire.
Regardless, if a woodworker from Germany contacted me through a time machine and asked for blueprints for a remote audio system (to check if a moustached dictator is holding a speech before pushing the button), I would send him schematics and wish luck. Sometimes the outcome of going straight ahead points to bloody conflict, and a pre-emptive strike against the driver of conflict is clearly justifiable even if it may not help.
Once upon a time - a rare exception to the rule - an assassination seems to have hit right and fixed things. When dictator Franco had become old and frail in Spain, most of state matters were handled by his prime minister Luis Carrero Blanco. His personal connections held many things together - he was considered irreplaceable. And his departure was accepted with relief by many:
If a remarakably evil person has become irreplaceable and most people would accept that person going with a bang, then (and likely only then) assassinating a person can achieve an outcome of changing systems. If a man is replaceable, it won’t help much.