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.
I did’t cry for the CEO, but also didn’t cheer for the assassin. I don’t know if he was the assassin. Cops seem to think so, but I can’t double-check.
If the assassin’s motive was revenge for someone’s misery or avoidable death, the motive is understandable. People sometimes make such decisions for similar reasons since time unknown.
If the assassin’s political complaint was that the US ranked fourty second in life expectancy among countries, despite ranking first in expense per capita - that is likely true, and should be a big deal as long as it remains so.
(Obviously, it won’t automatically improve from offing a health insurance CEO - many of them are indirectly responsible for many person-years of needless suffering or loss of lives, but there is a socio-economic framework which ensures that their positions get repopulated with their kind of people, so one getting killed can only highlight the problem.)
To any statist wanting to fix their state, I would recommend a tax-based a single-payer healthcare system in an eyeblink.
To other anarchists, I don’t think I’d have to explain the benefits of solidarity and collective bargaining. They’re obvious.
As for the US: not a chance within the next 4 years.
“What is so much worse than vigilante violence without accountability is systemic violence without accountability. The most prolific vigilante in the world, hell the most prolific serial killer in the world, could not kill as many people per day as the CEO of United Healthcare is responsible for.”
—trickster-archangel, posted to Tumblr
The worst thing about systemic violence is that without systemic change (which could, at the very least, be in the form of “the threat of another vigilante assassination”, but would ideally be a more fundamental change to the laws and incentive structures), the death of this one CEO will not result in the system being less violent.
I haven’t heard a motive but I’m fine with what he did. You can’t chant “eat the rich” without expecting them to be offed. The insurance company’s policies lead to deaths just so their shareholders can add to their obscene wealth, fuck everything that lead to the current state of the world.
He certainly managed to get people talking about American health problems but is it right to sacrifice two lives when we know that there will always be a next CEO ready to take his place? And saying this I feel much more sorry for Luigi’s life obviously.
(Edit) I answer myself: probably only if all this leads to a greater awareness of citizens and therefore to politically active movements. Marx argued that change would occur more easily in societies with more advanced capitalism.
These people exist to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of millions. Stopping that, even for a moment is exponentially a greater good.
speculation that back problems led to radicalization – regular searches and purchases of books on back pain, one of his profile pictures was a spinal x-ray show metal spinal pins
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:
The assassination enjoyed the tacit approval of many Spaniards, who joked about Carrero being Spain’s first astronaut.[13]
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.
i think killing people is bad, but i think overall his effect on society is positive. i dont think this means we should go out murdering other health CEOs, but i hope this brings other, less murderous, direct action techniques to light.
We still don’t know that they’ve got the right guy. But assuming they do, he’s a legend. Killing people shouldn’t have to be how we effect change, and one death on its own isn’t likely to do much, but he’s killed someone who is quite directly responsible for many other people’s deaths, and that’s pretty cool.
I heard other health insurance companies, for at least a short time after the assassination, were approving way more claims than they normally would. If that’s true, even if exaggerated, this CEO’s death directly resulted in other people living or having higher quality of life, so even from that standpoint it’s a good trade.
deleted by creator
deleted?
my mistake, I wanted to reply to another user
Seems kinda weird but he did a good thing
