4 ms·

There are two kinds of "fascination" at play here - those who believe he is a hero and someone to be emulated (as seen on Reddit and the like) and those who are

There are two kinds of "fascination" at play here - those who believe he is a hero and someone to be emulated (as seen on Reddit and the like) and those who are fascinated by the fascination (mostly legacy media and whoever is still on FaceBook). Of course, the average person might remember the shooting (stressing might at this point) and almost none would know Luigi Mangione by name. Which is to say, almost any "fascination" today is just a reflection of a highly distilled internet alcove, a self-identified cohort which over time builds it's own culture and assumes that everyone around them is to some degree as "informed" as the are about their "fascination". It does not take an obscure novel to explain the "fascination" the powerless have with the dream of somehow gaining power over the powerful - but as the movie Parasite so perfectly illustrated - that moment is likely to be fleeting, self-destructive, and ultimately meaningless as the world will quickly lose it's "fascination".

impossiblefork 2y ago
I think you're very wrong. Once ordinary people start actually organizing and using violence, they tend get better conditions with society becoming reorganized for their benefit. A good example is the Swedish peasants. The Swedish historian Dick Harrison wrote a book of which he states >Huvudtemat är den politiska och socialhistoriska läroprocess genom vilken de svenska bönderna insåg att politiskt våld lönar sig, att en militarisering av det politiska beteendet resulterar i ökat samhälleligt inflytande. i.e. >The main theme is the political and socio-historical learning process through which the Swedish farmers learned that political violence pays off, that a militarization of the political behaviour results in increased societal influence. Once it gets going and you learn how to do it leads to persistent and possibly permanent domination of society. In Sweden the farmer class owned at least 50% of the land. The Denmark, the nobility and church owned 90%. This kind of things saves whole peoples. This influence also multiplies. When you own your own land and aren't dependent on others and make your own decisions, you become more capable. Look at the lowest classes in the UK, how they are unable to do anything. In Sweden, those don't exist, because people have always had a reasonable amount of independence, and this is because they had power, so when you start wielding it you get more and you get better and more capable, because you have to.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  The peasant rebellions you reference were grassroots resistance against heavy taxation and attempted tax increases — they were violent reactions to the violation of private property rights by an undemocratic state. Comparing those circumstances to modern societies with free speech and full democratic rights is completely off the mark. The brutal violence against an innocent person marked as a "class enemy", and the groundswell of support for it, is much more reminiscent of the communist violence that led to the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the decades of mass murder and totalitarian oppression that followed.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Who ends up owning what is a political decision. This can be seen by looking at very different Danish situation, which also existed, and which resulted from a situation which at one point probably did not differ substantially from that is Sweden. I think the goal must always be that as many people as possible have as much power as possible, so that they are forced to exercise it and thereby get used to making decisions. If one ends up in the Danish situation, then it's reasonable to use violence to get at least to the Swedish situation, otherwise your descendants may end up as the British lower classes, which an unacceptable state. Think like in the game Go. You calculate the score at the end and ask yourself what you want to become of your eventual descendants.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      If the goal is to distribute power, then the last thing you want to do is encourage the creation of an unaccountable and violent elite that does not need to operate through public discourse available to everyone through their freedom of speech.
      - impossiblefork 2y ago
        Yes and we've seen what comes of that. 'You wretches detestable on land and sea...', that's what you get when you have an unaccountable and violent elite. But a violent people setting things up as they like is what I prefer. You can stabilize it, with Swiss style direct democracy, but the public's capacity for well-organized violence is a good foundation which can restore the democratic, egalitarian system if it breaks down.

impossiblefork 2y ago

I think you're very wrong. Once ordinary people start actually organizing and using violence, they tend get better conditions with society becoming reorganized for their benefit. A good example is the Swedish peasants. The Swedish historian Dick Harrison wrote a book of which he states >Huvudtemat är den politiska och socialhistoriska läroprocess genom vilken de svenska bönderna insåg att politiskt våld lönar sig, att en militarisering av det politiska beteendet resulterar i ökat samhälleligt inflytande. i.e. >The main theme is the political and socio-historical learning process through which the Swedish farmers learned that political violence pays off, that a militarization of the political behaviour results in increased societal influence. Once it gets going and you learn how to do it leads to persistent and possibly permanent domination of society. In Sweden the farmer class owned at least 50% of the land. The Denmark, the nobility and church owned 90%. This kind of things saves whole peoples. This influence also multiplies. When you own your own land and aren't dependent on others and make your own decisions, you become more capable. Look at the lowest classes in the UK, how they are unable to do anything. In Sweden, those don't exist, because people have always had a reasonable amount of independence, and this is because they had power, so when you start wielding it you get more and you get better and more capable, because you have to.

ETH_start 2y ago
The peasant rebellions you reference were grassroots resistance against heavy taxation and attempted tax increases — they were violent reactions to the violation of private property rights by an undemocratic state. Comparing those circumstances to modern societies with free speech and full democratic rights is completely off the mark. The brutal violence against an innocent person marked as a "class enemy", and the groundswell of support for it, is much more reminiscent of the communist violence that led to the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the decades of mass murder and totalitarian oppression that followed.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Who ends up owning what is a political decision. This can be seen by looking at very different Danish situation, which also existed, and which resulted from a situation which at one point probably did not differ substantially from that is Sweden. I think the goal must always be that as many people as possible have as much power as possible, so that they are forced to exercise it and thereby get used to making decisions. If one ends up in the Danish situation, then it's reasonable to use violence to get at least to the Swedish situation, otherwise your descendants may end up as the British lower classes, which an unacceptable state. Think like in the game Go. You calculate the score at the end and ask yourself what you want to become of your eventual descendants.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    If the goal is to distribute power, then the last thing you want to do is encourage the creation of an unaccountable and violent elite that does not need to operate through public discourse available to everyone through their freedom of speech.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      Yes and we've seen what comes of that. 'You wretches detestable on land and sea...', that's what you get when you have an unaccountable and violent elite. But a violent people setting things up as they like is what I prefer. You can stabilize it, with Swiss style direct democracy, but the public's capacity for well-organized violence is a good foundation which can restore the democratic, egalitarian system if it breaks down.