I think a lot of rich people don’t understand that being rich precludes them from being a part of the working class. They think that because they’re working, that must mean they’re a working class person. And then that leads to shit like this, rich folk calling other rich folk working-class.
Obviously, there are more reasons for people calling the CEO a working class hero, but I think what I said is still one of those reasons.
Yeah the “hero” part doesn’t equal “I made it big therefore I’m a hero”
A real working class hero is a person who did make it big and gave back to the ones beneath them.
On 9/11, Steve Buscemi, formerly a firefighter, son of a garbage man and a hotel worker, decided to don his old uniform and go back to his old station and help the rescue crews with no regard to his own safety. He worked 12-hour days taking living people and corpses (including the bodies of other firefighters) out of the rubble and did not bother doing anything like letting the press know about his selfless act. In fact, he said nothing about it. A firefighter posted on Facebook to thank him and that’s how the world found out.
That is a working-class hero.
Brian Thompson was personally responsible for causing far more deaths than what happened on 9/11.
They probably don’t consider him in the same class as them at all. I wonder if he wasn’t even a 1%-er, maybe more like a 2-3%-er. If you do literally anything other than laying in your money pile eating and shitting and having your mouth and ass wiped with $100 bills you’re probably a pleb to them.
Vigilante violence doesn’t lead to enduring systematic change.
Normally I agree with most of jacobin’s articles but I don’t agree with this. It’s pretty obvious that things have already changed, even if it’s just temporary. (Speaking as a non American spectator at least tbf)
It’s strange to cite what may be “just temporary” changes when you’re quoting “enduring systematic change”
This is a historically illiterate reply. The French Revolution was enacted by organized political resistance, not random assassinations. As the author points out, such acts never achieve any substantial or lasting change.
The only recent-ish example I can think of that actually applies is Gavrilo Princip, and the consequences were mostly accidental.
I keep telling people here that you usually cannot cure a systemic issue with violence but they refuse to believe it.
Vigilante violence can be distinguished from revolutionary violence because it is carried out without a Party. It’s just random people on their own deciding to do violence i.e. adventurism. It can’t bring enduring change.
No, but it can inspire a populace to rise up and challenge their oppressors.
Did you actually read that link?
The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.
In fact:
In May 1913 another attempt had been made to pass a bill in parliament which would introduce women’s suffrage, but the bill actually did worse than previous attempts when it was voted on, something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes.[116] The impact of the WSPU’s violent attacks drove many members of the general public away from supporting the cause, and some members of the WSPU itself were also alienated by the escalation of violence, which led to splits in the organisation and the formation of groups such as the East London Federation of Suffragettes in 1914.
And women didn’t get suffrage in the UK until 1918.
Yes. And I feel the amount by which the ‘terrorists’ made it a public issue was more important than the quoted analysts believe. It may have been so overly strong that it scared some away. But it also showed that it was a real issue to solve NOW. No more putting it off untold decades; and that is what I would hope from militant activism today. May America get Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world within 5 years now. And we will know who to thank.
something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes
I’m sure the press of their time was pure and true reporters of fact rather than manufacturers of consent defending the status quo.
That’s an answer to the underlying questions. You think the means can justify the ends, but you aren’t sure because you don’t know the ends yet.
More like working class traitor.
Yeah he wasn’t one.
