Assassinations or class struggle? (2025)

Street art in San Francisco

From the February 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Luigi Mangione allegedly assassinated the capitalist Brian Thompson, CEO of a health insurance company, after seeing his own mother’s prolonged suffering after being denied health insurance coverage in North America, where healthcare is unsocialised by design. The shot was heard around the world and ignited the long dormant class consciousness of North America. The outpouring of support for Mangione’s alleged act has been politically surprising for many of the lapdogs of capital. The media especially has been caught on the back foot, seeing political pundits booed by their own audience as the public celebrate the alleged act.

Capitalism and political violence go hand in hand. As Malcolm X said, ‘violence is American as cherry pie.’ It’s just not usually cutting in this direction. We will see this same political opera play out again and again as capitalism tumbles from one crisis to the next, economic and environmental, and as society becomes more individualistic and fragmented from both wings of the political spectrum, as well as an increase in violence inspired by conspiracy theorists. Examples abound from ‘pizzagate’ or the ‘MAGA bomber’ Cesar Sayoc.

Western society’s morals advocate for people to only use peaceful means of achieving social change, but capitalism is anything but peaceful. The inherent tensions between classes in a capitalist society lead to situations where violence is inevitable when the oppressed are spoken to everyday in the language of violence by capital.

The state, as argued by Max Weber, is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In this regard, the 1 percent wields power through the apparatus of the state, enforcing laws and maintaining order to protect its property. So, when the working class resorts to violence, it is typically a reaction to an unyielding system that allows no channels and permits no voice.

Consider the words of Marxist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, who once stated, ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’ Where the state fails to provide avenues for dissent, the working class feels compelled to take matters into their own hands, an act not of frivolity but of desperation. To condemn such an act will serve the oppressive structure of the status quo that continues to render peaceful protests ineffectual.

The job of a socialist party in this context is not to support the wild actions of rugged individualists but to provide paths of mass action with a coherent philosophy, uniting disparate efforts into a collective strategy. Antonio Gramsci emphasised the importance of a ‘war of position’ in establishing hegemony, advocating for a broad ideological struggle that counters individualistic acts of defiance with systemic solutions. The party must provide structure to the movement, demonstrating that the fight against oppression is not one of isolated and ultimately futile gestures but part of a large revolutionary struggle.

The late historian Eric Hobsbawm pointed out the ‘social bursts’ of violence that erupt during times of severe inequity. The working class mobilisation amidst such strife, far from being vilified, should be understood within the broader narrative of class conflict.

The state’s response to dissent is a reflection of its inherent class interests. The role of a socialist party is not only to channel individual acts into a collective aim but also to recognise and respond to the realities of revolutionary action, acknowledging that, while peaceful revolution is its aim, understanding the circumstances that lead to violence is crucial in the pursuit of a free society. It is through this synthesis of theory and practice that the socialist movement can articulate its vision for the future, one where productive resources are held in common, and where the state, and its monopoly of violence, will be a thing of the past.

A. T.