[flagged]
Everyone says this before they learn what they didn’t value. Peace, for example.
> Its easy for you to say, all perched up as a VC
It’s easy to say for anyone who has read the history of political violence. When that comes on the table, universally [1], the people with power also have the power to raise armies. The people who stand to benefit from violent insurrection, today, are the oligarchs.
This happens every time because it’s obvious. If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too. A lot more people will kill for a million dollars than because they hate some guy.
[1] Apart from early 20th century Communist revolutions, where elites actually suffered.
Here in Sweden, political violence by the farmer class ensured that by the end of the pre-democracy era, self-owning farmers held 50% of the land, whereas in Denmark, it was only 10%.
This was due to violence, serious, organized war-like violence; and yes, of course the government brought in mercenaries, noble forces, etc. but fighting the farmer class had a substantial cost, and that they were willing to impose that cost gave them better conditions.
Killing guys at the bottom is very different from killing somebody at the top. If people are killing activists, journalists etc. that is always oppression. If people are killing people at the top it can be either way, depending on whether they are put there by some large grass-roots phenomenon or are trying to run society from the top of a pyramid, but in your argument you are placing these things as equal, you say:
>If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too
and this is false. It is so false I don't quite understand how anyone can write it.
This works. Disciplined, organized violence. Lone wolves shooting at homes and gunning down healthcare middle managers does not.
> this is false
It’s deeply precedented.
>It’s deeply precedented.
Ah, we are confused about what we mean. You mean that workers, activists etc. will be killed. I mean that their killing is oppression, whereas the killing of non-grassroots supported people at the top of power pyramids, isn't.
But that isn't the point: you are in fact right, I am right too, but the thing I want to say is: the oppression of workers, activists, journalists etc. that might be triggered by the destabilizing violence is necessary in order to get the reaction.
When a person who understands destabilization does it, he of course wants to trigger this oppression, and for that oppression to trigger the organized war-like stuff.
Reading and understanding do not always go along, though.
The more likely result is either that every member of the board and c-suite ends up on death row, or in a grave. There are far more people willing to avenge loved ones than there are people willing to kill for money.
The way I see it, the pragmatic choice is to prefer to see Americans attack themselves because a divided America is less of a threat to my country.
Sometimes less civilized countries fall into civil war, sometimes they invade neighbours. If you're the neighbour which would you prefer?
Is that a reasonable perspective to you?