CEO Assassination and the Nature of Revolutionary Action
The assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, is an occasion to open new discussions regarding the nature of revolutionary action and the methods of social change. Thompson, as a symbol of the barbarity of a system that prioritizes profit over human life, was the target of an extreme and individualistic means of resistance. But can we characterize this act as revolutionary? The answer can be found in a thorough analysis of the relationship between ends and means, as well as in the exploration of the concept of the creative dimension of revolution.
The reproduction of authoritarian logic
The act of the murderer, Mangione, is nothing more than a reflection of the instrumental logic that dominates the capitalist system. This logic, according to critical theory and thinkers such as Horkheimer and Adorno, is characterized by the removal of morality from the process of action. Instrumental thinking transforms man into a willless means, degrading the very nature of human existence. Moreover, according to thinkers such as Marcuse, capitalism itself is the one that, in its attempt to maximize performance, promotes a culture that ignores the inherent value of man.
Mangione’s violence, in the name of alleged resistance, fits into this framework. The end, that is, the supposed deconstruction of an inhuman system, sanctifies the means, making murder acceptable. However, as thinking subjects, we cannot help but perceive that the end and the means are interrelated. Means based on violence cannot create freedom. Instead, they promote fear, oppression, and the reproduction of the very logic of domination that they claim to reject.
The failure to grasp the creative dimension of the revolutionary process
Revolution is not a process of destruction. Or at least it is not only or primarily that. It is, first and foremost, a creative act aimed at establishing new institutions and values. Castoriadis, in “The Imaginary Institution of Society,” emphasized just this; social change presupposes the emergence of a new imaginary, one that transcends old patterns of power. The assassination of Thompson, and every Thompson, fails miserably to propose or establish any positive alternative vision. On the contrary, such acts function as a tool for reinforcing existing repression, providing the dominant system with the alibi of fear.
The great political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, in her “On Violence” sees violence in turn as a means that always undermines true political creation. In this context, Mangione’s act is not a political action, as it lacks the necessary collectivity and the ability to inspire positive change. It was an act of instrumental logic, trapped in a cycle of authoritarianism and destruction.
The tendency to heroize such acts by much of the wider movement is equally problematic. In the philosophy of autonomy, heroism is a form of power that undermines collective creation. As Nietzsche demonstrated in his critique of slave morality, the exaltation of the hero leads to the reproduction of structures of dependence. The revolution towards an autonomous, democratic society cannot be based on “great men” but on conscious collective social self-establishment.
The heroization of Mangione, therefore, is the acceptance of an authoritarian model for change that is opposed to the democratic process. Acts of individual revenge, however fanciful they may seem to some, are not the essence of the revolutionary process. Real revolution is a collective effort that rejects violence and highlights creativity as a fundamental principle.
The ineffectiveness of violence and the fantasy of capitalism
Furthermore, Thompson’s murder fails not only morally, but also strategically. Capitalism, as Marx himself analyzed, is a system that incorporates and assimilates violence, transforming it into a tool for strengthening its dominance. The murder of an individual, however symbolic, does not affect the institutional and philosophical foundations of the system. On the contrary, it reinforces the imaginary of security, which is used to legitimize repression.
What is required is therefore a radical change in the imaginary that underpins society. This change is not instantaneous, nor the result of individual actions. It is a continuous process that requires the participation and consciousness of the many. Thompson’s assassination was not revolutionary because it did not in the slightest challenge the structures that raised him. On the contrary, it reinforced them, offering the system new reasons and excuses for repression.
The real revolution is a preimaginative process of creating politics (Zapatistas)
Freedom, this rather arbitrary concept, is not only the absence of oppression, nor the ability to kill the class enemy, but active participation in the formation of society. This means that the revolution must focus on the foundation of new institutions, on the creation of a society based on autonomy and solidarity. Violence is the tool of those who cannot imagine anything beyond destruction. The real revolution is the rejection of this logic and the adoption of a creative attitude that recognizes that change is not simply the abolition of the old, but the creation of the new.
In this context, the concept of preimagining is introduced. Preimagining, as a concept and practice, is the core of real revolutionary action, rejecting violence and highlighting creativity. The Zapatistas of Mexico are a living example of this philosophy. Rather than limiting themselves to acts of revenge or destruction, they created autonomous communities based on the principles of direct democracy, equality, and collective participation.
Their action, while initially involving armed resistance, has evolved into an ongoing process of envisioning an alternative model of society. As they themselves emphasize, their revolution is not simply about overthrowing the existing regime, but about establishing a new life that embodies dignity, cooperation, and care for nature. This vision highlights how revolution can be creative and inspire collectivism, rather than reinforcing the logic of competition and domination that governs the capitalist imaginary.
Unlike Thompson’s assassination, which reinforced existing structures of oppression, the Zapatistas’ portrayal offers a model for how social change can occur through collective, creative, and nonviolent processes.
See also: Direct Democracy: Exploring the Ideas of Cornelius Castoriadis