The relationship between violence and social change remains one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas. Can a system built on force be dismantled peacefully? Or does any attempt to reshape power structures require some level of aggression? ### Is Violence Inevitable in Oppressive States and Revolutionary Change? Many theorists argue that violence is an inherent part of oppressive systems, making resistance through force necessary or even inevitable: • [[Frantz Fanon]] – In The Wretched of the Earth, he argues that colonial violence dehumanises the oppressed, and that revolutionary violence is a necessary step toward reclaiming dignity and identity. • [[Karl Marx]] – He saw class struggle as inherently conflictual, predicting that the proletariat would need to overthrow the bourgeoisie through force to dismantle capitalist oppression. • [[Hannah Arendt]] – While critical of violence, she distinguishes between power and violence, arguing that violence arises when political power loses legitimacy. • Walter Benjamin – In Critique of Violence, he questions the legitimacy of state violence versus revolutionary violence, suggesting that the state’s monopoly on force is [[Arbitrary]]. The tension between [[Thomas Hobbes]] and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] on human violence reflects broader debates about human [[Nature]] and [[Society]]. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], in turn, critiques both perspectives and offers his own view on the role of violence in human life. ## Hobbes vs. Rousseau on Human Violence ### Hobbes (Human Nature as Violent and Self-Interested) • Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), argues that in the state of nature—a world without [[Government]]—humans would exist in a constant state of war: “The life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” • He sees humans as driven by self-interest and competition, leading to inevitable conflict. • To escape this [[Chaos]], people must submit to a sovereign power (a strong state) that imposes order through laws and force. 🔹 Key Implication: Violence is natural but must be controlled by the state. The social contract is necessary to prevent [[Anarchy]]. ### Rousseau (Violence as a Product of Society, Not Nature) • Rousseau, in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755), argues that in the state of [[Nature]], humans were peaceful and free, living in simple, harmonious societies. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” • He sees private property and social inequality as the root of human violence. • Once societies formed, power structures and competition corrupted human [[Nature]], leading to greed, oppression, and [[War]]. 🔹 Key Implication: Violence is not natural but arises from inequality and social structures. A more just [[Society]] (e.g., Rousseau’s vision of direct [[Democracy]]) could reduce violence. ## Nietzsche’s Critique of Hobbes and Rousseau #### Nietzsche on Hobbes: • He rejects Hobbes’ idea that the state is needed to control violent human nature. Instead, he argues that states themselves are built on violence: “Every enhancement of the type ‘man’ has so far been the work of an aristocratic society.” ([[Beyond Good and Evil]]) • For Nietzsche, the strong dominate the weak, and power is always enforced through violence or coercion. • He sees state power as a tool of the weak (slave [[Morality]]) to suppress the strong and creative. 🔹 Key Critique: Hobbes is wrong to see the state as a protector—it is itself an instrument of violence and oppression. #### Nietzsche on Rousseau: • He dismisses Rousseau’s idea of a peaceful, noble past as romantic fantasy. • The idea that humans were once pure and good is a sentimental lie that leads to resentment (ressentiment) and self-pity. • Instead of seeking to return to a mythical past, Nietzsche argues that conflict and struggle are what drive human greatness. 🔹 Key Critique: Rousseau’s vision of equality leads to mediocrity, suppressing the strong to elevate the weak. ### Nietzsche on Human Violence Nietzsche does not advocate for senseless violence, but he sees conflict, struggle, and domination as necessary forces in life: 1. Violence as Creative Force • He believes that strength, ambition, and even cruelty are essential for human progress. • Great individuals (his concept of the Übermensch) embrace struggle and hardship rather than seeking peace. 2. Slave Morality vs. Master Morality • Societies impose “slave [[Morality]]”, which glorifies weakness, equality, and nonviolence. • The strong follow “master morality”, where power, will, and self-overcoming are celebrated. • Pacifism and egalitarianism are ways the weak control the strong. 1. Violence in the State and Religion • He sees Christianity, [[Democracy]], and socialism as denials of life’s natural hierarchy, using moral systems to suppress stronger individuals. • The state itself is built on violence, but it masks it with morality and legality. 2. Dionysian Chaos vs. Apollonian Order • Inspired by Greek philosophy, Nietzsche contrasts Dionysian (wild, creative energy, struggle, and destruction) with Apollonian (order, structure). • He sees controlled chaos and struggle as the true path to artistic and personal greatness. ### Is Violence Inevitable? • Hobbes sees violence as natural but controllable by the state. • Rousseau sees violence as a social construct that can be reduced through equality. • Nietzsche sees violence, struggle, and domination as inevitable and even necessary for human growth. Nietzsche’s challenge: Should we embrace conflict and power rather than suppressing it? ### Are lone gunmen as entitled as the elite they claim to defend against When the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was gunned down by a masked man on the busy streets of New York, the internet erupted with visions of _what this could mean._ Was it a vigilante? A victim of the American healthcare system? A former employee? A revolutionary? Was this the event that would trigger a mass movement against extractive [[Capitalism]]? In contrast, extractive capitalism barely blinked. In fact, UnitedHealthcare executives carried on with their 9am meeting barely two hours after Thompson was killed. It is a shocking and revealing fact, one that makes perfect sense when you stop to think about it. Brian Thompson was as unimportant to UnitedHealthcare as its customers because the customers who die from denied insurance policies can be replaced, just as CEOs who are killed can be replaced. The next CEO of UnitedHealthcare will, however, be greatly rewarded for their risk—presumably with the industry’s biggest paycheque to date. Thompson’s alleged killer was arrested five days after the shooting in a McDonalds with a gun, some fake IDs, cash, and a _[manifesto](https://substack.com/redirect/41113a7b-4b33-4d34-8476-bafc8f8dead9?j=eyJ1IjoiMWZrbjJjIn0.q7YP7ZnT4s_9Gin3KbzLH48Om07l_5TnbF-2SuEm9D8)._ It was short, as one might expect from a data engineer (if suspect Luigi Mangione did in fact pull the trigger). The manifesto states “these parasites had it coming” without clearly referencing who the parasites are. The following paragraph infers said parasites are within the American healthcare industry who “continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allowed them to get away with it.” It is clear to the author that “something had to be done”: > “Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.” [Share](https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=265792&post_id=153210778&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=1fkn2c&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4NjYyMzQyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTUzMjEwNzc4LCJpYXQiOjE3MzQzNjk0ODUsImV4cCI6MTczNjk2MTQ4NSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI2NTc5MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.ToC0VToVLtJJ3UbciY2T4TO5nluHol5NlcA8Vc8PLdk) We do not know, yet, if this manifesto was written by Luigi Mangione, or if he killed Brian Thompson. However, the tone speaks volumes. It certainly would not surprise me if this was the manifesto of a 26-year-old who thought they were _the_ _very first person__ever_ to face the reality of corruption and greed “with such brutal honesty”. It would also not surprise me if that 26-year-old, self-isolating from any community with whom to discuss their beliefs, came to the conclusion that murdering a CEO would in any way help. It also wouldn’t surprise me if he wanted to be caught. You might think, given everyone lives within the same economic system and falls on the same spectrum of suffering, that assassination attempts are carried about by a range of people which reflects the diversity of our societies. That is not the case. If we look at Presidential assassinations in the United States, the alleged perpetrators are always white, and almost always in their mid-twenties: - John Wilkes Booth was 26 when he assassinated Abaraham Lincoln - Charles J. Guiteau was 39 when he assassinated James Garfield - Leon Czolgosz was 28 when he assassinated William McKinley - Lee Harvey Oswald was 24 when he assassinated JFK - John Hinckley Jr. was 26 when he attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan - Thomas Crooks was 20 when he attempted to assassinate Donald Trump Murder is one of the most vivid acts of _entitlement_ in the world. Frankly, it’s unsurprising that those on the top of the social pyramid created by extractive capitalism would typically be the the only group to think themselves as bearing the right to take another’s life for the wider sake of society. Whether or not Thompson’s murder achieves anything, it is frightening that there are those who take it upon themselves to remake the world as they see fit through violence. It is a mirror of the same violence they claim to decry. [Upgrade to paid](https://substack.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.hQhp2PLYgAN_bCRG0xSo33clUggtF_lymCS83mdnZsU?&utm_medium=email&utm_source=subscribe-widget&utm_content=153210778) I believe acting in self-defence is imperative in a crisis. I would like to see the climate movement engage in more acts of self-defence. I support the right to sabotage the private property of polluting industries in protest, and I don’t believe we have to forgive our abusers if ever we reach a moment of collective justice. I think the fight to save the earth’s systems and our own societies from collapse is a fight to save ourselves. It is a collective act of self-defence, and it is utterly justified. Its very collective nature sets it apart from lone gunmen who believe they are the arbiters of honest assessment and have the last word in what the world should look like. Systemic change is complex. It cannot be achieved by a single act, or a single person. Systems are not transformed by events, they react and mitigate against events. We did not learn from the global financial crisis, COVID-19 or Trump’s first term. The world barely blinked when over thirty million Pakistanis were displaced by floods in 2022, and sent merely platitudes to the hurricane victims of 2024. We are barrelling towards the sixth mass extinction and global fossil fuel production is increasing every year. If it were as simple as taking out a couple of bad individuals, or cowing the elite, then the planet’s violent instability would have done so already. The reality of human violence is the result of thousands of years of extractivism and exploitation. It promotes violence because it feeds off of violence. Those who engage in violence at its service are in no way excused, but rather than argue their evil nature we should reflect upon their lack of imagination and cowardice. These people don’t want the world to change because it suits them very well. This is actually a perfectly normal conclusion. That they don’t want it to change at the _expense_ of others is a conclusion that can only be supported by an economic, political and cultural system which promotes separation and individualism. _Everything_ is geared to support that narrative. Those who are thriving in it are perhaps not all evil—they’re just very good at doing what they’re told and see no reason to question the world they maintain.  [Share](https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=265792&post_id=153210778&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=1fkn2c&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4NjYyMzQyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTUzMjEwNzc4LCJpYXQiOjE3MzQzNjk0ODUsImV4cCI6MTczNjk2MTQ4NSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI2NTc5MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.ToC0VToVLtJJ3UbciY2T4TO5nluHol5NlcA8Vc8PLdk) Brian Thompson’s murder won’t stop for-profit maximisation of healthcare in the USA. It has provoked more conversations about it, certainly, and galvanised, if not radicalised, a cross-section of the internet who are intrigued by the daring and physique of the alleged killer. Some will say his actions were worth that alone. Yet, simply talking won’t help American society progress towards a more equitable future. To get there, they will have to organise systemic attacks on the infrastructure—both ideological and physical—which makes extractivism and exploitation possible. To arrive at a future of non-violence, we must coordinate and defend against violence. To do so alone is fundamentally inefficient.  The radical flank is a critical wave in any social movement, making the peaceful protesters look amenable and worthy of an invitation to the table: MLK’s ideals were buttressed by the radicalism of Malcolm X. I have seen arguments to suggest that Thompson’s killer represents the radical flank. I worry these arguments are misleading because they suggest that any single person acting alone has the same right to change the world as a collective of people who have hammered out their ethos and strategy by listening to one another and sharing their lived experiences. I worry that a movement will be reduced to a single person, painted as heroic or evil, who will distract from the relentless on-the-ground organising taking place all across the world, and especially in the USA in the lead up to Trump’s inauguration. I worry we will fall prey to utilitarian arguments where the ends justify the means and murder takes precedence over justice. I worry young men in their twenties will think they have found an easy way to achieve the greatness they believe themselves entitled to. I worry we will conflate killing in cold blood with self-defence.  I understand—and even feel—the emotional impetus to champion what looks like an insurrection against extractive capitalism. But the sad truth is extractive capitalism won’t stop for anyone, and if violence is its currency then no amount of death will ever be enough to shock it into submission. It must be dismantled, hospiced, destroyed; such is a labour of care and dedication and bravery. And, to be brutally honesty, that is much harder work than any single act of violence. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:` [[Digital index]]