The Dangers of Political Violence: Why It Must Be Avoided
By Mary (MJ) Johnson
The killing of Brian Thompson (United Healthcare CEO) by Luigi Mangione has been widely publicized and universally celebrated. After his apprehension, Mangione was paraded through the streets of New York like a Batman villain, which only increased his status as an American folk hero. There are Luigi t-shirts, “Saint Luigi” candles, Luigi lookalike contests, nonstop mainstream media coverage, and of course the orgasmic approval of the murder of Brian Thompson on X (formerly known as Twitter).
My question is–how did we get here? How did our society become so hopeless and depressed that premeditated murder would be considered heroic?
A few caveats before you come at me. We still don’t know if Luigi Mangione was the gunman. The video of the smiling shooter does not necessarily match Mangione’s physical characteristics. Secondly, Brian Thompson was a bad guy. His actions and the actions of most health insurance executives have killed untold thousands of Americans. On average health insurance companies kill 45,000 Americans per year. But what did the killing of Brian Thompson accomplish?
The problems with our for profit healthcare system are systemic. Killing one person will not fix it. Before Brian Thompson’s body was cold, United Healthcare had already replaced him. And for moral clarity, I’m also against the death penalty even for the worst criminal offenders. My argument is and has always been, “how can we prove that killing people is wrong by killing people?”
Gone are the days when activists threw pies at Bill Gates before his PR makeover in the early 2000’s. Activists managed to garner attention for their cause, Bill Gates was unharmed but humiliated, and everyone got a good laugh. Now people are laughing at shooting another human being in the back, leaving his young children fatherless. The American mood has soured. After decades of being humiliated by the ruling class– “it’s get back time.” But instead of throwing pies or heckling – it’s escalated to murder and self-harm. These are extremely dangerous precedents.
The Myth of the Lone Wolf
Killing a guilty person may give a temporary feeling of elation, but it does nothing to change our for-profit healthcare system. Which is why our ruling class is more than happy to focus on lone wolf acts of violence and self harm instead of mass movements. There’s something quintessentially American about the celebration of lone wolves. We watch movies and television shows that celebrate a lone wolf living in the woods after an apocalyptic event. And yet the idea of a lone wolf is pure fiction.
If you examine any conflict, disaster, or mass casualty event throughout history (including the current genocide in Gaza), the only way people survive is through the strength of their community.
In the wild, statistically speaking, lone wolves die. Why? Because they don’t belong to a pack.
Everyone needs someone to watch their back. Someone to help them when they fall down, get sick, or injured. Humans need community! Lone wolf acts of vigilante violence are rarely effective. Worse, the lone wolf concept is dangerous to activists, community organizers, and the overall health of our community.
Free Speech Crackdowns are Already Here
It’s dangerous because the ruling class that controls the American government is in crisis and has dropped the facade that it cares about constitutional or human rights. The federal government is actively prosecuting and persecuting people for constitutionally protected free speech.
Three members of the Uhuru Movement were arrested and charged for “conspiring with the Russian government” otherwise known as disagreeing with the Biden Administration's Ukraine foreign policy.
Attorney Steven Donizger (who won a $9.5 billion settlement against Chevron) was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and private prosecutors with ties to Chevron. He was subsequently put on house arrest for three years and jailed for six months for contempt of court because he protected his clients’ confidentiality.
Anti-Cop City activists have been indicted on RICO charges. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) was created to combat organized crime syndicates, not people protesting the construction of an Atlanta Public Safety Center.
Samidoun, the Palestine Prisoner Support Network was recently designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of Treasury because of their advocacy and humanitarian work.
Amazon used the DOJ to prosecute former employees of alleged violations of their employment contracts.
These are not isolated incidents. The playbook remains the same: use exaggerated claims to intimidate movements, restrict free speech, and deter solidarity. We at the Center for Political Innovation (CPI) have our disagreements with some of these groups or organizations, as many do with us. But in the face of government repression, we put those disagreements aside – we never agree with locking people up for “thought crimes” and free speech.
Why a Nonviolent Mass Movement is Needed
After President-Elect Donald Trump recently forced the Israeli government to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza, we should expect more political repression of Palestinian liberation groups. We should also expect more false flag events implicating Palestinian activists. The ruling elite are desperate to turn western public opinion away from anti-imperialism and back to liberal pro-NATO facism. Extending the Ukraine conflict and disrupting Palestinian liberation will continue to be the primary focus of the global ruling class.
On January 20, 2025 organizations like the Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL), led by Brian Becker, organized a massive protest of Trump's inauguration, which thankfully did not turn into a riot, as it did in 2016. Those associated with anti-imperialist causes should be very wary of left-wing organizations encouraging them to commit violent or illegal activity, just as far-right organizations led people into a federal government entrapment operation on January 6th.
Political Violence Alienates the Masses
The effectiveness of any political movement lies in its ability to mobilize broad support among the population. Violence, especially when isolated, alienates the very people whose collective power is essential for meaningful change.
Historical examples highlight how violent acts can damage public perceptions of social movements. For instance, the actions of individuals who commit politically motivated murders, like the assassination of Brian Thompson, are often portrayed as representative of the broader movement. This framing, whether accurate or not, associates movements for justice with chaos and fear, driving away potential allies.
When people see a movement as violent or destabilizing, they are less likely to join it, even if they sympathize with its underlying goals. December polling showed that 73% of Americans do not think the killing of Brian Thompson was justifiable, with 15% unsure and only 12% in favor. The majority of people, especially in times of social anxiety, prefer stability over radical upheaval.
Political Violence Reinforces the Status Quo
Ironically, political violence often serves the very forces it seeks to oppose. Governments, corporations, and other entities benefiting from systemic inequities are well-versed in using acts of violence to divide movements and create fear among the public. Through media narratives and counterinsurgency strategies, they ensure that violent actions are amplified, creating a chilling effect on organizing efforts.
In the 20th century, numerous movements suffered setbacks due to such tactics. CPI Founder Caleb Maupin emphasizes in his latest book, “The Killing of Brian Thompson,” that during Italy’s "Years of Lead," acts of political violence by extremists—both left-wing and right-wing—created an atmosphere of fear and confusion. This chaos was exploited by the state to clamp down on dissent and maintain control. Similar strategies have been used in other contexts to stymie the momentum of grassroots movements by painting them as dangerous or untrustworthy.
The Moral and Strategic Need for Nonviolence
Nonviolence is not just a moral stance; it is a practical strategy that has proven successful in movements across the globe. Nonviolent resistance, combined with mass participation, can achieve systemic change without resorting to bloodshed. These efforts can achieve success precisely because they keep the moral high ground, garnering widespread public sympathy and exposing the cruelty of our adversaries.
Conversely, movements that have engaged in violence often lose focus on their broader objectives, becoming entangled in cycles of retaliation and infighting. Violence reduces the opportunity to present clear demands, to offer solutions, and to expose systemic injustices. Instead, it shifts the narrative toward the violent acts themselves, distracting from the movement's goals.
Political organizations like CPI have a critical role to play in shaping how movements for change are perceived. We can build trust with the public, expand our coalitions, and remain focused on our goals. As Jane McAlevey famously said, there are no shortcuts. We cannot kill our way to building organizational power. We have to do the hard work of building consensus among the population.
We have to go out of the movement – to the masses!
