Hopefully

I’m honestly just glad it brought the left and the right together! 🥰Give more CEOs bunnies, get more unity? Working class solidarity, ya’ll. 🥳

as an outsider I would think no. you don't have much political force to cultivate this sentiment. democrats are already acting shocked and devastated for their buddies. they're on the side of ceos, don't forget. insider trading party can hardly pretend to give a shit about the average person. they will wait for the flame to burn out. return to business as usual: protecting the rich, losing elections and all that.

Don’t eat shit, mulch the rich.

As John F Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"

Either we fix this peacefully through the democratic process, or people are gonna riot.

Feels too good to be true. It's only one shooting.

Now if some second evil CEO were unfortunately victimized, I might be tempted to call it a trend...

Short answer: no.

One CEO getting shot is not going to change much. The American public's attention span is two weeks, if that. Another CEO in the endless line of corporate douchebags will take the spot of the murdered one and so on. All the lousy crap that led to our fucking useless health care system is still in place: CEOs with no heart/conscience, health industry lobbyists, spineless politicians for sale to the highest bidder.

For sure, this was an exceptional event, but it's not going to lead to any lasting change. Disagree with me? Post your prediction for what will change one year from now and let's see what happens. My guess is NOTHING.

Look to history for some answers.

The Denver Post had a opinion piece that talked about how America has seen something like this before.

The Gilded Age, the tumultuous period between roughly 1870 and 1900, was also a time of rapid technological change, of mass immigration, of spectacular wealth and enormous inequality. The era got its name from a Mark Twain novel: gilded, rather than golden, to signify a thin, shiny surface layer. Below it lay the corruption and greed that engulfed the country after the Civil War.

The era survives in the public imagination through still resonant names, including J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt; through their mansions, which now greet awestruck tourists; and through TV shows with extravagant interiors and lavish gowns. Less well remembered is the brutality that underlay that wealth — the tens of thousands of workers, by some calculations, who lost their lives to industrial accidents, or the bloody repercussions they met when they tried to organize for better working conditions.

Also less well remembered is the intensity of political violence that erupted. The vast inequities of the era fueled political movements that targeted corporate titans, politicians, judges and others for violence. In 1892, an anarchist tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick after a drawn-out conflict between Pinkerton security guards and workers. In 1901, an anarchist sympathizer assassinated President William McKinley. And so on.

As historian Jon Grinspan wrote about the years between 1865 and 1915, “the nation experienced one impeachment, two presidential elections ‘won’ by the loser of the popular vote and three presidential assassinations.” And neither political party, he added, seemed “capable of tackling the systemic issues disrupting Americans’ lives.” No, not an identical situation, but the description does resonate with how a great many people feel about the direction of the country today.

It’s not hard to see how, during the Gilded Age, armed political resistance could find many eager recruits and even more numerous sympathetic observers. And it’s not hard to imagine how the United States could enter another such cycle.

No.

The killing of the CEO was a one-off event.

There would need to be readily apparent will to revolt, or a slow buildup of tit-for-tat escalating action/reaction between have-not and the rich…. More killings and active attacks, more police trying to crush any protest or anyone rebelling, harsher and harsher punishment for resistance or protest, and a wealthy class protecting themselves as much as possible while telling everyone (most likely through the press and government they own) how bad it would be for everyone were they to be killed or the system disrupted.

There are plenty of alternatives to eat the rich.

UBI does not make the rich any poorer. It just decentralizes power so that all can survive and eliminates crime.

While our electoral politics is divided between either "pro business" or "hamas supporting communist radical left", it could seem reasonable to constrain oligarchy and Israel first rule while still being pro economic growth and prosperity. This requires an "eat the media stooges" who refuse to tell the difference along with a forceful message that the DNC doesn't support.

Understanding that DNC are worthless pig fuckers meant to fundraise and not empower ordinary people is step 1 to progress.

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

Just curious but are we heading towards an "eat the rich" society?

I guess we should be, but that's just my personal opinion.

Realistically, no. The people have clearly expressed how dumb they are and what they desire in the November election. They want dumb Republicans, they get asshole CEOs. I don't see it any other way.

Honestly, I believe voting is the best way to bring change about a society that wants to change. It's just that I have given up the thought that the US wants to change in the direction that I would go. So no, it's not gonna happen.

Hopefully we will move towards a more equitable society, but Fascists also have a track record of exploiting the sort of instability American society has been faced with during this century so far. If we don't handle this carefully, it could go badly. Which is saying a lot, given the last decade.

Nah. That won't happen until the Resource Wars begins in earnest.

If people can protest for higher taxes on the wealthy, and ensure that money is spent on social services that would be a great start. I don’t know about other countries, but why the fuck can’t America do a Nordic model of socialism?

It's certainly part of the catabolic stage in the system's decay. Due to many reasons, both at the input side and the "drowning in waste" side (example: GHGs waste causing climate destabilization), growth is going to falter which means that the "sharing" strategy of the rich, of the oligarchs, is going to stop working. You may know it as "grow the pie" (instead of "share the pie"). The rich get richer, the rest get poorer, and there are going to be a lot of poor people. That means a lot of desperate people and a lot of people with nothing left to lose.

What you have to watch out for is perhaps two strategies that can stop this:

1. Scapegoating: vulnerable minorities and more. The rich of a certain ethnicity may become the scapegoats, instead of .... you know, ALL of that class. This would be a misdirection of attention.
2. Jingoism, chauvinism and various forms of ultra-nationalism. This would be a misdirection of violence... instead of "punching up", it becomes "punching the foreign threat", which means war.
3. Combined 1 & 2. It's usually called fascism.

Something to print:

On a related note, I really liked the recent season of "Arcane" (both seasons are great). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11126994/

Never underestimate the laziness of a disaffected but mostly not quite yet starving population.

tl;dr: Patience, grasshopper.

I really fucking hope so, the world has too many rich morons in charge and we genuinely need to do something about it right now if we want to have a planet anymore.