Charlie Kirk has never received a warm welcome in the pages of this magazine. It doesn’t matter now. The assassination of Kirk is a tragedy. Morally, it is unjustifiable. Politically, it is cause for serious alarm. A larger spiral into political violence would be a catastrophe for the Left.
In the short time since Kirk was slain, most on the Left have rightly condemned his murder. A not insignificant number, however, have reacted with an almost competitive lack of empathy. Not only is their anti-moral posturing likely to turn off ordinary Americans, who abhor political violence, but it is also politically misguided and strategically naive. There is nothing to celebrate here. Indeed, there is much to fear.
sit back and observe time
but fr:
If history is any guide, the Left faces serious dangers from this development. The theory that acts of individual political violence will somehow spark mass movements for justice (what used to be called “propaganda of the deed”) has been tested, in a variety of circumstances around the world, for centuries. It’s very consistently been a disaster, almost always leading to enhanced repression of the Left and attacks on democracy writ large. The aftermath of Kirk’s murder could easily follow this familiar, grim pattern. Whether or not the shooter even turns out to be left-wing, there are good reasons to worry that the assassination could be used as a pretext for new crackdowns against dissenting speech from an administration that’s already shown itself willing to engage in a degree of authoritarianism we haven’t seen in recent American history.
Kirk himself played a leading role in pushing Gen Z toward the Right, especially young men. If the killer hoped to snuff out his influence, their actions will almost certainly have the opposite effect. Kirk’s murder at age thirty-one will no doubt convince many of his millions of viewers and listeners to dedicate themselves to his cause, thus hastening the coherence of a militant right-wing political bloc that will be an obstacle to our own project for decades to come.
does jacobin have short guide for spain as related to political violence from anarchists?
i'm sure kirk deigned to "debate" burgis at some point -- very funny, sort of, imagining him imagining himself as a kirk-level target worthy of reprisals. though, tbf, he'd be easy to plug giving a lecture on Marx at a biergarten in front of some 14 people.
i don't really think this is true. i don't think kirk really had any intellectual heft or juice -- dude seems to just have repackaged traditional talk-radio talking points, and weaseled his way close to the administration and made apologia for it. not really a firebrand or iconoclast.
And Kirk was just a conduit for oil/manufacturing money. He was a dancing clown operating on the behest of capitalist interests because he was seemingly the most shameless. He seemed to enjoy making college kids upset.
Capitalists can find another guy exactly like him. And you're right, what was his cause exactly? Fascism? He simply repeated the same lines that every right wing idiot influencer gets. He would flip his beliefs whenever he was told to do so, like how he completely changed in regards to the Epstein files. He was one of the most empty fascists who has ever lived, a pudding brained nepo baby who was good at memorizing the lines he was told to say.
They might struggle to find people if there is a genuine survival risk going forward (copium?)
well said.
and his tiny face, unlike che, just would not look good on a t-shirt.