In the discourse following the violent actions that ended the life of a health insurance CEO, one trend I found particularly alarming was the assertion that this event somehow proved that violence was the only effective means of systemic change. Amidst the absolutely justified anger surrounding the US healthcare system and the profit focus of its C-suite executive class, there was also an underlying frustration that nonviolent action had failed to bring about any change.

The comments I saw displaying this frustration typically showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the uses of both nonviolent and violent actions. More importantly, they too often veered into post hoc defenses of inaction, which has led us to a new type of online poster: the pro-violence slacktivist.

While my own pacifist view may be that violence does not solve violence, I want to be clear that I am less concerned about the act itself than I am about our collective response to it. Luigi Mangione is a symptom of a deeply violent system, nothing more, nothing less. He is merely a predictable result of the intersections between the violence perpetrated on all of us by the for-profit healthcare system, the violence advocated by our current social media climate (particularly the manosphere), and the easy availability of the tools of violence. As such, he is also not a hero, and should not be treated as such. But I’ll get more into that towards the end.

Understanding Nonviolence

A big part of the misunderstanding of nonviolence comes from how we have been taught about past nonviolent movements. Our popular historical records of suffrage, civil rights, anti-war, and labor movements have been thoroughly edited to remove the most effective tactics, partially to make that history more palatable, but also to make it easier for authorities to condemn and defeat those same tactics in modern movements.

To be clear – “nonviolent action” refers ONLY to the absence of violence against people. Property is not people. Capital is not people. Both are less important than even the most dejected person. The interruption or destruction of both of those things is a vital part of effective nonviolence, because it is the way we bring discomfort to the comfortable. Also, nonviolence is not about passive acceptance, it is about active resistance. It’s hard, and it takes work, especially as the tools of repression have became smarter. One good place to start is with this article on Richard Sandbrook’s “Progressive Futures” blog.

So often we think of marches or protests when we talk about nonviolence, but that’s just the surface. There’s a lot more that can be done, and indeed a lot more that should be done when it comes to health care. I’ll get to those specific tactics in a bit.

Is Nonviolence Effective?

Generally, yes. There has been quite a bit of research and discussion about the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance, particularly compared to violent resistance. Note that both can be effective, but nonviolence has historically been about twice as effective as violence, especially when it comes to creating stable environments following the changes. For more detailed analysis and explanation, check out all of Erica Chenoweth’s books, particularly Civil Resistance, which is the most recent one.

What we do see in recent years is that oppressive regimes (including the US) have gotten much better at demonizing any dissident views and making the general public view them as violent even when they are not. When a BLM march is called violent because it trashed a Starbucks, that’s the thing that gets played up and repeated over and over in the media and used to paint an entire movement as violent. Yet no one talks anymore about white supremacist James Alex Fields killing Heather Heyer with his car in Charlottesville. Somehow that act is treated as unique, even though later events like January 6th and the Kenosha unrest of 2020 prove that right-wing activists are consistently willing to take the lives of people even while calling property destruction “violence.”

Nevertheless, the deadly actions by the right, the abusive actions by police, and the restrictive surveillance by the federal government all proved just how terrified the establishment was over the solidarity that arose during the height of Black Lives Matter. Similarly, the lack of Western support for peaceful movements during the Arab Spring resulted in the rise of ISIS and multiple prolonged conflicts (including the horrific Syrian Civil War), all because Europe and the US did not want democracy in the Arab world as much as they wanted stability and predictability.

If we look at the responses to violence versus nonviolence, the establishment always prefers resistance to be violent. Such resistance is significantly easier to paint as misguided or even evil, and the establishment will always have significantly more power when opposing violence with violence. That’s why every nonviolent movement is inevitably accused of violence, regardless of whether or not it’s true.

Can Nonviolence Be Applied to Health Care?

Well, the first thing you need to realize is that it’s already happening. Groups like the People’s Action Institute and their “Care Over Cost” campaign have been doing work to get denials reversed, increase coverage, and reduce prescription drug prices. These groups have not been high profile (yet), so they never show up in the news. But as with any movement, it’s important for new eager individuals to not try to reinvent the wheel and instead support organizations that already exist. Imagine what would happen if everyone who is sharing their justified anger about health care right now would head over and take action with this campaign. Or join a local mutual aid group. Protests are great, but the real power comes from supporting alternate institutions that actually help people and from organizing to raise awareness of those institutions.

The health care industry has made alternate institutions extremely hard to create, but it’s not impossible. Probably the most radical public action ever taken in this is when John Oliver bought and then forgave almost $15 Million in medical debt. The charity that assisted with that process – now named Undue Medical Debt – still exists and remains very active. You can still help in one of the most direct ways to improve the lives of people hurt by this system.

Because the real danger in our response to Luigi Mangione is not that there will suddenly be a wave of anti-CEO and/or anti-corporate violence. That’s highly unlikely. The real danger is that people will believe that nonviolence is ineffective and refuse to support the real work being done. That’s what I meant earlier about “pro-violence slacktivism.” If you think that only violence can solve the problem, but you yourself are not willing to be violent, then you have created a great excuse for doing absolutely nothing.

So…Is He a Hero?

From everything we know about Luigi Mangione, he lacks a clear ideology, he has little motivation other than grievance, and he has no real concern for how his actions might impact others. He’s not a hero – he’s the Joker. And while it’s true that we exist in a society (as one might say) where plenty of people have misunderstood the Joker, or V, or Tyler Durden to be heroes, this real-life example shows why they are not. As I said before, he’s a symptom, a product of the system. He cannot lead anyone out of the system because he is merely part of it.

The real heroes are the rest of us. We are the ones sitting up in this moment, talking and listening to each other, and realizing that we are not alone – that our experiences bring us together. But if we use that energy to just post a lot of memes about how Luigi was right, ultimately we will not have done anything. And that, in the end, is what the establishment hopes will happen.

Please don’t let that be our only result.