Similar things have happened, although I don’t know if any by a single person but it is not unthinkable that they might, so the hypothetical remains valid.
Throughout history, magnicides by individuals have happened. The US alone has had a couple with some extra tries. On the other hand magnicides leading to a regime change are less common, but Trujillo’s assasination is one example, even with the failed follow through.
there have been several assassinations of heads of state by individual people and several assassinations that have led to regime changes, so it is valid.
Didn’t move the goalposts. You posited that an assassination by an individual cannot be a revolutionary action and I disagree. That is a more general case than I started with.
His assassination still wasn’t random, but very specific for his goals and could have sparked further movement as was clear by the absolute panic by private insurers in the aftermath.
I never said that assassination can never be revolutionary. Individual, disconnected action is adventurist, and has never delivered regime change like you posit. Luigi’s assassination was not revolutionary either. The fact that none of what you said could happen did happen is because it wasn’t actually a revolutionary action, and your understanding of revolution is flawed.
This example is a fantasy, though, and isn’t how society works. This is why theory is necessary, not just vibes.
Similar things have happened, although I don’t know if any by a single person but it is not unthinkable that they might, so the hypothetical remains valid.
When did these ‘similar things’ happen?
Throughout history, magnicides by individuals have happened. The US alone has had a couple with some extra tries. On the other hand magnicides leading to a regime change are less common, but Trujillo’s assasination is one example, even with the failed follow through.
No they have not. The hypothetical is invalid because it doesn’t accurately portray reality.
there have been several assassinations of heads of state by individual people and several assassinations that have led to regime changes, so it is valid.
No? There was a hell of a lot more going on. Random assassinations are not revolutionary.
When was? And why random?
We are discussing the assassination of a CEO, and you’re moving the goalposts to any and all assassination.
Didn’t move the goalposts. You posited that an assassination by an individual cannot be a revolutionary action and I disagree. That is a more general case than I started with.
His assassination still wasn’t random, but very specific for his goals and could have sparked further movement as was clear by the absolute panic by private insurers in the aftermath.
I never said that assassination can never be revolutionary. Individual, disconnected action is adventurist, and has never delivered regime change like you posit. Luigi’s assassination was not revolutionary either. The fact that none of what you said could happen did happen is because it wasn’t actually a revolutionary action, and your understanding of revolution is flawed.