Let’s put an extreme example. There is a regime that is very top heavy. The assassination of that person will destroy the regime and change it by something else. That would be a revolutionary act, since it would topple a whole political system and replace it by something else. Now let’s assume a single person carried it out.
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.
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.
Let’s put an extreme example. There is a regime that is very top heavy. The assassination of that person will destroy the regime and change it by something else. That would be a revolutionary act, since it would topple a whole political system and replace it by something else. Now let’s assume a single person carried it out.
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.
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.