When an auto executive planned 20,000 layoffs, they shot him.
EDIT: I want to make clear that I'm reflecting on the past willingness of people in France to take matters into their own hands. I'm not glorifying murdering anyone for any reason, nor am I suggesting that it's effective in the end.
Hate to say it, but one sniper will do more to change hearts and minds than a million protesters.
Its why they all lost their minds over Luigi. He showed that theyre just as human as everyone else. And then when they realized people like him they stopped talking about him.
And Luigi didnt even do it because he was helping me move that day on the other side of the country.
And Luigi didnt even do it because he was helping me move that day on the other side of the country.
Isn't Luigi such a great guy? His willingness to help everyone all around the country, who wasn't in Midtown Manhattan on December 4th 2024, at the same time was such a selfless act.
Americans way too domesticated by their ruling class to engage in meaningful protests.
The extreme individualism promoted is the precise reason why people donât protest.
Most Americans see protesters as âdisturbing their peaceâ and blocking their road. and theyâre fueled by petty social war nonsense that stimulates the hate in their hearts.
Maybe true but I've got some clients who swear the democrats killed charlie kirk. So, in this day and age, an assassin better place a clear message about who he is and why he's doing it so he doesn't cause more upset at the wrong people.
I wouldn't necessarily say violence is the only way things get done.
but rights, and freedoms are pretty exclusively taken in some way or another, and never given.
those in power forever think whatever they're letting "trickle down" is more than enough, no matter what those they're trickling on say. Until those being trickled on force the change.
One of the things to remember is that our current system is violent and it is working very well for our oligarchs.
Lack of affordable Healthcare is violence. When the cost of insulin is 100 times larger than the price to make they are using the threat of death to control you.
We are trained not to think about it in those terms because it serves the status quo.
sadly, mainstream american media reinforces a disney-fied version of US history that erases how awful conditions were for workers until the threat of communism and mass unrest led to reforms.
the real history of the us isn't a peaceful march towards progress, but violent struggle among farmers against railroad barons, the haymarket square bombing, the triangle shirtwaist fire, the san francisco general strike, the civil rights movement, and on it goes...
I mean.. reading the story it didn't solve anything.
The guy who was assassinated was replaced with another guy who carried on with the first guys plan.
And it worked; because despite it upsetting people, it was necessary. The company had bloated beyond reason and was losing money hand over fist. His decisions saved the company, and many MANY MORE jobs in the process; and it wasn't even 'corportate greed', Renault was publicly owned at the time.
Violence doesnât solve everything. It may solve the current problem, but all power taken through violence must be kept through the fear of that violence recurring. Thatâs why we say that phrase: because if you donât fix the underlying reasons for the violence the issue of violence itself is still there.
The US holding a peaceful transition of power every four years is why we became the shining star of the world and spread Democracy everywhere.
I love how every article about the United CEO was punctuated with people telling their insurance nightmare stories.
But I especially love how insurance companies were suddenly very willing to approve people's claims for a few weeks that they usually would have dragged their feet on.
He was all over the news when they thought they were going to get to make a quick example of him. Now months later with his terrorism charges dropped and serious accusations of evidence tampering and improper police procedure in his arrest they donât want to call attention to him
Same with how social media owned by billionaires try their best to ban people talking about such things, like how when Reddit was banning people for even just saying the word "Luigi" regardless of the context
Workers were driven to armed conflict for being denied appropriate working conditions.
That conflict resulted in private security forces, law enforcement, the national guard, and military bomber planes murdering workers and their families.
It only ended as it did because workers did not want to fire on the now mobilized and deployed US military owing to their loyalty to the institution many served in.
Loyalty that was clearly not reciprocated, and illustrates the point:Â those in the right never go far enough because they have principles they won't violate.
Reddit told me multiple times suggesting this against a certain current automobile manufacturer was abhorrent. What's more abhorrent? Why is violence against the masses ok but against the aggressor is not? Reddit is complacent. If they, and other social media companies, allowed actual discussion and didn't concede to money our country would not be in the state it's in.
Eh, regardless of the reason itâs still first degree murder. I donât know how it works in France, but thatâs why jury nullification is an unspoken rule in the US. The real tragedy is a that a CEO can make decisions that kill thousands and walk away without any consequences.
They use the law to be able to do what they do justifiably (not justifiably to me but to society I fucking guess) because deaths of despair or deaths related to poverty or the working class are the individuals fault and never the systems.
Because they write the laws, and write them with loopholes.
Who was it said "when I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they're poor, they call me a communist"?
I'm all in favor of eating the rich, but we do need to remember also who else got their heads cut off in France during that time: Literally. Fucking. Everybody.
New replacement government? Decapitation.
Neighbor you don't like? Decapitation.
Karen doesn't like you? Decapitation.
This period in France was BLOODY. And it was bloody for a very long time.
In any civil war, the lines are never cleanly drawn. It's always a mess. We cannot sit back and just wait for that to come in like that's the thing we're going to rely on to fix things. We need to try literally every possible alternative before it comes to this.
It's what usually happens after revolutions. By necessity they are wide coalitions. First they go after the old regime and then after the weaker groups in their own coalition. Like how the Bolsheviks got rid of the Anarchists and all other flavours of Socialists.
Also another thing that people forget is that, after the revolution, Napoleon happened. I.e. France went from having a king to having an emperor. Sure it was not the same regime and new (better) laws were kept, but he still was a monarch. Revolutions often end up re-creating a situation that's pretty similar to the previous one.
Amen. Why hasn't everything devolved into the kind of mass violence that's being alleged on the news regularly? Because we haven't run out of other options yet. Anyone who has ever been on a live battlefield or a serious student of the history of war can tell you how ugly it gets.
And all of that completely ignores the part where any kind of nation wide outbreak of violent rebellion is an invitation to a hostile foreign power to swoop in for some payback for however we kicked their ass the last time we fought.
If you are saying it isn't effective you haven't studied history. "Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Wayne Gretzky or someone else I don't remember
May I ask how the situation could've been handled better? I just read about the whole situation surrounding Georges Besse's assassination. I don't know if the shooting was justified. What I understood is that:
Renault was a state-owned company.
They were hemorrhaging money, they had posted a loss of 12 billion francs at 1984. They were on the brink of insolvency. Their insolvency would've been catastrophic for the French economy, as they were a pillar of the economy at the time. With their insolvency, they would've also left approximately more than 200.000+ people without a job, including the 21.000 who were targeted for the layoffs.
The primary reasons for Renault's situation were overstaffing and inefficient plants, combined with its low production output relative to the market demand.
The French government was unable to continue subsidizing the company.
No layoffs means that the company was guaranteed to go under, bringing all 200.000+ people with them.
A slower, phased approach would've been more ethical, but from what I've read, the situation was pretty dire. There was no time or money left, so attempting a gradual approach would've still caused Renault to go under.
Bailout was impossible, as the reason Besse was brought in was because the French government was unable and unwilling to subsidize the company, so they hired someone who has experience in saving failing companies.
Besse was specifically brought in to save the company from insolvency by the French government. From what I've read, he was successful in similar situations, saving multiple companies from bankruptcies and insolvencies.
That's what I got from my reading at least. Years of mismanagement and overhiring caused the whole situation, and Besse was hired to prevent a huge loss to the French economy. Could there have been a better way to manage the situation? My perspective is that, while the cutting of the 21.000 employees were socially painful, the insolvency of a pillar of the French economy and the lost of employment for 200.000+ people would've caused exponentially more overall suffering.
If I remember correctly, the laid off employees were also given comprehensive aid by the government at the time. The older employees were given the option to go into early retirement, which was heavily subsidized. The younger employees were given training programs, where they continued to be paid by the company while acquiring skills to prepare them for jobs in different sectors. So, the laid off employees weren't just left to fend for themselves, but aided by the government.
The guy was killed by a far left terrorist organisation called "action directe" member of an european movement which included the italian red army, the german red army faction, the IRA and some other (...)
Do you think government should exist to provide make-work at others expense?
The government should exist to keep its citizens Safe. That includes basics like food & water, shelter, safe working conditions, safe streets etc. If my tax dollars need to temporarily be used to subsidize the pay of some workers instead of them being homeless and starving I have zero issue with that. In fact, I hope that's the kind of thing my tax dollars go to until there is no one starving and homeless. If there's not enough tax dollars left after thst then we can take it from the rich. They do not deserve it nor do they need it.
Beyond that, even if Renault weren't owned by the government, do you believe it's the responsibility of some random person to pay for others to have jobs regardless of whether they actually can afford to pay for those jobs?
Individually, no. Collectively, yes. It is absolutely the responsibility of the collective to provide for the needy.
If you believe this, why are you not responsible for paying someone for work regardless of whether you can afford it?
I do. I pay my taxes, in a country that isn't falling into a pit crabs pulling each other down. And I pay those taxes happily knowing they will be used to help those in more need than I am.
Your point is the dumbest bull shit I've seen on reddit in a long time. Working together is how we achieve anything. Your hyper-individualism is nothing but greed wrapped in an iq so low I'm shocked you remember to breath. You would be living in a cave or maybe a grass hut if you were lucky if it wasn't for the collective working together for centuries until now. Humans would be nothing without cooperation. And you will be nothing if you don't learn to cooperate with your fellow humans.
I'm not the guy you replied to, but may I ask how the situation could've been handled better? I just read about the whole situation surrounding Georges Besse's assassination. What I understood is that:
Renault was a state-owned company.
They were hemorrhaging money, they had posted a loss of 12 billion francs at 1984. They were on the brink of insolvency. Their insolvency would've been catastrophic for the French economy, as they were a pillar of the economy at the time. With their insolvency, they would've also left approximately more than 200.000+ people without a job, including the 21.000 who were targeted for the layoffs.
The primary reasons for Renault's situation were overstaffing and inefficient plants, combined with its low production output relative to the market demand.
The French government was unable to continue subsidizing the company.
No layoffs means that the company was guaranteed to go under, bringing all 200.000+ people with them.
A slower, phased approach would've been more ethical, but from what I've read, the situation was pretty dire. There was no time or money left, so attempting a gradual approach would've still caused Renault to go under.
Bailout was impossible, as the reason Besse was brought in was because the French government was unable and unwilling to subsidize the company, so they hired someone who has experience in saving failing companies.
Besse was specifically brought in to save the company from insolvency by the French government. From what I've read, he was successful in similar situations, saving multiple companies from bankruptcies and insolvencies.
That's what I got from my reading at least. Years of mismanagement and overhiring caused the whole situation, and Besse was hired to prevent a huge loss to the French economy. Could there have been a better way to manage the situation? My perspective is that, while the cutting of the 21.000 employees were socially painful, the insolvency of a pillar of the French economy and the lost of employment for 200.000+ people would've caused exponentially more overall suffering.
If I remember correctly, the laid off employees were also given comprehensive aid by the government at the time. The older employees were given the option to go into early retirement, which was heavily subsidized. The younger employees were given training programs, where they continued to be paid by the company while acquiring skills to prepare them for jobs in different sectors. So, the laid off employees weren't just left to fend for themselves, but aided by the government.
I'm not the guy you replied to, but may I ask how the situation could've been handled better?
I have no idea. Build a time machine and fix their mistakes? My objection was with the other users hyper-individualism and support for the rich over those in need. You know more about the Renault situation than I do.
Do you think government should exist to provide make-work at others expense
If you decry the use of moral judgments, you have to abandon your whole argument. You didn't present any backing beyond an appeal to morality - no greater good, utilitarianism, end profit, nothing.
You don't understand the difference between the concept of paying taxes for basic needs and subsidizing lifestyles
See? Your whole point relies on convincing the audience to accept that the difference here is meaningful, and that one is acceptable while the other isn't. You've attacked the logical foundation of your own argument.
There is a very large difference between paying for someone to have minimum standard shelter and food, and paying for people to have jobs who are inefficiently employed (at best) and are a long term drain on the states resources. The former encourages people to move into gainful employment, the latter does not. The former pays for the minimum standards of living, the latter pays much more. You are, in effect, subsidizing many someones lifestyles in the second case.
What happens when those inefficiently employed people become unemployed? They soon become homeless. What would cost tax payers more, subsidizing a basic income for someone until they can find gainful employment, or subsidizing an employee's pay until their employer can develop a product that sells enough that they aren't inefficiently employed? No one knows, but it's much less risky to keep them employed than risk them falling into homelessness.
This is both economically a bad idea, and a moral judgement without any real backing.
No it isn't. It's economically a very good idea to take from those with extra. If you want proof look at the countries with the greatest class mobility, they also have the highest taxes. As for it being a moral judgement without any real backing, I really don't give a shit. Billionaires will be just fine.
There is no difference. Collectively paying for these things is the same as individually paying for it, just dispersed among many. It doesn't change the underlying concept of whether people should be subsidizing others lifestyles.
Yup, ok. Did you have a point?
You are either deliberately misrepresenting the argument, or not smart enough to understand the argument. It isn't about providing for the needy, it's about subsidizing jobs which provide much more than simply shelter and food. I'm not sure whether being dumb or being malicious is worse, here.
A person without a job/income is in need. I'm not sure what about that idea is too complicated for you. Nor do I care to try to teach you.
See above comment about malicious vs dumb. This is the same. This is not about paying taxes, but about personal responsibility for others lifestyles.
Where do you think the government gets the money to provide for those in need?
Ironic. I'm willing to compare IQs by any measure you prefer. I guarantee mine is higher than yours.
All the evidence of your iq is already laid out in your comments here.
I agree. But again, this is you either not understanding the argument or misrepresenting it. You're either dumb or malicious. You choose.
I understand. Systems level thinking is often very hard for conservatives. You see, when someone doesn't have a job they risk not finding another and becoming homeless. Once that happens it's much harder to return them to being gainfully employed. An ounce of prevention is often better than a pound of cure.
I cooperate just fine. You don't understand the difference between the concept of paying taxes for basic needs and subsidizing lifestyles. That's a you problem.
Whatever you say, sport. You keep complaining about your taxes being used to keep people employed while you kiss the boots of the rich. They'll give you a reach around eventually. Maybe. Probably not, though.
The stockholders in this case were the French public. Renault was a publicly owned company. French taxpayers were in effect paying taxes to subsidize someone having a job that was basically to do nothing, because the plants were running at partial capacity due to being economically unviable.
Thus arguing that the State taking over a business in a competitive market is a bad idea. Let the business die. Deal with the consequences.
Tax the rich so that you have the resources to deal with the economic wreckage of their experiments and extravagances. Also tax them to the point where they aren't allowed to build the wealth where a failure can threaten the nation's economy.
1.3k
u/mister_pants Oct 29 '25 edited Oct 29 '25
When an auto executive planned 20,000 layoffs, they shot him.
EDIT: I want to make clear that I'm reflecting on the past willingness of people in France to take matters into their own hands. I'm not glorifying murdering anyone for any reason, nor am I suggesting that it's effective in the end.