Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as "The Adjuster."
In the day or so since the alleged shooter's identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a "typical" American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society 
, but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as "nothing malicious," by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We're going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to "propaganda of the deed" may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
Critical support isn't meant for white failsons yankee adventurist escapades (if he even is the actual culprit). Critical support is meant for comrades and should only be reserved for comrades. I don't know why critical support is being thrown around for, as you said, fairly average white men.
Critical support is definitely not just for comrades. There have been situations where groups have to make difficult decisions and partnerships with groups that are not ideologically communist let alone perfect for the sake of the advancement of some particular goal.
I don’t claim to know his whole situation maybe he’s a lot worse, but I assume based on what I’ve seen he’s a ding dong 26 year old with coworker politics not a straight up alt right Nick Fuentes follower. If that’s the case then fine I can adjust accordingly, but seems like a lot of people who normally are fine with larger groups, countries, and people (certain historical figure) not being ideologically perfect all of a sudden wanna act like it’s this big betrayal to be at least like “nice, they killed the right type of guy for once.”
We honestly don’t know how this is gonna shake out yet but at the very least we’re talking about health care again after it was complete ignored during the entire presidential campaign.
It's not a matter of betrayal but blowing things out of proportion and cheapening language. The term critical support should be used sparingly and not slapped on the latest USAmerican flavor of the week. I mean, we've already seen that most people are in the "nice they killed the right guy" camp. It's parading him around I have an issue with and claiming that the mods are doing "overreach" on their precious shitposting comm.
A lot of people are piling on you but what you said is 100% correct for reasons that no one here is acknowledging: we shouldn't support this guy because we can't support this guy. WTF would it even mean to "support" him? Send him nice letters? Legal defense? No one is doing that. It's like asking if we ought to support Iran. What does that mean? Are we gonna give them money? Missiles? There's nothing we can do. It's all just rhetoric and memes.
I have observed that when westerners say this they mean it in the same way that they support a sports team
Sending good vibes, thoughts and prayers even, to the axis of resistance.
The same way disapproving of his views on a niche website viewed by very little people is "the left blowing this chance". Vibes.
You're assuming too much? What people are defending is critical support, ultimately it just means admitting yes he did a cool good and necessary thing and no we don't particularly care about him as an idol or figure.
The context here is entirely on social interactions between ourselves and likely libs and others, if someone IRL asks you about this guy, the issue is entirely on how you handle this answer. Are you willing to call yourself a communist and say yes you like what he did to your friend or someone politicaly engaged etc?
Of course we're not his legal team, we're not even a movement or org, that seems like a strawman.
Also the other user's argument is basically "this is a bad look" which is hilariously out of touch anyway.
Ok but that's not support, that's just saying you approve of his action. The discussion isn't whether or not we approve of his action, the discussion is if we're gonna "support" this guy or not which I argue is a meaningless thing to argue about because we're materially decoupled from him. If my lib friend asks me what I think of this guy I'll just say the truth, "what he did was great but he wasn't doing it with a coherent ideology or plan, we need a vanguard party that can guide these kinds of people with the right idea to carry out actions with more impact and a coherent plan." I don't see what else there is to debate.
To be clear I don't disagree, leftist support is indeed often just vides. But some people are definitely taking this chance to put their fangs out and show us how much more rhetorically virtuous they are for using the correct "term" on the "correct people".
The previous commenter is literaly trying to police the entire socialist base here (and presumably elsewhere if it were up to their standards) worldwide on how we should use "critical support" which I think is quite a lot more serious, you're trying to defend them, but your comment is quite outside of their actual goal here.
Yes we're materially disconnected I agree 100%, yet it doesn't seem to have any bearing on this for either side, I mean if they too acknowledge this why the panic over moral fake vibe support him? Either critical support matters at all in which case lets try to police it or it doesn't and who cares.
Where did you obtain this definition of “critical support?” What makes someone a “comrade?” And who gets to decide?
I'm saying that placing this man in the same category of critical support as other figures is a bad look and is uncomfortable for me and others as well. I don't like having a struggle session over whether a well-off ivy league white chud with seemingly incomprehensible politics with a blood feud should be given a pedestal or not.
I don't disagree with anyone seeing his actions as heroic or trying to decipher his motivations, but things like the fundraising post are over the line and deserve to be moderated.
Should Putin receive critical support? Hamas? Hezbollah? Ansarallah? The IRGC?
The answer to all of these is pretty clearly a resounding yes, right?
I don't think these groups are comparable at all to luigi. They're doing active prolonged resistance to imperialism. One of them is fighting for their very own existence.
I didn't say that? Even so saying the guy is just like a palestinian fighting against the zionist entity actually is an incredibly unserious thing to say.
It doesn't matter that you didn't personally say it, hello_hello did, and when I attempted to point out the contradiction you jumped into the conversation on their side.
Saying that non-communist groups can't be worthy, of critical support is actually the unserious thing here.
Nobody who is doing critical support for Putin is saying "America should be ruled like Russia".
The groups you mention in their political context do not have alternatives that exhibit the following traits:
Political context matters.
Yeah nobody here wants Luigi running the United States either, I just want, and I assume others feel the same, for the next person who thinks about assassinating one of these vampires to make their decision with the knowledge that they'll be a national icon and not a pariah for doing it.
So if the next guy is a literal Nazi instead of an typical American crypto-fash you're gonna be like damn that's my national icon?
Sus.
Obviously not asshole.
So your line is that typical American crypto-fash is ok, but aesthetic Nazis are bad? Maybe this line is aesthetic for you but it's not for me
Fuck you you disingenuous jackass.
It's your take buddy not mine.
I think it's cool that someone killed a healthcare insurance CEO for being a greedy leech who daily commits social murder, even though he has tech bro muskrat brain worms and I wouldn't want to hang out with the guy.
You disagree so you tried to frame my position as being cool with crpto-fascists.
You're a dishonest jerk. Fuck you.
See you're saying entirely too much: it's cool that a health insurance CEO got shot end of story.
You sure are doing the meme of responding to "I like pancakes" with "oh, so you hate waffles??"
I should've been clearer, yes, not just limited to outwardly communist groups/individuals, and my use of comrade wasn't appropriate there. But my sentiment is still that critical support shouldn't be used in this situation.
I agree that we shouldn’t pedestal a chud but I was also under the impression that critical support of an individual does not equal “pedestaling” them.
He isn't fairly average. He did a thing. He is close enough to right that his crash out was good for the world. That is something to admire. Did he do the thing? No. However we gotta respect someone taking a step down the right path even if they don't have everything figured out.
You’re right. I wasn’t thinking about what I was saying really. I think what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t distance ourselves from such an enlightening moment. I’ve never seen so many people of all types celebrate something like this online and we should very much use it as a time to educate and radicalize. The moment is something we can celebrate, not Luigi himself. I just wish he hadn’t been caught because the attention was on the healthcare companies and not who did it prior.