At this point, I’m just gonna say it outright.
Figures like Luigi Mangione and the copycats and arsonists being compared to him? These are exactly the kinds of people that early socialist and leftist thinkers warned about.
Yeah. Even within leftist theory—within the very traditions that some people think they’re representing—there has always been a deep skepticism of reckless, attention-seeking individuals who substitute spectacle for real change.
This isn’t new.
This isn’t some modern disagreement.
This goes all the way back to thinkers like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were very clear about the difference between organized, collective struggle and isolated, chaotic acts that don’t actually advance the working class.
Marx, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, wrote about how history can be shaped by individuals who present themselves as representatives of broader struggles, but are actually acting out of their own ambitions. He described figures who insert themselves into moments of unrest and try to capitalize on it, often distorting the movement in the process. Paraphrased, the idea is that not everyone who claims to act “for the people” actually represents them—some are just opportunists riding the wave.
And that’s exactly what this feels like.
Engels also emphasized, in multiple writings and letters, that real social change comes from collective action and material conditions—not from isolated acts of violence carried out by individuals seeking dramatic impact. He was critical of what we’d now call “adventurism”—people taking reckless actions detached from broader movements, actions that often end up harming the very cause they claim to support.
That word—adventurism—fits way too well here.
Because what we’re seeing isn’t organized labor action. It’s not coordinated worker-led resistance. It’s not something rooted in community or solidarity.
It’s individuals doing extreme things and then getting elevated, talked about, compared, and in some cases even celebrated.
That’s not how movements are built.
And it’s not just Marx and Engels. Other leftist thinkers have echoed similar concerns.
Take Vladimir Lenin, who, despite being associated with revolution, was actually very critical of disorganized, individual acts of violence. He argued that without structure, without strategy, without alignment with the working class, these kinds of actions don’t advance anything—they just create chaos and give opponents an easy way to discredit the movement.
Or look at Rosa Luxemburg, who emphasized mass participation and democratic struggle. She warned against actions that isolate individuals from the broader working class, arguing that real change must come from collective engagement, not isolated acts that don’t reflect the will or safety of the people.
Even outside strictly Marxist traditions, you see similar critiques. Noam Chomsky has repeatedly criticized forms of political violence that harm civilians or lack strategic grounding, arguing that such actions often backfire and ultimately strengthen the systems they’re meant to oppose.
There’s a pattern here.
Across different thinkers, different time periods, different interpretations of leftist theory—there is a consistent warning:
Be wary of individuals who act in extreme, attention-grabbing ways and claim it’s “for the people.”
Because often, it’s not.
Often, it’s about them.
And that brings us right back to what we’re seeing now.
When someone commits an act of violence or destruction and suddenly becomes a symbol—when their name spreads, when comparisons are made, when copycats emerge—that’s not grassroots empowerment.
That’s spectacle.
That’s the exact kind of thing that can derail real movements, overshadow real issues, and shift focus away from actual worker struggles.
And let’s not forget—these actions don’t happen in a vacuum. They have consequences. They put lives at risk. They destabilize communities. They create fear. And they often end up hurting the very people they claim to represent.
So when people try to frame these individuals as heroes, as symbols, as part of some broader fight for justice, it’s worth remembering:
Even the foundational thinkers of leftist ideology would likely look at this and say, “No. This is not it.”
They warned about this.
They wrote about this.
They understood that movements can be undermined not just by external forces, but by internal distortions—by people who take the language of justice and use it to justify reckless, self-serving actions.
And that’s exactly what this feels like.
So no, calling this out isn’t anti-worker. It’s not anti-left. If anything, it’s aligned with a long tradition of thought that recognizes the difference between real struggle and performative chaos.
Because at the end of the day, if something is putting workers at risk, undermining their stability, and turning their struggles into a spectacle—
Then it’s not helping them.
It’s hurting them.