Review: On the Assassination of Brian Thompson by Erik Bonhomme

Read the text here:

On the Assassination of Brian Thompson

Erik Bonhomme’s On the Assassination of Brian Thompson is a thought-provoking short essay that challenges readers to reconsider the foundations of political power in a very direct way. Bonhomme focuses on the idea that violence is the ultimate language of institutions, and argues that meaningful change certainly cannot arise from polite negotiation but from fear of collective action. His thoughts are strengthened by Stirnerian egoism as he explores the tension between individual autonomy and societal structures, and suggests that no society can truly serve an individual’s cause over its own.

Right away I want to say that boldness is the essays’s greatest strength. In a Stirner-like fashion, it forces readers to confront potentially uncomfortable truths about power and governance.

I would say, however, that the text can come across as a bit overstated at times. Not because the facts stated are necessarily untrue, but because it could alienate readers. An example of this is the assertion that no oppressive legislation has ever been overturned without fear of violence. While historical examples like the fight for the 40-hour workweek lend weight to the argument, people will argue that movements like Gandhi’s nonviolent struggle for Indian independence and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States could potentially demonstrate that peaceful resistance can also be a powerful catalyst for change. These arguments would be difficult to negate without getting more into depth. So, addressing these examples could provide the essay with greater balance and nuance.

However, let me say this: I get it. I understand what is being said and need no convincing of the argument’s legitimacy. So I feel that the text can also be deeply inspiring to people who do see the legitimacy without needing to be convinced of something. To someone like me (and I assume anyone who appreciates Max Stirner) the text’s boldness and directness feels very real. Which is something I appreciate. Often more so than long drawn out philosophical discussions.

Bonhomme’s integration of Stirnerian philosophy adds depth to the essay, particularly in its critique of societal structures that prioritize institutional goals over individual autonomy. This perspective is challenging and thought-provoking, and I feel it could really invite readers to question the inherent power dynamics in any society. I think it could be improved upon in some ways by engaging more fully with the ethical and practical implications of its central thesis, but, in general I feel that it is an insightful exploration of the relationship between violence, power, and autonomy.