1. This is just another reason to be organized, so others can look out for you and call attention to it if weird shit happens to one of you.

2. There is always risk to attempting to kill anyone. And there isn't much benefit to it if all they're doing is talking. Even the most repressive of states are usually going to go for imprisonment more than assassination.

The bourgeoisie haven't gotten this far with pushing the legitimacy of "liberal democracy" by assassinating everyone who has an annoying opinion. Do not fall prey to paranoid thinking and exaggeration of what the state is capable of. Instead, consider it from the standpoint of logistics, precedent, and perceived material benefit. Expect that they will tend to put the most violent resources toward what appears the most immediately threatening and expect that they will also be calculating for what it looks like publicly to do so.

For example, one of the things they did to the Black Panther Party was slander their breakfast program for schoolkids. They didn't just immediately start trying to kill every member.

Also consider what this train of thought is legitimizing: The argument here is essentially saying that someone can't even run for political office in the US as anti-imperialist without getting assassinated. In the end, it seems to come out as a sideways way of excusing people like Mamdani for throwing the international working class under the bus. If it were proven to be actually that bad, then the criticism of someone like Mamdani should not be how he capitulated in order to win, but that he chose to run for office at all in spite of there being no way to meaningfully support the broader cause from that position, even as lip service.