even gangsters hate fascists

[Mao Tse Tung]

Desmond "Dessie" Noonan, the head of Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) in Manchester, England, and a well-known drug dealer and gang king-pin, was stabbed to death recently in a Pakistani area after a night of hard drinking.

Police hold Noonan, 46, responsible for the deaths of nearly thirty people in murders related to the operations of the organized crime family led by his brother, a fluent Urdu speaker."We have more guns than the police, we're a bigger army than the police" Noonan boasted at one point.
...
East End extortionist Jack "Spot" was involved in the Cable Street Riot of 1936, and a number of UK criminals formed anti-White vigilante gangs from the 1930s to today, and were instrumental in the founding of Searchlight magazine and organization, which has had close connections with Noonan's AFA.
...
The use of marginals such as Noonan and "Blagg" is usual in state operations such as RA/AFA."Blagg", for one, began his "political" life as a skinhead member of a Hollywood Nazi gang, before going in the opposite direction and advocating first degree murder of pro-White dissidents.

Ha, never knew dessie was an anti fascist supporter, guess with him being a criminal and a capitalist, he had so much in common with antifa:D

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Fuck off.

[Mao Tse Tung]

haha witty response

[Mao Tse Tung]

comrade joe

[Uncle Ho]

Gangs are a natural response to oppression. At least this guy had his eyes open wide enough to bash some nazi heads.

[Pogue]

Gangs are a natural response to oppression. At least this guy had his eyes open wide enough to bash some nazi heads.

1. Gangs are not responses to oppression. In some cases there have been self defence organisations, these are not gangs. Gnags are a result of lack of a father figure, social deprivation, etc. but to paint them as responses to oppression are bollocks and insulting to the 'oppressed'.

2. The OP is talking shite.

[Uncle Ho]

When people are economically disenfranchised, they will find ways to support themselves outside of the system.

This eventually necessitates them banding together, thereby forming a gang.

I'm not trying to say it's some sort of revolutionary organization, but rather that it's simply a response to their conditions.

[Pogue]

When people are economically disenfranchised, they will find ways to support themselves outside of the system.

This eventually necessitates them banding together, thereby forming a gang.

I'm not trying to say it's some sort of revolutionary organization, but rather that it's simply a response to their conditions.

I think the spin you're putting on it is wrong, as if gangs are the natural response for oppressed people or are inevitable, I think gangs are about more than oppression, although you are right in linking them to social deprivation, your original claim of them being 'a natural response to oppression' is bullshit.

[nuisance]

1. Gangs are not responses to oppression. In some cases there have been self defence organisations, these are not gangs. Gnags are a result of lack of a father figure, social deprivation, etc. but to paint them as responses to oppression are bollocks and insulting to the 'oppressed'.
This completely relies on what you define as a gang.

[Pogue]

This completely relies on what you define as a gang.

I think we all know what is implied by the name. It refers to a specific organisation, with a specific structure, purpose, etc.

[bcbm]

Gangs are not responses to oppression. well, at least in the us, most of the first gangs were ethnic gangs founded by members of discriminated against immigrant groups to survive.

[9]

^Yeah, for once, this is actually a case where I have to agree with Uncle Ho. :ohmy:

But what is this "gangs are a response to not having father figures" nonsense? haha

[the last donut of the night]

Amen to Apikoros, I'm also surprised that I agree with Uncle Ho on this one. Pogue, you are misrepresenting gangs. Maybe gangs are of that nature in Europe, but in the US they have usually been based on racial lines.

An example are the Latino Kings, a gang now based in New York City, who started out in Chicago in the war years as a neighborhood organization for the new latino communities -- which, not surprisingly, were getting a lot of shit from the town's government and irish/italian communities.

[JacobVardy]

Gangs begin where the state ends - just another protection racket mimicking their big brother. The state is just another gang writ large.

[khad]

^Yeah, for once, this is actually a case where I have to agree with Uncle Ho. :ohmy:

But what is this "gangs are a response to not having father figures" nonsense? haha
I actually agree with Pogue here. Gangs are lumpen trash who invariably do most of their activities against their own communities. If there are so many Latino and African American gangs "protecting" their communities, then why are murder rates and violent crime in those communities much, much higher than in those of the oppressor?

You and other refleftists may try to love them into having a revolutionary consciousness, but you're wasting your time.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Gangsters are still not revolutionary, they are something we will have to fight because of their oppressive nature (torture, blackmailing, murdering). As khad said, there is nothing to celebrate their existence.

[bcbm]

Gangs are lumpen trash who invariably do most of their activities against their own communities. If there are so many Latino and African American gangs "protecting" their communities, then why are murder rates and violent crime in those communities much, much higher than in those of the oppressor? only one person used the word "protection" every other characterization of gangs here has been that they are organizations that have, historically, arisen in response to oppression. a brief examination of the history of, say, irish, italian and jewish immigrant gangs in the united states would show this to be the case. i'm not as familiar with other ethnic gangs, but i can't imagine they arose from extremely different circumstances.
You and other refleftists may try to love them into having a revolutionary consciousness, but you're wasting your time. who said anything about that?
Gangsters are still not revolutionary, they are something we will have to fight because of their oppressive nature (torture, blackmailing, murdering). As khad said, there is nothing to celebrate their existence. who is calling them revolutionary? who is celebrating them?

[Bright Banana Beard]

only one person used the word "protection." every other characterization of gangs here has been that they are organizations that have, historically, arisen in response to oppression. a brief examination of the history of, say, irish, italian and jewish immigrant gangs in the united states would show this to be the case. i'm not as familiar with other ethnic gangs, but i can't imagine they arose from extremely different circumstances. who said anything about that? who is calling them revolutionary? who is celebrating them?
Antifa, seriously.

[9]

I actually agree with Pogue here. Gangs are lumpen trash who invariably do most of their activities against their own communities. If there are so many Latino and African American gangs "protecting" their communities, then why are murder rates and violent crime in those communities much, much higher than in those of the oppressor?

You and other refleftists may try to love them into having a revolutionary consciousness, but you're wasting your time.

lol what are you talking about? Have you even read the discussion, or are you just making an assumption?

[bcbm]

Antifa, seriously. what?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

When people are economically disenfranchised, they will find ways to support themselves outside of the system.

This eventually necessitates them banding together, thereby forming a gang.

I'm not trying to say it's some sort of revolutionary organization, but rather that it's simply a response to their conditions.

Gangsters are nasty little shits and should be strung up by their balls. Yes they do pray on poor people and yes they do arise when legal means of fucking people over are not available for these cretins.

[9]

What the hell. Can people stop coming into this thread (that was posted by a racist troll in the first place) and responding to arguments that no one here has even made, but which they just assume people are making from a very cursory scan of the discussion.

[khad]

What the hell. Can people stop coming into this thread (that was posted by a racist troll in the first place) and responding to arguments that no one here has even made, but which they just assume people are making from a very cursory scan of the discussion.
Read more carefully.


Amen to Apikoros, I'm also surprised that I agree with Uncle Ho on this one. Pogue, you are misrepresenting gangs. Maybe gangs are of that nature in Europe, but in the US they have usually been based on racial lines.

An example are the Latino Kings, a gang now based in New York City, who started out in Chicago in the war years as a neighborhood organization for the new latino communities -- which, not surprisingly, were getting a lot of shit from the town's government and irish/italian communities.

Gangs = self defense :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

Read more carefully.

Gangs = self defense :rolleyes:

no, it says that an ethnic gang formed in response to discrimination from more established communities. the same thing happened with italian, jewish and irish immigrants, and probably other groups as well. nowhere does it say anything about them defending their communities or anything of that sort.

[nuisance]

I think we all know what is implied by the name. It refers to a specific organisation, with a specific structure, purpose, etc.
A subcultural gang of mates? Mafia stylee? Small drug running crew? Self-defence groups? And so on, all pretty different yet can be classified as gangs, hence some clarity is presumably necessary. Though these obviously contain many similar traits, it is necessasry to deconstruct each in and of itself for analytical purposes to provide clarity and perhaps reaching a general theory. Afterall, each partake in different activities, which can most likely be linked back to their structure which is inseperable to the enviroment of which they were spawned.
:p

[ls]

Antifa, seriously.

Nope, the OP is talking complete fascist trash and attempting to tarnish the excellent reputation of militant anti-fascists in this country and their united, pretty much totally proletarian front against fascists.

This thread should be trashed by now..

[Uncle Ho]

Apparently most of the people posting here haven't read "Gang Leader for a Day" by Sudhir Ventakesh.

It's a great book. You all should pick it up, as it will make you much more informed on urban gangs and the conditions behind them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

khad and pogue (to an extent) are correct

it's a given that gangs are a product of their environment

just because bourgeois laws are reactionary, doesn't mean that all unlawful activities are good

[bcbm]

doesn't mean that all unlawful activities are good

probably why nobody in this thread said they were?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

so since you agree that violence against innocents is bad, then I am left to deduce that you think the working-class origin of gangsters is what justifies their actions

[bcbm]

so since you agree that violence against innocents is bad, then I am left to deduce that you think the working-class origin of gangsters is what justifies their actions

nobody has justified the actions of gangs in this thread. what the fuck are you talking about?

[Ismail]

Many workers joined the NSDAP/Sturmabteilung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung) at first because they saw that capitalism sucked and the NSDAP "offered a solution" (National "Socialism") as compared to the "phony" ("Jew") Communists.

Ergo I must support Hitler by this same logic that dictates that noting what causes gangs = support of gangs.

[Uncle Ho]

khad and pogue (to an extent) are correct

it's a given that gangs are a product of their environment

just because bourgeois laws are reactionary, doesn't mean that all unlawful activities are good

Their actions are not good, but I can understand why they come about, and that we must do something other than arrest people to solve this problem.

Goodfellas put it best. Gangs are just protection for people who can't go to the police.

[the last donut of the night]

Gangs = self defense :rolleyes:

Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. You distorted my post into this bullshit assumption. I merely said that most gangs, at least in the US, did in some form start as a form of ethnic self defense. An example of that is the Latino Kings.

I never said gangs now are forms of self defense, I said that they began as so.

Jeez, must you stalin kiddies do this with every piece of information?

[Patchd]

Many 'third world' nations' gangs pressgang for members. In other words, they force kids to be gang members, not surprising considering in places like Ecuador, paramilitaries force kids to join the state military or their paras.

[9]

^I don't think anyone here was referring to third world gangs, though. That was pretty clear.

[Patchd]

^I don't think anyone here was referring to third world gangs, though. That was pretty clear.
Fair enough, but I still think that a point has to be made that it isn't entirely the choice of a person whether they want to join a gang or not, I've known a person in London who has been chased off his estate for not wanting to be in a gang, lucky, he didn't get stabbed. Stab others, or get stabbed yourself, many people would choose the former.

It's understandable, but not 'right'.

[khad]

Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. You distorted my post into this bullshit assumption. I merely said that most gangs, at least in the US, did in some form start as a form of ethnic self defense. An example of that is the Latino Kings.
Talk about circular. Most gangs don't even start out as community defenders--their first victims are people in the community.

[9]

It's understandable, but not 'right'.

I am certainly in agreement with you, and I have not argued otherwise here. I have simply asserted my agreement with Uncle Ho's point that gangs (in the sense that its usually used in the West and in the US specifically - as impoverished lumpenproletarian groupings organized on an ethnic basis) are largely a result of poverty and oppression. I don't believe it is a coincidence, for example, that Irish and Jewish immigrant gangs (as bcbm correctly noted) were extremely popular and commonplace during the Irish and Jewish immigration booms in the US during the earlier part of the 20th century (and now we see the same trend with Mexican immigrants). It is not a coincidence that at this time, the Irish and Jewish immigrant communities were largely very poor, were subject to systematic discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, and were not considered "white". It is not a coincidence that the Irish and Jewish communities have now been absorbed into the middle classes, are now considered just as "white" as any other "whites", have ceased to be subjected to widespread social and economic discrimination due to ethnicity, and suddenly the Irish and Jewish gangs have ceased to exist in the US.
As Ismail correctly noted, being aware of the conditions which lead to the formation of gangs in the West, and pointing it out, does not constitute in any way shape or form, an endorsement or justification of the gangs and their parasitic function upon working class communities. But as far as I can tell, no one here has implied any sort of endorsement or justification.

[bcbm]

Talk about circular. Most gangs don't even start out as community defenders--their first victims are people in the community.

its pretty clear they were talking in a historical context, not about gangs that started yesterday.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Their actions are not good, but I can understand why they come about, and that we must do something other than arrest people to solve this problem.

At no point did I even suggest that the solution is to arrest people.
The root of the problem is inequality and lack of rights, i.e. capitalism.


Goodfellas put it best. Gangs are just protection for people who can't go to the police.

No, they're not just that. They're also a means for armed thugs to acquire money and power through intimidation, terror and violence.

[khad]

Goodfellas put it best. Gangs are just protection for people who can't go to the police.
How is this even remotely an accurate assessment of the social function of gangs?

[-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-]

Gangsters exploit the poor, bunch of animals who prey on the weak, they are capitalist entrupenuers at their worst.

[gorillafuck]

This thread is confusing as hell. What's being argued? Whether gangs start from social conditions? Or whether that justifies gang activity?

[-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-]

none comrade, did you read it, he was trying to piss ANTIFA off, juvenile really.

[cyu]

I'd say gangs evolve, just as governments do. Some may start off as criminal enterprises, eventually they may gain enough power to rival or even replace the government. Some eventually discover that if they help the people under their "jurisdiction" they get more local support, which can help them neuter the existing government.

What is a monarchy or dynasty, but just another long lasting gang? Some may eventually abdicate in favor of a "constitutional monarchy" - and some won't. I don't think you can lump all gangs into one category any more than you can lump all governments into one category.

There are certainly oppressive gangs and oppressive governments, and I wouldn't say any organization that still calls itself a gang is all that beneficial. If it were, it probably would have replaced the government already, and is now calling itself the government. It's all just about how these power stuctures function in society - in other words: politics - which is what we're all here to discuss, right? =]

[Uncle Ho]

At no point did I even suggest that the solution is to arrest people.
The root of the problem is inequality and lack of rights, i.e. capitalism.



No, they're not just that. They're also a means for armed thugs to acquire money and power through intimidation, terror and violence.

And without the power of the gang to offer them some protection, these armed thugs would be dead or imprisoned remarkably quickly.

It's really a union for criminals. Seperate, they can't do much, but together they can amass a great deal of power.

[the last donut of the night]

Khad, seriously?

Negative rep, and you said I was trolling?

Get real.

[Delenda Carthago]

Whoever makes a living by stealing or selling drugs to worker class people,has nothing to do with revolution.'Nuff said...

[Delenda Carthago]

And if you wana make your money the other way,rob a bank or smth.Dont sell drugs to the youth.What kind of society is that you bringing when you do shit like that?

[Robocommie]

Gangsters exploit the poor, bunch of animals who prey on the weak, they are capitalist entrupenuers at their worst.

Given that many street gangs in the US at least consist largely of blacks or Latinos, I don't think it's good to refer to them as animals, at all. And actually, regardless of their ethnic makeup, I don't think it's particularly helpful to refer to anyone of the proletariat, lumpen or not, as animals, simply because that kind of emotional label doesn't lend itself to an objective look at the economic situation.

Look, the truth is, gangs arise as a symptom of capitalism. Like bandits and highwaymen, they show up when people have been ground under by the system, and have turned to alternate means of fashioning a living. Oftentimes in the kinds of communities where gangs arise in the US, there is little to no work, and crime, like drug dealing, provides a tempting opportunity to rise above the extremely limited and extremely fucked up economic situation you find yourself in. Gangs don't form in a vacuum, they arise as a result of capitalism's discarding of certain working class population groups, they arise from sheer economic desperation. In time, what started off as a means of survival will become self-perpetuating, and they'll put pressure on area youth to join, and since area youth are often in the same kind of shitty economic straits that caused the gang to form, it can be hard to turn down.

Gangsters do hurt people, yes, and in that sense they are victimizers, but in a purely amoral sense they are also victims themselves, victims of a system that places stringent material demands on a person, tells them they're not worth a damn if they can't both provide for themselves and be good capitalist consumers, but doesn't even offer opportunities for wage slavery. Or, if there IS wage slavery, it becomes far more attractive to sell drugs and make a lot more money than go to Burger King and put on a stupid hat serving people who don't appreciate you.

Or, to put it all another way; when cops go to junior high schools and high schools telling kids not to join gangs, "It's a false sense of belonging, you may think they're your friends but they're going to abandon you in the end." Yeah well, that's only part of it, what they don't say is, "Don't join gangs and sell drugs, even though you'll probably be able to buy a car, probably be able to pay your mother's rent and her bills, and maybe even buy a nice big screen TV for yourself."

What the fuck good is it going to do to hate on gangs, call them animals, and get mad at them for preying on the working class when generally speaking, they're merely doing what was done to them in the first place? We're Leftists, we're supposed to be more discerning than that. Blasting on gangs is blasting on the symptoms of the problem.

Mind you, if you're talking about organized crime, like the Italian mafia, or the Russian mafia, or the Triads, well, ignore that shit. Those guys are the same as Fortune 500 companies, they just use violence more often because they can't use the courts to break people's wills.

[khad]

What the fuck good is it going to do to hate on gangs, call them animals, and get mad at them for preying on the working class when generally speaking, they're merely doing what was done to them in the first place? We're Leftists, we're supposed to be more discerning than that. Blasting on gangs is blasting on the symptoms of the problem.
They are the problem, just as capitalists are the problem. Historically, in revolutionary situations, the lumpenproletariat and the lumpenbourgeois sided with reactionaries to suppress the actual working class. Go talk to any drug dealer and you'll see that they make no bones about liking capitalism better than socialism. Gangs are an impediment to actual leftwing organization.


And without the power of the gang to offer them some protection, these armed thugs would be dead or imprisoned remarkably quickly.

It's really a union for criminals. Seperate, they can't do much, but together they can amass a great deal of power.

There you go again. Justifying this scum.

[Robocommie]

They are the problem, just as capitalists are the problem. Historically, in revolutionary situations, the lumpenproletariat and the lumpenbourgeois side with reactionaries. Go talk to any drug dealer and you'll see that they make no bones about liking capitalism better than socialism. Gangs are an impediment to actual leftwing organization.

At least so far as the United States goes, I don't think the lumpenproletariat COULD side with reactionaries. The reactionary forces of the US are largely racist, and one of the best ways the right wing politicians in this country drum up support from blue-collar whites is to demonize "welfare queens" and "drug dealers" which of course, should just be substituted with what they really mean: "niggers"

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I think the Latin Kings or Gangsta Disciples are going to serve on the front line of the revolution, blasting the enemy with TEK-9s, though it'd be nice to have that boost to manpower. However, I do not see how the gangs would necessarily saddle up with the cops and the government when it came down to brass tacks.

I've known a few gang members, and I've known people who know even more, and while you're absolutely right that they are not the most socially conscious of people, the fact is that in United States, they live on the front line of poverty, they see the worst and ugliest results of capitalism's heartlessness. There's a lot of cynicism there, but also some hope. A lot of the strongest anti-gang activists are former members. I think we'd do a disservice to the human beings making up street gangs by writing off all their members as hopelessly reactionary.