Anarchy and Pizza

[The Intransigent Faction]

So a friend of mine just shared this interesting (and surprisingly balanced as far as I could tell by skimming) article:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/a-bitter-taste-of-class-war-vancouver-pizza-joint-the-latest-target-of-anti-gentrification-anarchists/

The reason I post it in this forum is to ask anarchists or anyone with anarchist sympathies:

How do you feel about this sort of thing? If "petty vandalism" does nothing but reinforce negative media caricatures of anarchism, what, if anything, can anarchists do to effectively deter this stuff or counter this image?

Thanks.

[ellipsis]

Whatever property damage attributed to anarchists and over-sensationalized(redundant, i know), it is nothing compared to the everday violence of the state and bourgeoise, both domestically and abroad.

[Rafiq]

A bigger embaresment to our Anarchist comrades, a paramount solidification of any sort of actually existing negative caricature (and by negative, I mean negative regarding the legacy of anarchism) are the Anarcho-liberals who denounce such acts (denounce, not criticize tactically) on the basis of psuedo-pacifism or bourgeois moralism. Yes, such acts will not lead to higher forms of class consciousnes, but they're definitely more effective than this garbage pacifist liberalism, this bullshit Chomskyan moralism which at the thought sickens me to the stomach. But amidst all, does any communist give a shit? Are we offended by such acts? No. For our Anarchist comrades, a word of advice: This new internet anarchism, this anarchism which calls for a utopia, this anarchism which radiates talk of "mutualism" or "peace" "liberty" blah blah blah is absolutely worthless, pathetic, and intellectually offensive. You want to be an Anarchist? Fine, but be an Anarchist. Don't denounce these kinds of acts of violence. Identify with fucking shit up, make total destroy and so on. Anarchism has one use and it is to strike fear in the hearts of the class enemy, a spiraling tornado vortex of cataclysmic black terror. Okay, okay, this is bullshit romanticism, and of course in the end this is not extremely effective. But it helps in lowering the self esteem, the confidence of the enemy for us Marxists.

[Anti-Traditional]

This is just silly. The working class like pizza too. Sometimes even expensive pizza.

[Rurkel]

Pizza is inherently bourgeios; any working-class person that eats pizza has a false consciousness.

[Tjis]

This is just silly. The working class like pizza too. Sometimes even expensive pizza.

And anarchists like pizza too. The issue is not pizza, but gentrification.
The way it works is as follows: artists and small businesses are attracted to a neighborhood by very cheap rent, or even low cost of real estate, often through government intervention. These people and their businesses make the area more respectable, attracting a pioneers crowd of young, hip middle class people with respectable jobs to the neighborhood. That in turn attracts real estate investors, who'll buy up property en masse to tear down and replace with more respectable (and more expensive) housing. The end result is that the people living there now (usually poor, temporarily employed or unemployed people) are displaced, since they sure as hell won't be able to pay the new rent prices.
I have serious doubts that smashing the windows of a pizza place will stop this process, but gentrification is a real issue that should be combated.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Pizza is inherently bourgeios; any working-class person that eats pizza has a false consciousness.

I know this is a joke, but pizza is actually one of the most popular food items on the entire planet. Certain versions of pizza also predate capitalism by 1,000's of years. ;)

Anyway, in regards to this story. My opinion is that if you're going to take an action that either violates life or property, you'd better have a good explanation for why you did it. You should be able to explain to the public in a rational manner why you carried out the action, as the discourse you're engaging in is not taking place within a Marxist book club or something, but rather in the public sphere. If your communique reads like, "today we smashed the gentrification spectacle of commodity culture, down with the capitalist state! For insurrection and communization!" ordinary people will just think that you're wingnuts. You should at least consider community attitudes (as best you can ascertain them) before engaging in actions that could potentially isolate & alienate your political grouping; people are justifiably puzzled as to how a pizza parlour which sells pies for 11 dollars is something that needs to be attacked as a symbol of capitalist opulence (in Berlin at least they burn luxury cars). If you don't feel like you have enough support (or apathy) to carry out an action, then perhaps something more low-key would be more appropriate, like handing out informational leaflets about a situation of concern, etc.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The parlour was not attacked because it is a "symbol of capitalist opulence", but because it is part of the gentrification process that drives poor people and minorities out of their own neighborhoods.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The parlour was not attacked because it is a "symbol of capitalist opulence", but because it is part of the gentrification process that drives poor people and minorities out of their own neighborhoods.

You didn't get what I'm saying. People don't understand that. They don't understand why political radicals would attack a neighborhood pizza parlour.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is the communique for the action, btw:

http://anarchistnews.org/content/anti-gentrification-front-strikes-again

Give them yuppies a taste of class war! :lol:

I'm not against direct action or even "armed struggle" in principle. But a lot of this crap just reeks of self-indulgent activism by apparently one masked individual who took a swing at a couple windows of a pretty inexpensive (for around where I live, anyway) restaraunt, then blamed it on yuppies and their "gourmet dinners". Wow. Who cares.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fair enough. The educational and propagandist aspect of this affair is very undeveloped. But look, if they can create an atmosphere of terror and drive the upscale businesses and the hipster kiddies away, they will have won. Not the class war, but the battle against gentrification at least.

edit: Alright, so in light of your last post the entire thing sounds like one bloke with a baseball bat. But if there existed an actual, organised, violent anti-gentrification effort, and not some lone modern Eser with a bat, I think my point would stand.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Food is petty-bourgeoisie comrades, we must subsist on the tears of our oppressors alone. But in all seriousness, I see no reason why breaking windows is something to be condemned when framed as an anti-gentrification effort or symbolic action. Ideally it should be carried out in conjunction with a larger movement but I don't see why the desperate actions of those acting out against the system should really be frowned upon. Hell, they should even be encouraged to some extent.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, for one, this article, like virtually everything in the National Post is utter trash. Secondly, given long running antigentrification struggles in East Van, I'm pretty sure the message was pretty clear - hence the awful "but the community!" narrative put forward by the NP.

[Rusty Shackleford]

so is there anything like a tenants union the AGF is trying to organize? maybe some sort of neighborhood council system to represent poor working people and tenants?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

so is there anything like a tenants union the AGF is trying to organize? maybe some sort of neighborhood council system to represent poor working people and tenants?

The Downtown Eastside Residents Association, to a degree, maybe?

[TomHPMc]

'It's not my revolution if I can't eat pizza'.

[Skyhilist]

this bullshit Chomskyan moralism

When has Chomsky ever argued against fighting gentrification?

[Anti-Traditional]

Interesting comment from the article: The irony is that the anarchists are really reasserting class distinctions rather than trying to erase them: by their opposition to "gentrification", they are in effect saying they want poor areas to remain as ghettoized as possible.

On second viewing of the article perhaps my earlier comment was too harsh. Initially I thought that most people would just perceive this as an attack on "symbol of capitalist opulence" rather than an attack on Gentrification. In spite of this I still don't think driving these businesses out of the area is the answer, local people are bound to work there, many might even enjoy them as consumers.

The real struggle is against private landlordism and should be directed at landlords.

[o well this is ok I guess]

May as well post the original communique
http://anarchistnews.org/content/anti-gentrification-front-strikes-again

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fair enough. The educational and propagandist aspect of this affair is very undeveloped. But look, if they can create an atmosphere of terror and drive the upscale businesses and the hipster kiddies away, they will have won. Not the class war, but the battle against gentrification at least.


Well, what areas do you think are being gentrified? Nice ones that rich white people want to go to or the ones they are "terrorized" by and afraid to go to.

Gentrification is not "consumer-driven" as liberals and these activists seem to think. Gentrification is driven by the flow of capital and so making an area "undesirable" then makes it more desirable to the banks and real estate developers driving the gentrification train. In response to the "violence" of homeless people and pan handlers and graffiti and black markets in these areas the banks and the real estate people (who are usually cozy with municipal governments) demand "public safety" and "more cops on the streets".

So attacking yuppies or their shops is actually fighting the visible symptoms of gentrification, not the source. That means if you weigh the positive and negative of such an action, there is really little positive other than the feeling of trill of the participants and the negatives are that radical ideas are made to look bad and even if people do like the action, the assumptions behind the action (going after consumers and small capitalist renters) bolsters the bourgeois view of economics that the economy functions on consumer demand, not exploitation!

[bcbm]

and surprisingly balanced as far as I could tell by skimming

yeah there was what, one quote from the communique, one quote from an anti-gentrification campaigner and like eight pages of hand wringing and tears from yuppies and business owners?


How do you feel about this sort of thing?

completely indifferent, or maybe mildly amused


If "petty vandalism" does nothing but reinforce negative media caricatures of anarchism, what, if anything, can anarchists do to effectively deter this stuff or counter this image?

why would they possibly want to?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_adQFJxToEyc/TCKv4qO3RxI/AAAAAAAAArQ/q_rlyLEAJqg/s320/anarchist.jpg


ordinary people will just think that you're wingnuts.

we are though


But a lot of this crap just reeks of self-indulgent activism by apparently one masked individual who took a swing at a couple windows of a pretty inexpensive (for around where I live, anyway) restaraunt, then blamed it on yuppies and their "gourmet dinners". Wow. Who cares.

anarchists gonna anarchy


if they can create an atmosphere of terror and drive the upscale businesses and

atmosphere of terror? lol


the hipster kiddies

why would they drive themselves away?


Interesting comment from the article: The irony is that the anarchists are really reasserting class distinctions rather than trying to erase them

we don't want to destroy class distinctions and live cheerfully with the rich, we want to force them to surrender their power and destroy class society

[Comrade Nasser]

So a friend of mine just shared this interesting (and surprisingly balanced as far as I could tell by skimming) article:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/a-bitter-taste-of-class-war-vancouver-pizza-joint-the-latest-target-of-anti-gentrification-anarchists/

The reason I post it in this forum is to ask anarchists or anyone with anarchist sympathies:

How do you feel about this sort of thing? If "petty vandalism" does nothing but reinforce negative media caricatures of anarchism, what, if anything, can anarchists do to effectively deter this stuff or counter this image?

Thanks.


I like Anarchy and pizza.

[Art Vandelay]

When has Chomsky ever argued against fighting gentrification?

Regardless of whether or not he has, or has not; Chomsky is an embarrassment to the left (although I don't consider himself to be apart of the same movement, so I used the term liberally when including that capitalist bastard).

[Let's Get Free]

Regardless of whether or not he has, or has not; Chomsky is an embarrassment to the left (although I don't consider himself to be apart of the same movement, so I used the term liberally when including that capitalist bastard).

He may not be the authentic voice of the proletarian vanguard that you are, but he's not an "embarrassment to the left." I think this is just posturing- "look how radical I am, I'm to the left of Chomsky!"

About the article, I have my doubts as to how much it actually protects the neighborhood from gentrification. Some anarchists are transfixed by 'direct action' but they cannot be bothered to ask themselves whether what is happening is achieving anything more than the spectacle itself. It seems like they just want the reproduction of confrontation — the recorded display of resistance becomes the end in itself, it is a fetish for them.

[Art Vandelay]

He may not be the authentic voice of the proletarian vanguard that you are,

Ad-hominems are fun :)


but he's not an "embarrassment to the left." I think this is just posturing- "look how radical I am, I'm to the left of Chomsky!"

He literally makes money off of the re-investment of capital; but then again, you've quite clearly proven your barometer for 'radicalism' is quite low. Also, joke about me being the 'proletarian vanguard' all you want, but I'm actually a member of a revolutionary organization; I don't just make speeches about how 'awful capitalism is' meanwhile literally making my life off of it.

But what else would I expect, then a distorted nonsense opinion, from yourself.

[Let's Get Free]

He literally makes money off of the re-investment of capital;

I've never seen any evidence for this, but even if it's true, who cares? So did Engels.


Also, joke about me being the 'proletarian vanguard' all you want, but I'm actually a member of a revolutionary organization; I don't just make speeches about how 'awful capitalism is' meanwhile literally making my life off of it.


Well, he's done a hell of a lot more- far more than what you or I could probably ever do to destabilize the image that the ruling classes wishes to sell us. I believe he deserves some credit for that. Even if he's not "leftist" enough for you.

[Art Vandelay]

I've never seen any evidence for this, but even if it's true, who cares? So did Engels.

Engels inherited his wealth, but I agree that is not a proper grounds for a critique and would be nothing more then a useless display of moralism (I could put forth a better one, but anyone with a proper Marxist mindset sees him for what he is).


Well, he's done a hell of a lot more- far more than what you or I could probably ever do to destabilize the image that the ruling classes wishes to sell us.

No he hasn't, outside of being an 'gateway' thinker into more left wing politics, he's ultimately been most successful at reinforcing bourgeois morality upon the people he is supposedly attempting to 'radicalize' (meanwhile putting forth some bogus in the field of linguistics) and also proving himself quite adept at being intellectually dishonest (he's much too intelligent for some of the bullshit he spews).


I believe he deserves some credit for that. Even if he's not "leftist" enough for you.

He's not 'leftist' enough for any true leftist (as long as we are applying that term accurately). He, along with those who uphold similar politics (such as yourself), if not capable of shedding their liberal tinge, shall end up where they belong, ie: the dustbin of history. For all the snide remarks given, I will echo (albiet in a different manner) what comrade (I believe it was Rafiq) said in a recent thread, either the communist movement will have a return to proper Marxism, or it shall perish.

Meanwhile I'll gladly accept my own insignificance, due to the realization that if any serious threat to the capitalist system shall return, it shall be in the form of Marxism, not petty-bourgeois anarchism, tinged with liberalism (this isn't even to say anything about Chomsky, calling him an anarchist is an insult to actual anarchists [after all this is the man who openly states capitalism hasn't existed anywhere on this face of this earth, in its history; and you have the gull to support him on a radical message board?]) meanwhile come any actual revolutionary situation, those who haven't broken with bourgeois moralism shall forever meander between the camps of the oppressed and oppressors, objectively falling to the side of the latter.

[Comrade Nasser]

i've never seen any evidence for this, but even if it's true, who cares? So did engels.



Well, he's done a hell of a lot more- far more than what you or i could probably ever do to destabilize the image that the ruling classes wishes to sell us. I believe he deserves some credit for that. Even if he's not "leftist" enough for you.

Guys!? Wat are you doin!? Guys! Stahp!

[black magick hustla]

lol a lot of anarchists come exactly from the same millieu that drives gentrification (white ppl that went to college but their womens studies degrees didnt get them a job) why dont they smash themselves instead huh

[Art Vandelay]

lol a lot of anarchists come exactly from the same millieu that drives gentrification (white ppl that went to college but their womens studies degrees didnt get them a job) why dont they smash themselves instead huh

I saw BMH posted and assumed he would be ripping into me and my 'menshevik nerd brigade' perspective, I was pleasantly surprised; here, have some rep. :) While I think you raise a valid point (to a certain extent) it also carries with it some pre-conceived notions which (as far as the anarchist community on revleft goes) are absolutely correct, however to actual anarchist comrades organizing in real life, aren't entirely applicable (sadly these actual anarchists are a minority however).

[Yuppie Grinder]

lol a lot of anarchists come exactly from the same millieu that drives gentrification (white ppl that went to college but their womens studies degrees didnt get them a job) why dont they smash themselves instead huh

the history of leftism has been overeducated white people complaining about shit they themselves benefit from loudly
if this weren't the case, and leftism actually was at home in blue collar neighborhoods instead of university campuses, we wouldn't be talking about "the merger of marxism with the working class movement"

[Let's Get Free]

He's not 'leftist' enough for any true leftist (as long as we are applying that term accurately). He, along with those who uphold similar politics (such as yourself), if not capable of shedding their liberal tinge, shall end up where they belong, ie: the dustbin of history. For all the snide remarks given, I will echo (albiet in a different manner) what comrade (I believe it was Rafiq) said in a recent thread, either the communist movement will have a return to proper Marxism, or it shall perish.

Meanwhile I'll gladly accept my own insignificance, due to the realization that if any serious threat to the capitalist system shall return, it shall be in the form of Marxism, not petty-bourgeois anarchism, tinged with liberalism (this isn't even to say anything about Chomsky, calling him an anarchist is an insult to actual anarchists [after all this is the man who openly states capitalism hasn't existed anywhere on this face of this earth, in its history; and you have the gull to support him on a radical message board?]) meanwhile come any actual revolutionary situation, those who haven't broken with bourgeois moralism shall forever meander between the camps of the oppressed and oppressors, objectively falling to the side of the latter.

I don't want to derail the thread any further, so I'll just say this. First, the vast majority of the working class don't give a damn about the communist movement or the "proper Marxism" espoused by you and people like you. It is totally irrelevant to them, and they're definitely not going to waste their time denouncing someone or something because it's not "Marxist" enough for them. Second, you don't have to constantly bang on about class struggle to be an anarchist/Marxist!

[black magick hustla]

the history of leftism has been overeducated white people complaining about shit they themselves benefit from loudly
if this weren't the case, and leftism actually was at home in blue collar neighborhoods instead of university campuses, we wouldn't be talking about "the merger of marxism with the working class movement"

i'm not really talking about that though. like, it's ok to complain about stuff you hypothetically "benefit" from. however, when anarchists go "yuppies out" they are literally the "yuppies". besides, it's not really "yuppies" that are the gentrification demographics, but "starving artist", i.e. anarchists types. it's just a silly campaign imho.

[Yuppie Grinder]

yea, it's more the children of yuppies who do the gentrifying

[Art Vandelay]

the history of leftism has been overeducated white people complaining about shit they themselves benefit from loudly
if this weren't the case, and leftism actually was at home in blue collar neighborhoods instead of university campuses, we wouldn't be talking about "the merger of marxism with the working class movement"

If that's your positions, then we wouldn't have "Marxism" at all.

[black magick hustla]

anyway the op's article sucks lol. however i'm not really convinced that this things are an escalation of organic class war and not a premeditated action of wingnuts that have absolutely no organic links with their community imho. i mean it's cool and all, and i'm kinda indifferent, i'm just bothered by the shitty self-indulgence of over zealous jerkoffs

[Yuppie Grinder]

If that's your positions, then we wouldn't have "Marxism" at all.

What?

[Art Vandelay]

I don't want to derail the thread any further, so I'll just say this. First, the vast majority of the working class don't give a damn about the communist movement or the "proper Marxism" espoused by you and people like you. It is totally irrelevant to them, and they're definitely not going to waste their time denouncing someone or something because it's not "Marxist" enough for them. Second, you don't have to constantly bang on about class struggle to be an anarchist/Marxist!

I'll let your comments speak for themselves; they speak volumes. Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with some of your premises, just that you clearly don't understand my own.

[Art Vandelay]

Also anyone who even expresses any sort of support of good ole Noam, must first find away to engage in mental gymnastics at being able to support this supposed 'anarchist' who doesn't believe capitalism exists.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't see how smashing up pizza places creates an "atmosphere of terror". Just makes the perp look like a hooligan.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't see how smashing up pizza places creates an "atmosphere of terror". Just makes the perp look like a hooligan.

Or a 'Pizza Crazed Anarchist'!!!

Anyone remember that member?

[Let's Get Free]

I don't see how smashing up pizza places creates an "atmosphere of terror". Just makes the perp look like a hooligan.

Everybody knows that smashing the windows of a pizzaria is a crucial and necessary first step in the line of march toward a proletarian dictatorship. Anybody who disagrees with this is a lackey of the CIA deserving the people’s wrath. They should be lined up against the wall and terminated by a revolutionary militia’s firing squad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

lol a lot of anarchists come exactly from the same millieu that drives gentrification (white ppl that went to college but their womens studies degrees didnt get them a job) why dont they smash themselves instead huhYeah I know this waqs rehtorical, but I don't think it's really a bad thing that more college-educated children of better-paid workers and professionals are expressing some anger - it's more just a problem of there being no movements that can kind of help organize that class anger towards something more productive and collective in nature. The anger among this group specifically is because that "milieu" is shrinking and under pressures of downward mobility - so some people go off and become professionals while their classmates go off to serve those professionals coffee. More people are radicalizing, but they are still marginalized and have little experience in practical class struggle. If they were raised with middle class assumptions, then they will take some of those assumptions with them: beliving that you can counter middle class lifestylism with alternative lifestyle choices; going from believing that consumption is the basis of "working capitalism" and then switching to beliving that consumption is the basis of "dysfunctional capitalism".

[Comrade Nasser]

I don't see how smashing up pizza places creates an "atmosphere of terror". Just makes the perp look like a hooligan.

Did someone say hooligan!?

[Red Banana]

Also anyone who even expresses any sort of support of good ole Noam, must first find away to engage in mental gymnastics at being able to support this supposed 'anarchist' who doesn't believe capitalism exists.

Can you provide a source on that quote? That would actually be pretty interesting if its not just something that was taken out of context. As someone who has read quite a few of his works, I'd say he pretty solidly recognizes the existence of capitalism and the need for its revolutionary overthrow.

Also this whole "anyone who's not a Marxist is not a leftist" is pretty childish and counterintuitive. You'd have to be an idealist to believe that one day all, or even most of the workers will suddenly become enlightened by reading your favorite dead German and strictly adhere to Marxism just as you desire, not one step out of line.

Chomsky is a radical, a brief read of almost any of his political work can show you that, and as Let's Get Free said, I think most anti-chomskyites (not people who disagree with him, but those who deny his being a radical) are either just posturing, or repeating what they've heard from others because they haven't actually read any of his books. Just because he's not dead, European, or have facial hair, doesn't mean he is not a communist.

[Art Vandelay]

Can you provide a source on that quote? That would actually be pretty interesting if its not just something that was taken out of context. As someone who has read quite a few of his works, I'd say he pretty solidly recognizes the existence of capitalism and the need for its revolutionary overthrow.

I don't have any sound or speakers on my computer at the moments, so I will be unable to provide a source, until I'm at my girlfriends place within the next couple days. But in all honesty, its a statement he's made multiple times, so it shouldn't be hard to find on youtube. That being said, your strawmen about dead germans with facial hair are farcical and you're also talking to a former "Chomskyian" so I own and have read plenty of his works. I just grew up and saw them for what they were. This sin't to say he is useless; his thoughts on the media and U.S. foreign policy can be good, but as a radical he is beyond useless. But yes, I'm merely posturing; this coming from someone who has probably read less about the petty bourgoies anarchist ideolody, let alone the works of noam chomsky, then myself.

[Red Banana]

I don't have any sound or speakers on my computer at the moments, so I will be unable to provide a source, until I'm at my girlfriends place within the next couple days. But in all honesty, its a statement he's made multiple times, so it shouldn't be hard to find on youtube. That being said, your strawmen about dead germans with facial hair are farcical and you're also talking to a former "Chomskyian" so I own and have read plenty of his works. I just grew up and saw them for what they were. This sin't to say he is useless; his thoughts on the media and U.S. foreign policy can be good, but as a radical he is beyond useless. But yes, I'm merely posturing; this coming from someone who has probably read less about the petty bourgoies anarchist ideolody, let alone the works of noam chomsky, then myself.

When I said most "anti-chomskyites" were either posturing or haven't read his work, I wasn't declaring a pissing match as to who has read more Chomsky, nor was that meant to be aimed directly at you, but rather "most anti-chomskyites".

And the closest thing I can think of to him declaring that "capitalism doesn't exist" as you say he does, is saying it doesn't exist in its "pure form" due to state intervention. I'd disagree with that and say state intervention is an objective feature of capitalism, though I see the point of it not being the "pure capitalism" that, say, American libertarians espouse. But for now that's beside the point because I don't even know if that's what you're referring to.

As to the dead Europeans with facial hair, it was a joke. Obviously if only dead Europeans with facial hair were communist then no one alive would qualify as such.

And while I agree that though his analysis of the media and US foreign policy are good, he doesn't have much to contribute to theory, neither do most people on this board, but that doesn't mean they're not radicals.

[o well this is ok I guess]

lol a lot of anarchists come exactly from the same millieu that drives gentrification (white ppl that went to college but their womens studies degrees didnt get them a job) why dont they smash themselves instead huh white people with unmarketable degrees don't drive gentrification
there's no income to rent out of them

[Jimmie Higgins]

Gentrification in cities is a big issue now - but not really understood. It's not the people or even the companies moving in necissarily, it's a larger reorganization of urban economies in the neo-liberal era where cities have had funding stripped from them (I'm speaking specifically of the US) and now must compete for privite-public funds as well as attract business and development revenue. In this context, fighting "gentrification" by attacking the results is a lot like trying to stop globalization by slashing the tires of one truck crossing a border somewhere on one day.

Gentrification isn't the result of consumer choice either: it's because people make profits off of speculating on land and so the more people try and preserve low rents, the more appealing it becomes for speculators to try and make a buck off of. Not to mention, local shop-owners can be just as obnoxious and entitled as professionals, so is preserving the exploitation by the local pizza joint better than having the exploitation of the hoity-toity pizza joint?

The gentrifiers are in banks and city hall and development agencies, not eating in gormet resturants (well at least they aren't the majority :D) or being elitis assholes drinking their wine and writing their blogs in their condoes. These folks might be moralistic, annoying, and elitist but they are not the source of the problem.

[bcbm]

as long as we're talking gentrification, this article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/20/richard-florida-concedes-the-limits-of-the-creative-class.html) is worth a gander

[Art Vandelay]

When I said most "anti-chomskyites" were either posturing or haven't read his work, I wasn't declaring a pissing match as to who has read more Chomsky, nor was that meant to be aimed directly at you, but rather "most anti-chomskyites".

Fair enough, my point was that a) I didn't fall into the latter category (haven't read his work) so b) I must fall into the former (posturing); neither are true, but given the fact that we were involved in a direct exchange at the time of the comment, I don't see how its that odd I interpreted the comment as being directed towards myself.

Most anti-chomskyians aren't simply posturing or ignorant; in fact I would say the exact opposite. Most people new to the radical left, understandably haven't made a clean break with liberalism or bourgeois morality (I know it took me a long time to, as in years) so the anti-authoritarian and moralistic political arguments of Chomsky are quite compelling. Couple this with the fact that he's one of the most visible modern 'leftists' and its easy to see how he attracts such a big following. Those who have such a negative opinion of him are most likely ones who used to be fond of him, then had their politics and world outlook mature.


And the closest thing I can think of to him declaring that "capitalism doesn't exist" as you say he does, is saying it doesn't exist in its "pure form" due to state intervention.

I can't find the exact quote, since as I said last night I don't have speakers and I saw this on a youtube video, but yeah it was something along those lines. Perhaps you've seen him spout some similar nonsense and this time he was just more explicit, but I'll attempt to paraphrase:

'Capitalism has never existed anywhere on the face of the earth, what has existed is state-capitalism.'


I'd disagree with that and say state intervention is an objective feature of capitalism,

Good. because it is, this is just another example of Chomsky's awful analysis and its no wonder that it permeates through to his other musings. While the following comments may lead me to be accused of Marxist posturing, I don't really give a shit because they are true. Chomsky, by separating capitalism, from state capitalism as if the two were separate things, begins from a starting point in his analysis which can only lead to a faulty perception; in other words he views them as static and separate entities, as opposed to constantly in flux and ever changing; in other words, his analysis is not dialectic in nature.


But how does one inquire into a world that has been abstracted into mutually dependent processes? Where does one start and what does one look for? Unlike non-dialectical research, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical research begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun. Capitalism serves Marx as his jumping-off point for an examination of anything that takes place within it. As a beginning, capitalism is already contained, in principle, within the interacting processes he sets out to investigate as the sum total of their necessary conditions and results. Conversely, to begin with a supposedly independent part or parts is to assume a separation with its corresponding distortion of meaning that no amount of later relating can overcome. Something will be missing, something will be out of place and, without any standard by which to judge, neither will be recognized.

Which is precisely why Chomsky's analysis is so underwhelming.


though I see the point of it not being the "pure capitalism" that, say, American libertarians espouse. But for now that's beside the point because I don't even know if that's what you're referring to.

By separating capitalism from some sort of far right libertarian non-statist capitalism, you're allowing them to set the terms of the debate, which is a terrible decision. Call there bullshit out for what it is, don't go along with their ridiculous terms and analysis.


And while I agree that though his analysis of the media and US foreign policy are good, he doesn't have much to contribute to theory, neither do most people on this board, but that doesn't mean they're not radicals.

He's not a radical for more reasons then I can count. He draws heavily from Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson (who he seems to be influenced by more then anyone else), he makes a living off of the reinvestment of capital, he is detached from the class struggle and has never did any actual organizing, he spreads lies about the history of the communist movement (deliberately, is my only conclusion, since he is much to intelligent to know otherwise), etc.

[RedMaterialist]

If the anarchists really want to do something revolutionary let them smash the windows of a Chase or Wells Fargo bank.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

People blaming small businesses and, as usual, the 'middle class' for gentrification and its negative social externalities.

Firstly, the 'middle class' doesn't exist, in Marxian analysis.

Secondly, don't blame people for exploiting favourable conditions (I mean, oppose their actions, but don't put the root blame at their door), blame crap urban planning by governments, captured regulation and large-scale housebuilders who plan construction according to profit with little/no thought for social externalities.

Seriously, it's so counter-productive to hit a small business with the blame for a problem that is way over their little petty bourgeois heads. Urban planning has become a joke in most major cities; gentrification and the separation of richer and poorer communities have gone hand in hand, but areas becoming more 'upmarket' is not a cause but a symptom of what, as I said, is poor urban planning and, as usual, the forward march of capitalism under its economic guise (private profiteering from homebuilding at the expense of the poor) and its political legitimisation (governments justifying these profits through 'new homes' angles).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Gentrification in cities is a big issue now - but not really understood. It's not the people or even the companies moving in necissarily, it's a larger reorganization of urban economies in the neo-liberal era where cities have had funding stripped from them (I'm speaking specifically of the US) and now must compete for privite-public funds as well as attract business and development revenue. In this context, fighting "gentrification" by attacking the results is a lot like trying to stop globalization by slashing the tires of one truck crossing a border somewhere on one day.

Gentrification isn't the result of consumer choice either: it's because people make profits off of speculating on land and so the more people try and preserve low rents, the more appealing it becomes for speculators to try and make a buck off of. Not to mention, local shop-owners can be just as obnoxious and entitled as professionals, so is preserving the exploitation by the local pizza joint better than having the exploitation of the hoity-toity pizza joint?

The gentrifiers are in banks and city hall and development agencies, not eating in gormet resturants (well at least they aren't the majority :D) or being elitis assholes drinking their wine and writing their blogs in their condoes. These folks might be moralistic, annoying, and elitist but they are not the source of the problem.

Yeah, this^. Bigger picture, guys!

[Ele'ill]

notice all the rich folks and their cheerleaders hiding behind violently protected societal norms, capital, and an army of cops while calling their class/social enemies cowards for directly attacking capital on their own

[RedMaterialist]

notice all the rich folks and their cheerleaders hiding behind violently protected societal norms, capital, and an army of cops while calling their class/social enemies cowards for directly attacking capital on their own

Throwing a rock through the window of a pizza joint is a direct attack on capital?

[Skyhilist]

lol a lot of anarchists come exactly from the same millieu that drives gentrification (white ppl that went to college but their womens studies degrees didnt get them a job) why dont they smash themselves instead huh

Yes, how dare anarchists want to be educated and be able to pursue careers! A real leftist would be willingly throwing their dreams behind and digging ditches instead :laugh:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, how dare anarchists want to be educated and be able to pursue careers! A real leftist would be willingly throwing their dreams behind and digging ditches instead :laugh:

I think his point was more that there are a lot of 'anarchists' who come from gentrified backgrounds and form part of the liberal lifestylist milieu that tags itself as anarchist until their career gets going and they move into management.

That's not an attack on anarchism proper, it's an attack on the gentrified liberals who label themselves, dis-ingenuously, as anarchists.

[Riveraxis]

I don't really care what their motives behind this were.
Seriously, a local pizza shop? Charging about 1$ for a slice? That's less than I paid for pizza in highschool.
These kids (I'm assuming they're kids) have no idea what class war is. We do not fight local business owners and shop keepers. They are not the enemy for making the best of a shitty system..
Anyone legitimately concerned with class struggle would not attack their own kind.

[Skyhilist]

I think his point was more that there are a lot of 'anarchists' who come from gentrified backgrounds and form part of the liberal lifestylist milieu that tags itself as anarchist until their career gets going and they move into management.

That's not an attack on anarchism proper, it's an attack on the gentrified liberals who label themselves, dis-ingenuously, as anarchists.

Ah, so then lifestylists basically? In this case, sorry for the original misreading on my part

[Riveraxis]

A bigger embaresment to our Anarchist comrades, a paramount solidification of any sort of actually existing negative caricature (and by negative, I mean negative regarding the legacy of anarchism) are the Anarcho-liberals who denounce such acts (denounce, not criticize tactically) on the basis of psuedo-pacifism or bourgeois moralism. Yes, such acts will not lead to higher forms of class consciousnes, but they're definitely more effective than this garbage pacifist liberalism, this bullshit Chomskyan moralism which at the thought sickens me to the stomach. But amidst all, does any communist give a shit? Are we offended by such acts? No. For our Anarchist comrades, a word of advice: This new internet anarchism, this anarchism which calls for a utopia, this anarchism which radiates talk of "mutualism" or "peace" "liberty" blah blah blah is absolutely worthless, pathetic, and intellectually offensive. You want to be an Anarchist? Fine, but be an Anarchist. Don't denounce these kinds of acts of violence. Identify with fucking shit up, make total destroy and so on. Anarchism has one use and it is to strike fear in the hearts of the class enemy, a spiraling tornado vortex of cataclysmic black terror. Okay, okay, this is bullshit romanticism, and of course in the end this is not extremely effective. But it helps in lowering the self esteem, the confidence of the enemy for us Marxists.

What the hell, man?
Who is your enemy? The owner of a local pizza shop? You think he deserves to bare the brunt of our class struggle?
Anarchism does not mean recklessness and destruction. Pacifism is stupid but that does not correlate to a lack of morality. We have an enemy and the petty-bourgeois are not it. You, of all people, speaking of "intellectual offensives" should know that better than anyone. They are simply a desperate tool who cling to the bourgeois out of necessity, not loyalty.

But beyond any of those points of view- the fact of the matter stands. They did nothing of significance attacking the pizza shop. Not physically or symbolically. All they did was make asses of themselves and other anarchists. And I don't know/care what their intentions were, but I'm guessing they were not well-thought out.

[Rurkel]

We do not fight local business owners and shop keepers. They are not the enemy for making the best of a shitty system..Local business owners and shop keepers are petty bourgeios, revolutionary proletarian terror should suppress them brutally and mercilessly. These so-called "anarchists" didn't go far enough in repressing these owners. It seems that you, unfortunately, still have liberal-humanist-social-democratic-petty-bourgeois-pacifist-reformist leanings. Keep in mind, that during the revolution, the choice given to liberal-humanist-social-democratic-petty-bourgeois-pacifist-reformists is stark and unambiguous:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9079&stc=1&d=1364259557

So desist from your liberal-humanist-social-democratic-petty-bourgeois-pacifist-reformist leanings as soon as possible.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Local business owners and shop keepers are petty bourgeios, revolutionary proletarian terror should suppress them brutally and mercilessly. These so-called "anarchists" didn't go far enough in repressing these owners. It seems that you, unfortunately, still have liberal-humanist-social-democratic-petty-bourgeois-pacifist-reformist leanings. Keep in mind, that during the revolution, the choice given to liberal-humanist-social-democratic-petty-bourgeois-pacifist-reformists is stark and unambiguous:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9079&stc=1&d=1364259557

So desist from your liberal-humanist-social-democratic-petty-bourgeois-pacifist-reformist leanings as soon as possible.

You really are a nasty piece of work. I honestly hope people like you never get into a position of power.

We live in a capitalist system, not a petty mode of production. Our enemies are therefore capitalists - those who own capital - and the political class that manages the political side of the system on capital's behalf.

Petty bourgeois =/= bourgeois. The petty mode of production is an historically specific one that arose out of the freedom of serfs from their bondage under the landed aristocracy that controlled feudalism. Whilst the petty bourgeoisie once did contain the seeds of capital's evolution and eventual hegemony, the petty bourgeoisie in developed countries is now a wholly static force, that has less potential to significantly control capital than it does to become proletarianised.

[Riveraxis]

Right... I'm a reformist because I don't believe in baseless violence against unsuspecting people with a shoddy motive and no real results. On top of that I'm a pacifist even tho I just said the words "pacifism is stupid."

Do you listen to yourself? First off, I don't know who you are and you have a vague understanding of my views.
But second of off- and arguably more importantly- these shop owners have not been given your grand ultimatum, have they?

But hey. You're the revolutionary here. I'm sure you've bombed your fair share of world banks and started your fair share of riots, correct?
Oh, no? You haven't done any of that?

Right. Stick to pizza shops and grocery stores where you won't make a damn bit of difference. Safer that way I guess.

[RedHal]

I don't really care what their motives behind this were.
Seriously, a local pizza shop? Charging about 1$ for a slice? That's less than I paid for pizza in highschool.
These kids (I'm assuming they're kids) have no idea what class war is. We do not fight local business owners and shop keepers. They are not the enemy for making the best of a shitty system..
Anyone legitimately concerned with class struggle would not attack their own kind.

petty bourgeois shop owners are not "our own kind" in class struggle, where the fuck did you get that notion?

[Riveraxis]

The petty bourgeois are not the oppressors, they are not the enemy.

If "one of our own kind" is a bit of a stretch for you, that's fine, but at the very least they are not the enemy.
I see them as one of our kind because they are proletariat in denial. I forget who said that- but I agree with it. They are proletariat, have no more loyalty to the bourgeois than the proletariat, and are oppressed just as much but in different ways.

They are, admittedly, a plank on the road of oppression- albeit unknowingly- but the fact remains that they are just doing the best they can in a shitty system.
And if this guy didn't own that pizza shop, somebody else would own it. Or something else in it's place.

These divisions are created and enforced by the bourgeois. Anyone- regardless of their social standing- can be "one of us" if they support the struggle.

[Rurkel]

Apparently, the "liberal-bourgeios-humanist" word salad and Clippy were not enough to indicate tongue in cheek?

[Rafiq]

The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class, rendering them WORSE than the bourgeoisie.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Hiero]

In response to the "violence" of homeless people and pan handlers and graffiti and black markets in these areas the banks and the real estate people (who are usually cozy with municipal governments) demand "public safety" and "more cops on the streets".
!

Sometimes they demand more cops, though this sort of gentification often creates a space for the private security market. I guess it depends on the area and local police capabilities. What is also interesting where private security can focus on a sort of class cleansing, moving on homeless for example and creating that clean white concrete landscape. There is legal issue with how city's landscape looks like, so cops are not effective in that capacity, but landscape design and private security can target the undersirable elements of middle class taste. Sharon Zukin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Zukin) has some interesting work on gentification and modern urban landscapes.

[bcbm]

If the anarchists really want to do something revolutionary let them smash the windows of a Chase or Wells Fargo bank.

anarchists smash/burn/whatever banks all the time


I don't really care what their motives behind this were.

well thats telling


Seriously, a local pizza shop?

a local branch of a chain pizza shop, to be precise.


These kids (I'm assuming they're kids) have no idea what class war is. We do not fight local business owners and shop keepers. They are not the enemy for making the best of a shitty system..

one time i worked for a small business. i made minimum wage and got no benefits besides a shift beer.

one time i worked for a large business. i made minimum wage and got no benefits besides a free meal.

i guess i should have only fought the latter for exploiting my labor, since the former was just making the best of a shitty system and not, you know, trying to make a profit just like the other one.


Anyone legitimately concerned with class struggle would not attack their own kind.

Who is your enemy? The owner of a local pizza shop? You think he deserves to bare the brunt of our class struggle?

so if there was a local business and the workers decided to organize a union, they are 'attacking their own kind' and they don't 'deserve to bear the brunt of the class struggle?' is capitalism the problem, or just big bad guys who exploit the system?


Anarchism does not mean recklessness and destruction.

well that depends on the circumstances


They did nothing of significance attacking the pizza shop. Not physically or symbolically. All they did was make asses of themselves and other anarchists.

all press is good press


The petty bourgeois are not the oppressors, they are not the enemy.

i guess you've never worked for them


but the fact remains that they are just doing the best they can in a shitty system.

yeah, so is every motherfucker on wall street


And if this guy didn't own that pizza shop, somebody else would own it. Or something else in it's place.

and if the anarchists didn't smash it, someone else would. or something else in its place


Anyone- regardless of their social standing- can be "one of us" if they support the struggle.

any evidence the pizzaman 'supports the struggle?'

[Rurkel]

So, true revolutionaries never condemn violence against bourgeios or petty-bourgeois individuals or their property, unless said bourgeios or petty-bourgeois individuals had proven themselves to be traitor to their classes, right?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, true revolutionaries never condemn violence against bourgeios or petty-bourgeois individuals or their property, unless said bourgeios or petty-bourgeois individuals had proven themselves to be traitor to their classes, right?IMO true revolutionaries try and help workers to organize themselves as a class and prioritize that over worry about annoying members of the middle class who really do not have much influence in capitalism as a system anyway.

[Rurkel]

But do true revolutionaries condemn this annoying, or are such condemnations indicative of a liberal-humanist, pseudoleftist mentality? There's a difference between "condemnation" and, like the line in my poem says, "no condemnation, no praise".

[Jimmie Higgins]

But do true revolutionaries condemn this annoying, or are such condemnations indicative of a liberal-humanist, pseudoleftist mentality?I can only speak for myself, but violence is not my main concern here. If a small group of people were standing outside of the same shop just insulting yuppie patrons, it would be equally ineffective in terms of class struggle, and equally a tactic that confuses the effects of gentrification and the process and causes of gentrification. You can't have a society like this one without frustration building up and I think ultimately that's what this is an expression of - as well as a lack of viabale class-struggle alternatives that IMO would be more effective on several levels.

So I "condemn" it, though this is too strong of a term, on the basis of not being a class strategy, not being an effective way to counter gentrification, and not helping workers organize in their own interests. If there was an attempt by people in this community or if radicals had formed a coalition which were trying to organize tenants in a neighborhood being gentrified, then workers are learning how to fight in their own interests. If police or a group of shop-owners tried to stop them or prevent their organizing or protests and some windows got smashed - even just out of anger, then this is different in my view. (For example, I don't think any revolutionaries had any problems with the use of violence in Tarhir to defend against Mubarak's thugs and the police, or would people have issues with strikers fighting against scabs or cops if they were defending their ability to keep a picket). But the issue would not be violence or lack of violence, but effectivness in struggle and in helping workers organize in their own interests.

[Rurkel]

Well, some people, the ones my proletarian terror hat calls "liberal-pacifist-humanist-social democrats" clearly think that the action was worse then just useless, assigning it a fairly large negative value, whereas you seem to say that its value was zero, or, at least, a small negative value based on wasting the militants' resources. These are different perspectives.

I guess workers can also patronize some businesses, and while inconvenience caused to them is well worth it when the destruction is actually helpful to the working class, this particular destruction wasn't and doesn't have anything to show for it. However, I feel the reasoning in the above sentence has a hint of liberal-bourgeois-cryptopacifist-humanist-bleeding-heart-counterrevolutionary-social-democratism, totally alien to true revolutionaries, both of scientific and of anarchist variety.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, some people, the ones my proletarian terror hat calls "liberal-pacifist-humanist-social democrats" clearly think that the action was worse then just useless, assigning it a fairly large negative value, whereas you seem to say that its value was zero, or, at least, a small negative value based on wasting the militants' resources. These are different perspectives.

I guess workers can also patronize some businesses, and while inconvenience caused to them is well worth it when the destruction is actually helpful to the working class, this particular destruction wasn't and doesn't have anything to show for it. However, I feel the reasoning in the above sentence has a hint of liberal-bourgeois-cryptopacifist-humanist-bleeding-heart-counterrevolutionary-social-democratism, totally alien to true revolutionaries, both of scientific and of anarchist variety.

Would you mind just stopping labelling everything you don't agree with liberal/social democratic/bourgeois/humanist. You're really using these terms out of context and it's quite annoying/misleading.

[Rurkel]

Would you mind just stopping labelling everything you don't agree with liberal/social democratic/bourgeois/humanist.My proletarian terror hat tells me to.

[Ele'ill]

Throwing a rock through the window of a pizza joint is a direct attack on capital?

yes

[Riveraxis]

one time i worked for a small business. i made minimum wage and got no benefits besides a shift beer.

one time i worked for a large business. i made minimum wage and got no benefits besides a free meal.

i guess i should have only fought the latter for exploiting my labor, since the former was just making the best of a shitty system and not, you know, trying to make a profit just like the other one.

i guess you've never worked for themSure I have.
I made my point. I said that they are exploited by the bourgeois as well and therefor don't have any loyalty to them once they aren't dependent on them. For the time being they are, so they react to their environment. Fulfilling their role in a system that they probably don't understand the true nature of.
that means they are dependent on us. That means they could easily be one of us. I was wrong to say they were with us 'across the board' but there is no reason they are against us across the board.



so if there was a local business and the workers decided to organize a union, they are 'attacking their own kind' and they don't 'deserve to bear the brunt of the class struggle?' is capitalism the problem, or just big bad guys who exploit the system?
Nobody ever said anything like that. They will make their choice and in a roundabout way will decide if they want to bare the brunt of class struggle. No ultimatum was given to the pizza guy. He wakes up each day and does not consider that his business is exploitative. If you think we should attack people simply because theyre indoctrinated with capitalist bullshit than your hit list is going to be much longer than the pizza shop. So good luck with that.
I'm not suggesting destruction isn't necessary. I'm saying pick your fucking battles and this was stupid every way I look at it.




all press is good press
Except this is not our media. And most press is propagated bullshit.
So no, not really.



yeah, so is every motherfucker on wall street I don't have any sympathy for the fuckers on wallstreet because they know what they are doing. They laugh about oppression.
The petty bourgeois are usually raised- like most people- to think that starting a small business will help the economy and benefit the workers. Theres a clear difference here.

I don't harbor contempt for them because they are a symptom of the problem. Put in place by the real problem. I do not hate people for existing or for being brainwashed.
And I don't think smashing their windows is going to make them snap out of it.
I wouldn't support purging all the dissidents out of the city either. That's just not how you deal with people if you can help it.




and if the anarchists didn't smash it, someone else would. or something else in its place
Why? So they can go home and laugh about it? Acting like they did their part to stop oppression? That's a joke. An illusion at best. They didn't do a thing. The target held no value. It was a pizza shop dude. I'm guessing they picked a pizza shop because it was an easy target. Rather than a real symbol/outlet of bourgeois oppression, whatever that may be.



any evidence the pizzaman 'supports the struggle?'
Any evidence that he knows what the hell the struggle is one way or the other?
My guess is that he doesn't. And the brick through the window didn't change that.

[RedMaterialist]

yes

there is a difference between vandalism and anarchism.

I have a suggestion: The members of the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist committee for public safety arrest the vandals and put them on trial for crimes against the international socialist community, specifically, for failure to obtain the authority to physically attack defenseless petit bourgeois shop owners. Then send them to the gulag in Alaska.

[Ele'ill]

I don't care if someone thinks that their hurting or killing me is okay lol

[Ele'ill]

there is a difference between vandalism and anarchism.

yes, one is an action the other is a social theory lol


I have a suggestion: The members of the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist committee for public safety

I'm gonna go ahead and take a guess here that this is the position you role play as in your fantasies. The rest of your post was so stunningly good that I can't even reply to it. You're right.

[#FF0000]

I have a suggestion: The members of the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist committee for public safety arrest the vandals and put them on trial for crimes against the international socialist community, specifically, for failure to obtain the authority to physically attack defenseless petit bourgeois shop owners. Then send them to the gulag in Alaska.

lmao

edit: go away forever

[Rurkel]

I'm pretty sure that the Stalinist committee suggestion was ironic.

[bcbm]

Sure I have.
I made my point. I said that they are exploited by the bourgeois as well

what bourgeois is exploiting them?


and therefor don't have any loyalty to them once they aren't dependent on them. For the time being they are, so they react to their environment. Fulfilling their role in a system that they probably don't understand the true nature of.

ohh as long as you don't know what you are doing it is okay:rolleyes: i would be shocked to find a boss who didn't know that they had hire/fire power, determined wages and went home with a profit based on how well they cut costs. which is what all bosses do, big and small because the problem is not individual.


that means they are dependent on us. That means they could easily be one of us. I was wrong to say they were with us 'across the board' but there is no reason they are against us across the board.

bosses, like cops, are against us as long as they continue to function in that role.



Nobody ever said anything like that.

its pretty much the logical extension of your argument


No ultimatum was given to the pizza guy. He wakes up each day and does not consider that his business is exploitative.

and i am sure bill gates thinks he is a great person who contributes a lot to the world and the ceo of exxon and so on. but theyre not cuz they are bosses. not thinking your business is exploitative doesn't make it not exploitative.


If you think we should attack people simply because theyre indoctrinated with capitalist bullshit

when did i say that? or anything remotely like that? youre so wide of the mark it is ridiculous



I'm not suggesting destruction isn't necessary. I'm saying pick your fucking battles and this was stupid every way I look at it.


and i'm saying 'oh no a chain pizza store got its windows broken. who cares?'


Except this is not our media. And most press is propagated bullshit.
So no, not really.

if you think the media will ever be sympathetic to anarchism you are high


I don't have any sympathy for the fuckers on wallstreet because they know what they are doing. They laugh about oppression.
The petty bourgeois are usually raised- like most people- to think that starting a small business will help the economy and benefit the workers. Theres a clear difference here.

not really


I don't harbor contempt for them because they are a symptom of the problem. Put in place by the real problem. I do not hate people for existing or for being brainwashed.


grooooan



And I don't think smashing their windows is going to make them snap out of it.

me either


I wouldn't support purging all the dissidents out of the city either. That's just not how you deal with people if you can help it.

what are you even talking about



Why? So they can go home and laugh about it?

basically


Acting like they did their part to stop oppression? That's a joke. An illusion at best. They didn't do a thing. The target held no value. It was a pizza shop dude. I'm guessing they picked a pizza shop because it was an easy target. Rather than a real symbol/outlet of bourgeois oppression, whatever that may be.

i am guessing it looked fancy so they took a whack at it. i don't think it 'did' anything or 'held value' but i don't care that it happened and it isn't worth my breath to condemn them


Any evidence that he knows what the hell the struggle is one way or the other?

hes a boss?

[Riveraxis]

what bourgeois is exploiting them?



ohh as long as you don't know what you are doing it is okay:rolleyes: i would be shocked to find a boss who didn't know that they had hire/fire power, determined wages and went home with a profit based on how well they cut costs. which is what all bosses do, big and small because the problem is not individual.



bosses, like cops, are against us as long as they continue to function in that role.

Cops work for the state and are an extension of the bourgeois.
The petty bourgeois are not. They are dependent on the bourgeois but could equally be dependent on us. They cannot break their ties to be bourgeois until there is an alternative because they are not *self-sufficient*. They will be in that role as long as they have to be. We're not talking about which pettit support the cause and which do not. we're talking about them as a mass who do not necessarily realize there is a struggle.





its pretty much the logical extension of your argument

I disagree, but okay. My argument was that the pettit can be with us or against us but throwing bricks through their window makes that choice for them. Union busting means they made that choice themselves. It's not the same.



and i am sure bill gates thinks he is a great person who contributes a lot to the world and the ceo of exxon and so on. but theyre not cuz they are bosses.
I don't think Gates actually believes that.


not thinking your business is exploitative doesn't make it not exploitative.
No, you're completely right. It doesn't. You are misunderstanding me at least to an extent. Far be it from me to stick up for the practice. But I don't believe in that 'you're guilty whether or not you know you're wrong' shit. My stance is that most people, regardless of their class- part from the bourgeois at least- would turn against capitalism if they understood the real nature of it. This is not helping them learn.




when did i say that? or anything remotely like that? youre so wide of the mark it is ridiculous

what are you even talking about
You didn't. I could argue this is the "logical extension of your argument" as well. Do you have an interest in dissolving them as a class? If attacking them is your first instinct then I doubt it.
Attacking them turns them against us and permanently recruits them to the other side.
If you're not interested in dissolving them as a class then what option is there? Besides exiling them from the cities.
Look, I'm not trying to assume what your views are. This is a legitimate question- with these practices I don't see how it could go any other way.






and i'm saying 'oh no a chain pizza store got its windows broken. who cares?'
I don't mean to say that this is important. :rolleyes: I had two points.
A) Pointless target that served no purpose except to turn the city against the anarchists.
B) The pettit bourgeois are proletariat in denial. They could- and in the past, have- support our cause if they had the means to do so.
There are plenty of occasions throughout history where pieces of the petty bourgeois became loyal to the proletariat once it was a possibility. I can cite sources if you don't believe me.
But that does not become a possibility if they are not aware of the struggle. Attacking their shops makes NO progress in that direction.






if you think the media will ever be sympathetic to anarchism you are high
Uhm... Read what I said. ^That's pretty much my point. The media will never be sympathetic to anarchism or anything else. What is the point in utilizing it? You say all press is good press knowing full well that all that press is actually distorted, bad press that aims to portray us in the worst ways.


i am guessing it looked fancy so they took a whack at it. i don't think it 'did' anything or 'held value' but i don't care that it happened and it isn't worth my breath to condemn them
Then that's your opinion and I respect it. I don't want to debate your opinions. I think petty vandalism turns people off and therefor it's pointless or even counter productive. But that's my opinion.





hes a boss?
Yeah, and fuck him, alright? Try looking at it from the workers perspective then. The only purpose this act served was to please the anarchists. It didn't help anybody out. The boss probably hates them, I doubt the employees fully understand their motives, and the public will shun them on sight.
I don't get shunned on sight in my anarchist group because we don't attack people. Doesn't stop us from getting the message out there.

[bcbm]

The petty bourgeois are not. They are dependent on the bourgeois but could equally be dependent on us.

all bourgeois are dependent on us


They cannot break their ties to be bourgeois until there is an alternative because they are not *self-sufficient*.

there is an alternative, it is called being a worker


We're not talking about which pettit support the cause and which do not. we're talking about them as a mass who do not necessarily realize there is a struggle.

so?



I don't think Gates actually believes that.

he thinks he is an evil exploiter?


But I don't believe in that 'you're guilty whether or not you know you're wrong' shit. My stance is that most people, regardless of their class- part from the bourgeois at least- would turn against capitalism if they understood the real nature of it. This is not helping them learn.

seems idealist to me


You didn't. I could argue this is the "logical extension of your argument" as well.

no my argument has nothing to do with 'what they believe'


Do you have an interest in dissolving them as a class? If attacking them is your first instinct then I doubt it.

i have an interest in dissolving all class


Attacking them turns them against us and permanently recruits them to the other side.

no big loss


Look, I'm not trying to assume what your views are. This is a legitimate question- with these practices I don't see how it could go any other way.

i thought we agreed these practices don't really do much of anything


A) Pointless target that served no purpose except to turn the city against the anarchists.

the horror

B) The pettit bourgeois are proletariat in denial. They could- and in the past, have- support our cause if they had the means to do so.
There are plenty of occasions throughout history where pieces of the petty bourgeois became loyal to the proletariat once it was a possibility. I can cite sources if you don't believe me. [/quote]

sure and if they want to play with us great


But that does not become a possibility if they are not aware of the struggle. Attacking their shops makes NO progress in that direction.

i dunno they seem pretty aware someone is angry now


Uhm... Read what I said. ^That's pretty much my point. The media will never be sympathetic to anarchism or anything else. What is the point in utilizing it? You say all press is good press knowing full well that all that press is actually distorted, bad press that aims to portray us in the worst ways.

yes, which is why i dont care what the press says, and what i said is still true because it attracts attention and maybe even some interest from other pissed off people


Yeah, and fuck him, alright?

yeah


Try looking at it from the workers perspective then.

if somebody smashed the windows at my job i would laugh


The only purpose this act served was to please the anarchists. It didn't help anybody out. The boss probably hates them, I doubt the employees fully understand their motives, and the public will shun them on sight.

well hopefully they dont wear the same clothes day to day as for smashy smashy

[Ele'ill]

I think petty vandalism turns people off and therefor it's pointless or even counter productive. But that's my opinion.

pretty much the only thing that doesn't turn 'people' off is the death march of indoctrinated daily routine. Until it pisses them off and they call out, steal a pen, throw something through their boss's car window or set fire to their entire work place with some other workers prior to going out for beers. The flip side to the press is the silent round of applause and smirks from workers after sabotage or open defiance of the bosses, and the very vocal celebration from onlookers as the windows of whatever get smashed. Not a barometer of significance but there's a lot of support for the fucking up of shit that a lot of people hate and that's just common sense.



Try looking at it from the workers perspective then. The only purpose this act served was to please the anarchists.

so what





It didn't help anybody out.

so what



The boss probably hates them,

the anarchists? probably so what



I doubt the employees fully understand their motives

maybe some do maybe not who cares



and the public will shun them on sight.
I don't get shunned on sight in my anarchist group because we don't attack people.

were people attacked?


Doesn't stop us from getting the message out there.

the message that you're angry but won't ruffle any feathers and that feather ruffling is against the moral dogma of community organizing (also the same morals present in current society making sacred private property, capital, cops, jesus etc)

[Crixus]

From the article:


In its ongoing scheme to retool some of Canada’s poorest neighbourhoods, Vancouver’s plan all along has been to engineer a place where the rich and poor would rub elbows — a “revitalization without displacement” model in which high-end coffee shops, inexpensive Chinese groceries, social housing and even safe injection sites could live side by side.

Economically, let me know how that works out. It's just the same old process of gentrification. It always happens under the guise of 'progressive' liberalism - "oh look, we're even giving you free heroin shooting galleries". In San Fransisco, the epicenter of progressive liberalism, this model of gentrification was perfected.

[Riveraxis]

all bourgeois are dependent on us
there is an alternative, it is called being a worker
But can you think of any reason to be a worker, if you've been taught that that wage-employment is not exploitative, and then been given the opportunity not to be?



he thinks he is an evil exploiter? Yeah, I think him and all his friends understand what they're doing pretty well. They are not idiots.



seems idealist to me"They should choose to be a workers even tho their culture discourages that" isn't idealist?




i dunno they seem pretty aware someone is angry nowAnd they still don't know why.




if somebody smashed the windows at my job i would laughAren't you already an anarchist tho? If the press didn't feel like dramatizing the anarchist aspect of it most people wouldn't know whether it was some kind of social statement or a bunch of... uh, 'hooligans"? For lack of a better word.
I think you have a point about the press.


pretty much the only thing that doesn't turn 'people' off is the death march of indoctrinated daily routine. Until it pisses them off and they call out, steal a pen, throw something through their boss's car window or set fire to their entire work place with some other workers prior to going out for beers. I agree that they need to be thoroughly pissed off to make a stand but not that suffering through the death march is the only way. You can understand the problems in a system without being directly exploited by it. Here in America (I don't know if any of you are in America) I have the upper hand.
Our workers are still exploited of course, as a general rule because there's no avoiding that right now, but workers in other countries got it much worse than I do. The only way that directly affects me is that I get my plastic trash dirt cheap.
Still pisses me off. Self interest doesn't evolve into struggle. Self interest might be good for short term gains like raising your wages and installing better conditions but will not amount to anything more because people will pull out once they aren't desperate anymore. Once they've been appeased.


the message that you're angry but won't ruffle any feathers and that feather ruffling is against the moral dogma of community organizing (also the same morals present in current society making sacred private property, capital, cops, jesus etc)I don't get this. I said petty, random, and pointless violence is petty, random and pointless. And we seemed to be in agreement that this event was in fact pointless. I do not see how that equates to bourgeois pseudo-morals.
And if we're talking about the workers smashing their own bosses window as an act of liberation it's a completely different story. But I have a feeling the workers actually had to clean the glass up the next morning. And I won't assume that they didn't understand the anarchists intentions, but I won't assume that they did...

[Let's Get Free]

For me, these kind of tactics as they stand right now are kind of an escape valve to unleash anger into fruitless gestures, but IMHO it is more about what these people are doing (or more importantly NOT doing) when they’re not engaging in self-satirical acts of petty vandalism and individual protest to express their discontent.

[Crixus]

Smash real estate developers office windows yes...if you must? Investors who buy up properties (housing) at alarming rates. Who's behind most of it? Blackstone Group. Just google them and read about what they're doing (you'll have to dig a little, I can't post links). They're eating up both commercial and residential to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars but this is capitalism. Singling out petty bourgeois small business owners and wage/salary workers who make more than 50K a year works? If so can anyone point me to an example where gentrification was successfully fought by yelling at "yuppies" and breaking restaurant windows? If it has a track record of success then by all means carry on.

What Blackstone group is doing with foreclosed homes and commercial properties should be common knowledge but it isn't. They're buying up homes in poor areas for dirt cheap and driving "community development" in order to sell the homes down the line for billions in profit but in the meantime they rent out to, well, not poor people (especially poor people of color). There's major capital behind gentrification it's not just some natural process in many cases. Sometimes, sure, neighborhoods in urban areas become "hip" and it's a more decentralized process but what we see all over America with groups like Blackstone is far more nefarious. Look into it.

[bcbm]

But can you think of any reason to be a worker

no


Yeah, I think him and all his friends understand what they're doing pretty well. They are not idiots.

gonna have to disagree


"They should choose to be a workers even tho their culture discourages that" isn't idealist?

i was just pointing out there is another option. and i meant paternalistic more than idealist, but i couldn't think of the word. i don't think you can just write everyone off as 'oh theyre brainwashed'


And they still don't know why.

yes they do, they just disagree with why it was done.


Aren't you already an anarchist tho?

no


If the press didn't feel like dramatizing the anarchist aspect of it most people wouldn't know whether it was some kind of social statement or a bunch of... uh, 'hooligans"? For lack of a better word.

i agree it would have made more sense not to claim the action

I think you have a point about the press.


Self interest doesn't evolve into struggle. Self interest might be good for short term gains like raising your wages and installing better conditions

that isn't struggle?

[Ele'ill]

I agree that they need to be thoroughly pissed off to make a stand but not that suffering through the death march is the only way. You can understand the problems in a system without being directly exploited by it. Here in America (I don't know if any of you are in America) I have the upper hand.
Our workers are still exploited of course, as a general rule because there's no avoiding that right now, but workers in other countries got it much worse than I do. The only way that directly affects me is that I get my plastic trash dirt cheap.

I'm sorry there's a lot of distractions around me right now so maybe that's it but I partially don't understand how what you wrote applies to what I said. My point was that trying to cater to some people's really passive acceptance, and defense even, of their own lack of freedom so that you have a 'safe' movement, basing actual rules and guidelines off of it and policing what others do, makes the goal totally impossible right from the start.


Still pisses me off. Self interest doesn't evolve into struggle. Self interest might be good for short term gains like raising your wages and installing better conditions but will not amount to anything more because people will pull out once they aren't desperate anymore. Once they've been appeased.I think anarchist's self interest is 'total freedom' with direct action being attack in the now, not direct action to get a good holiday bonus although perhaps to sabotage holiday bonuses and other business/work metric/budget related stuff. The ability for the individual to act alone is an emotionally liberating experience. It builds courage and deepens the understanding of struggle. I think it is a very personal thing actually. Then it's only a matter of finding others who have similar ideas.





I don't get this. I said petty, random, and pointless violence is petty, random and pointless. And we seemed to be in agreement that this event was in fact pointless. I do not see how that equates to bourgeois pseudo-morals.I don't think it was pointless I think it's significance in this case, not talking about the broad idea of property destruction, not generalizing, was not all that great by itself. I think a lot of these direct actions take on a repeated projectual approach that may become part of an escalating situation or one themselves.






And if we're talking about the workers smashing their own bosses window as an act of liberation it's a completely different story. But I have a feeling the workers actually had to clean the glass up the next morning. And I won't assume that they didn't understand the anarchists intentions, but I won't assume that they did...They might not know what anarchy is but a lot of people hate bosses, hate cops, hate church, hate work, etc..

Workers (I am a worker) are forced to do whatever they are told and tasked with for their shift.

[ellipsis]

yes

Oh you

[Riveraxis]

gonna have to disagree
You think they honestly believe they're helping out the world? They're helping out themselves and they know it.
Maybe Gates is a bad example. I am generalizing the bourgeois.
I guess it's still just an opinion tho so whatever.



i was just pointing out there is another option. and i meant paternalistic more than idealist, but i couldn't think of the word. i don't think you can just write everyone off as 'oh theyre brainwashed'People raised by Nazis become Nazis, people raised by petty bourgeois sympathizers aim to become petty bourgeois. Until they see the error their respective ideas. I wouldn't write everybody off as brainwashed. But some of them are legitimately brainwashed, so I don't think their actions are a representation of their nature.



yes they do, they just disagree with why it was done.
Eh, you're probably right. With the press zeroing in on it, they probably do actually understand the intent.



no (not an anarchist)
Well sorry for assuming. A leftist then. A radical. Revolutionary. Whatever you want to call it: most people are not. I don't see how- if you weren't knowledgeable about these kinds of things already- you would understand the motive behind this. Maybe you do. I'm asking.



that isn't struggle?Individual struggle is struggle. My point here is that oppression is not the only route to struggle. And that oppression might be a great motivator for some, but ultimately if you struggle for selfish reasons you will stop struggling once you've been appeased. Unless you're just an altruistic person I guess. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with individual struggle, just that solidarity is better. If individual struggle is a stepping stone to solidarity then more power to you.


I'm sorry there's a lot of distractions around me right now so maybe that's it but I partially don't understand how what you wrote applies to what I said.
I was addressing your other point- which if I understand you correctly- is that people need to be exploited themselves to be motivated to 'struggle'.
What I was saying was that you can be inspired to struggle from other people's oppression or just idealism. It doesn't have to be your own.

I'm thinking Peter Kropotkin is a good mirror of my point. He was Russian royalty- not exploited. He held a luxurious place in society. He joined the struggle for other people's interests, not his own.
Relating back to what I said...
Workers are definitely oppressed in America. But a bigger issue is the workers in other countries who are oppressed exponentially greater for the consumer's lavish lifestyle. My motivation then comes more from their exploitation then my own.


My point was that trying to cater to some people's really passive acceptance, and defense even, of their own lack of freedom so that you have a 'safe' movement, basing actual rules and guidelines off of it and policing what others do, makes the goal totally impossible right from the start. I think you misunderstand me. If I happened to be there while the anarchists attacked the pizza shop I would not try to stop them. The question was "what do you think about this" and I said what I, personally, thought about it. I don't care if other people obey my own personal guidelines. You (both) seem to assume that I'm trying to outline some kind of "dos and don'ts" for anarchism. I'm not. That's why I keep saying this all opinion, and why I'm debating it rather than stating anything as absolute truth.I do apologize if you thought my intent was to police anybody, lol...


I don't think it was pointless I think it's significance in this case, not talking about the broad idea of property destruction, not generalizing, was not all that great by itself. I think a lot of these direct actions take on a repeated projectual approach that may become part of an escalating situation or one themselves.Look, after discussing the issue I think you and bcbm have a point. A few good points. I just posted my initial reaction to the article- which was that it seemed stupid, petty, and pointless.
Maybe it only seems stupid, petty and pointless because it's an isolated issue. I don't know.



'safe movement'/ 'feather ruffling'I think a safe movement would imply working for revolution through the system, or signing petitions or something. That's not what we do. I'm just saying that if (hypothetically, of course) we decide to vandalize anything, we pick a target that makes sense. Symbolically or physically.
As I said... "Pacifism is stupid".

[Riveraxis]

Uhm.. And I'm sorry for those who are legitimately trying to talk about the issue. I don't mean to clog up the thread, there's just been a lot to reply to.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't get the love for Chomsky really, I dislike him and think his "revolutionary politics" are cheap/weak and he's a classic example of an armchair champagne anarchist.

And I do agree with some criticisms of anarchism stated (from Rafiq, talking about "internet anarchism" or whatever he called it although I think 9mm mentioned a few things as well) but most of it are problems probably most specific to parts of the US where anarchism is least developed (Bookchin, another anarchist, was also as annoyed to the point he quit calling himself an anarchist and called himself a comunalist which is more or less the same as anarcho-communism).

I don't know why some are defending the petty-bourgies. Sure, I've met a few who were nice people. I know a few nice people as well whose family members are petty-bourgeoisie. I've also heard of some that are complete tools and assholes, sometimes their workplaces are worse than an impersonal corporate shithole. But as a class, their interests are opposite to ours and we shouldn't be shedding a tear over some property damage.

[Crixus]

And I do agree with some criticisms of anarchism stated but most of it are problems probably most specific to parts of the US where anarchism is least developed (Bookchin, another anarchist, was also as annoyed to the point he quit calling himself an anarchist and called himself a comunalist which is more or less the same as anarcho-communism).


And what did he do with Marxism? ;)

[Tim Cornelis]

This thread is so pathetic.

[Ravachol]

This thread is so pathetic.

Apt reflection of the left then, i'd say.

[Engels]

And I do agree with some criticisms of anarchism stated (from Rafiq, talking about "internet anarchism" or whatever he called it although I think 9mm mentioned a few things as well) but most of it are problems probably most specific to parts of the US where anarchism is least developed (Bookchin, another anarchist, was also as annoyed to the point he quit calling himself an anarchist and called himself a comunalist which is more or less the same as anarcho-communism).


The entire ‘communalism’ saga just seemed to be about him inventing his own movement just so he could have more control/be the figurehead. I recall reading an article by BoB Black where he reveals Bookchin as a city-state fetishist and absolutely decimates Bookchin’s silly arguments against ‘lifestyle anarchists’ (his term for anarchists he didn’t like) and primitivists.