Ferguson, Missouri and "the outsiders"

[Prometeo liberado]

Comrades, far to long have we let the capitalist media divide what remains of the revolutionary working class. Fox, CNN and any outlet on print or t.v. has used the same power they used of turning the word "terrorists" into turning the word "outsider" at Ferguson, Missouri. What makes an "outsider" in ones own country? Is it the next block? One, two, three miles? A county? Yes we are Internationalists yet we cower and have yet to answer back to the capitalist media or our own. Not to mention the fact that we stand idly by as the class collaborators speak "for the black community" and against the "outsiders" As a class we are retreating further and further into the depths of barbarism until we must perform what addicts call an "intervention". Today is the day for revolutionaries to drop ideological cold war nonsense and put praxis into action. What more can we afford to lose?

[BIXX]

And revleft is the place to make this announcement?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I sort of turned off when I saw you'd started your post with 'Comrades'. It's such a turn off to talk in 2014 in language more appropriate in 1914.

[BIXX]

I sort of turned off when I saw you'd started your post with 'Comrades'. It's such a turn off to talk in 2014 in language more appropriate in 1914.


Also it just... I don't know... Felt so self important? Like posting it here could make an actual change. That made me feel kinda meh.

[Red Economist]

Revleft is busy right now. please hold. Your call to arms is important to us.

[starts playing classical music by white european heterosexual male].




..but seriously... we should actually talk about what's going on.

[Zukunftsmusik]

lol

[Sinister Intents]

Well the state could just find all of us, round us up, and kill us off because the nsa tracks everything. Action seems so futile

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well the state could just find all of us, round us up, and kill us off because the nsa tracks everything. Action seems so futile

Tbf i've never thought that a critique based on absolute totalitarianism and politicians being omnipotent spawn of satan has traction.

In reality we live in a class system where one class holds social domination - to a certain degree - over another class. Politics is a revolving door, though. Whilst the surveillance state is scary in its scope and actions, i'm not sure that the people who control it are either so powerful or evil to 'round us up and kill us off' - I tihnk their interest is just to do the bidding of capital and uphold 'law and order' from their end.

[Geiseric]

The RCP was trying to incite mob violence, and got arrested. Anarchists from the nearby college towns are the ones looting. So this is a serious issue. The people in Ferguson are not interested in violence.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I've heard that a lot of the trolling on RevLeft is instigated by outsiders.

[Futility Personified]

What is this "outside"?

To be fair, OP is just venting. Because really that's all we can do if we're isolated or otherwise stymied towards activity that even then may have questionable efficacy.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I sort of turned off when I saw you'd started your post with 'Comrades'. It's such a turn off to talk in 2014 in language more appropriate in 1914.

I like it, how's he suppose to start? Hey buddy? Hey guy? Hey friend? This seems problematic, in that, for Canadian users it could devole into the below and that wouldn't be very constructive at all.

-5uzJVkeaUI

[Ele'ill]

The people in Ferguson are not interested in violence.

I don't know what you mean by 'violence' but there was an interview with some people from the location the morning after, who were a part of it, who were saying it should happen more and that it wasn't enough (the riots) and they cited the protection of commerce/capital as being the main worry from the media instead of police killing people. I am looking for a direct link to the video interview.

This is the direct quote from the interview, the quotes are snipped, bolded is my own


KMBC 9 News Kansas City (https://www.facebook.com/kmbc9?fref=photo)

"I believe that it needed to happen."

"What happened was necessary to show the police that they don't run everything."

"I don't think they did enough." (regarding the looting and rioting)

Brenda Washington is live with the latest on the situation in Ferguson, Missouri this morning.

[Ele'ill]

I know there is also the typical response from other folks who are there and backlash from a portion of the population, as always, who 'don't like riots' which I think is probably healthy reasoning in some regards and probably not so much in others. But what there doesn't appear to be, as is the case in a lot of these situations, 'rich white anarchists causing the problems and a local community being just a little flustered about being systematically incarcerated and killed by the state'. That is, again, a mainstream narrative in the face of rupture. Chances are, in events like these, the vast majority of folks who are not afraid of confrontation in that they understand the consequences but understand it is necessary, aren't going to be doing interviews on local/national TV for obvious reasons, it is a rarity. The interviews with people talking about looting and smash 'destroying their own community' might be a reaction of fear because honestly sudden events like this are kind of scary, but they are ultimately off base for reasons I don't think we really have to get into on a forum like this.

[Geiseric]

I know there is also the typical response from other folks who are there and backlash from a portion of the population, as always, who 'don't like riots' which I think is probably healthy reasoning in some regards and probably not so much in others. But what there doesn't appear to be, as is the case in a lot of these situations, 'rich white anarchists causing the problems and a local community being just a little flustered about being systematically incarcerated and killed by the state'. That is, again, a mainstream narrative in the face of rupture. Chances are, in events like these, the vast majority of folks who are not afraid of confrontation in that they understand the consequences but understand it is necessary, aren't going to be doing interviews on local/national TV for obvious reasons, it is a rarity. The interviews with people talking about looting and smash 'destroying their own community' might be a reaction of fear because honestly sudden events like this are kind of scary, but they are ultimately off base for reasons I don't think we really have to get into on a forum like this.

The mainstream view is that black people deserve whats happening to them! Your seriously wrong about this, especially how you claim based off a single news station that the majority of Ferguson wants to escalate this into a violent confrontation with the state. What they need is solidarity from the world's working class, not a faux leftist giving the cops a reason to kill them dead.

[Creative Destruction]

the RCP has been going in there and, more or less, bullying and yelling at the protesters as well as the cops. it's disgraceful. any outsiders should be in the town as a support capacity. not trying to co-opt a leading role. that's opportunistic and self-serving. if they want to take a leading role in protests against police brutality or the system, they need to organize in their own communities. i bet Chicago residents could use the RCP's help a lot more than Ferguson, tbqh.

[Ele'ill]

The mainstream view is that black people deserve whats happening to them! Your seriously wrong about this, especially how you claim based off a single news station that the majority of Ferguson wants to escalate this into a violent confrontation with the state. What they need is solidarity from the world's working class, not a faux leftist giving the cops a reason to kill them dead.

What you said, for the folks living there, speaking on their behalf, was that they don't want to use escalation and confrontation as a tactic. What I provided, was a direct interview with people living there who were saying the exact opposite. What you said, is that 'outsiders' were the ones engaging in the various actions (including blocking traffic, taking the streets, looting, vandalism, etc..), what I provided was evidence showing that while there might be other folks there now, your narrative is inaccurate. What this means is that you are completely wrong, period.

I don't even know what you mean by 'faux leftists' if you're talking about me I don't even pretend to be a leftist because I'm not and the folks interviewed didn't give any indication that they were 'leftists' which probably hurts you a lot because you know all those dumb people can't do anything on their own they need a party/workers to do it for them. :rolleyes:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

the RCP has been going in there and, more or less, bullying and yelling at the protesters as well as the cops. it's disgraceful. any outsiders should be in the town as a support capacity. not trying to co-opt a leading role. that's opportunistic and self-serving. if they want to take a leading role in protests against police brutality or the system, they need to organize in their own communities. i bet Chicago residents could use the RCP's help a lot more than Ferguson, tbqh.

That seems a bit harsh and oddly specific.

[Geiseric]

That seems a bit harsh and oddly specific.

Except for the fact that they are acting like police provacateurs?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The truth is probably that many Ferguson residents do not want violent protests, especially ones which target the businesses which they rely on to purchase daily necessities or ones even owned and operated by relatives or acquaintances, but that there are others who find the violence acceptable, even desirable, and may be participating in it themselves to varying degrees. I think it's foolish to try to pigeonhole an entire community as holding a single view on these kinds of events.

That said, I'm also sure that both those who support and those who oppose violence, unfortunately, on occasion present their personal views, or the views of their clique, as representing the "whole community." I think if we're responsible leftists, we should try to account for the nuances of the situation and not make broad claims either way.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Except for the fact that they are acting like police provacateurs?

Prove it Jack.

[Ele'ill]

How can you prove/disprove that someone is specifically a 'police provocateur' and not someone who is involved in escalation or various actions and how can you prove/disprove that they are or are not rolling with locals assuming they are an outsider, which is something else that has to be proved.

I'm not under the illusion that there aren't idiot leftists who make terrible decisions but I think there's also a lot of poo hurling in the form of untrue accusations that just cause further problems in the form of hysteria and confusion

[Geiseric]

Prove it Jack.

I said "acting like" as in "may not be directly employed by cops". They are there for their own ideology, not the well being of the people of Ferguson. Anybody who jeopardizes the safety of the children whom make up most of the protests deserve to be beaten themselves.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I like it, how's he suppose to start? Hey buddy? Hey guy? Hey friend? This seems problematic, in that, for Canadian users it could devole into the below and that wouldn't be very constructive at all.

-5uzJVkeaUI

At least we can be polite and use our words, unlike y'all rednecks south of the border. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, agreed. The struggle of the working class is not being held back significantly by use of the word "comrade". There are far more relevant roadblocks.

In any case, people can be "outsiders" when they are marginalized in a society...geographical distance is not as relevant to that as the OP seems to strangely presume.

There's plenty of alternative media outside of the CNN/Fox clique, and that's important, but it's only a step, and workers ought to see the logic of revolt for themselves, not simply absorb it from a talking head.

Also, Geiseric, it seems odd that you'd dismiss confrontation and escalation for its alleged lack of street cred rather than, you know, understanding the roots of popular anger in this situation. International solidarity is important, but as for "giving the cops a reason", try telling that to Michael Brown's parents!

[Ele'ill]

I said "acting like" as in "may not be directly employed by cops". They are there for their own ideology, not the well being of the people of Ferguson. Anybody who jeopardizes the safety of the children whom make up most of the protests deserve to be beaten themselves.

why do you keep on referring to 'the people of ferguson' like they're some mass front there are obviously difference in tactics/desires/needs within that community as my post linking to the article (although this is common sense) demonstrates

you know who endangers everyone regardless if its a protest? the police

do you even remember why all of this started? the police killed a guy who was unarmed

[khad]

Did these so-called provocateurs show up before or after the National Guard was called in? I haven't been following this closely, so I'm sketchy on the timeline. It would be a good thing to know.

[Hagalaz]

Revleft is busy right now. please hold. Your call to arms is important to us.

[starts playing classical music by white european heterosexual male].




..but seriously... we should actually talk about what's going on.

"white european heterosexual male"?

[Geiseric]

why do you keep on referring to 'the people of ferguson' like they're some mass front there are obviously difference in tactics/desires/needs within that community as my post linking to the article (although this is common sense) demonstrates

you know who endangers everyone regardless if its a protest? the police

do you even remember why all of this started? the police killed a guy who was unarmed

No shit. What does this have to do with RCP? i agreed with your last post on the last page.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is there any source of evidence for these claims about the RCP? I'm as sceptical of them and old God Avakian as the next person and wouldn't consider them allies, but I think unless there is clear evidence of serious provocation on their part then we would do well to focus on the issues in hand, namely racism against black Americans by police, and the subsequent and ongoing militarisation of the police.

[Creative Destruction]

That seems a bit harsh and oddly specific.

http://gawker.com/who-are-the-revolutionary-communists-allegedly-agitat-1623920601

[Prometeo liberado]

The RCP was trying to incite mob violence, and got arrested. Anarchists from the nearby college towns are the ones looting. So this is a serious issue. The people in Ferguson are not interested in violence.

are you fucking mad? only %18 arrested were "outsidesrs".
This is what I'm talking about, ya'all only know the medidia tells you.

And why shouldn't there RCP be there?

[Prometeo liberado]

Also it just... I don't know... Felt so self important? Like posting it here could make an actual change. That made me feel kinda meh.

Yeah, the massacre of our people, because we use an antiquated yet holy word, makes the death of any prole just "meh"


ASS

[Prometeo liberado]

look folks violence is upon us. Reacting is only self-defence. This is our intervention into the most confused and conservative working class.
Don't talk about the weather. Everybody does.

[tachosomoza]

are you fucking mad? only %18 arrested were "outsidesrs".
This is what I'm talking about, ya'all only know the medidia tells you.

And why shouldn't there RCP be there?


Yeah, the massacre of our people, because we use an antiquated yet holy word, makes the death of any prole just "meh"


ASS


look folks violence is upon us. Reacting is only self-defence. This is our intervention into the most confused and conservative working class.
Don't talk about the weather. Everybody does.

What on Earth are you yammering about?

[Creative Destruction]

And why shouldn't there RCP be there?

the RCP is fine being there as long as they don't try co-opting a leadership role in the protests, which is what they're trying to do. by many accounts, they're intentionally agitating for violence in a community that doesn't want violence. if they are there for a support role, it'd be fine. but they're not. they're being opportunistic, attention-hungry assholes. but, then again, i'm not sure how much you can expect from the cult of avakian.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I ask again, does anybody have ANY source of evidence for the RCPs supposed manipulations and agitations?

If they don't, then it is really pointless conjecturing about it.

[The Intransigent Faction]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ferguson-protests-90yearold-holocaust-survivor-hedy-epstein-arrested-by-police-during-st-louis-demonstrations-9677729.html

I'm sure this 90-year-old Holocaust survivor who was just recently arrested along with others for "failure to disperse" was there on behalf of the RCP. :rolleyes:

Clearly, the state is feeling threatened, and desperate...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I ask again, does anybody have ANY source of evidence for the RCPs supposed manipulations and agitations?

If they don't, then it is really pointless conjecturing about it.
Well, rednoise posted this (http://gawker.com/who-are-the-revolutionary-communists-allegedly-agitat-1623920601) above which indicates somewhat some people's perspective on the RCP's involvement.

[Sasha]

double

[Sasha]

The Making of
“Outside Agitators”

On August 19, ten days after police murdered Michael Brown (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/) in Ferguson, Missouri, a slew of corporate media stories appeared charging that “criminals” (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/19/ferguson-protest-turns-tense-as-demonstrators-throw-bottles-at-police/) and “outside agitators” (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0819/Ferguson-Who-are-the-outside-agitators-entering-the-fray-video) were responsible for clashes during the protests. CNN (http://www.krdo.com/news/agitators-in-ferguson-called-a-disgrace/27612752) alleged that “all sides agree there are a select number of people—distinct from the majority of protesters—who are fomenting violence,” quoting a State Highway Patrol Captain, a State Senator, and a former FBI assistant director to confirm this.
Today’s militarized police understand that they are operating on two different battlefields at once: not only the battlefield of the streets, but also the battlefield of discourse. So long as most people remain passive, the police can harass, beat, arrest, and even kill people with impunity—certain people, (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark) anyway. But sometimes protests get “out of hand,” (http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/r/ferguson/index.html) which is to say, they actually impact the authorities’ ability to keep the population under control. Then, without fail, police and politicians proceed to the second strategy in their playbook: they declare that they support the protesters and are there to defend their rights, but a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch. In this new narrative, the enemies of the protesters are not the police who are gassing and shooting people, but those who resist the police and their violence. When this strategy works, it enables the police to go back to harassing, beating, arresting, and killing people with impunity—certain people, anyway.
Sure enough, a few hours after these articles about “criminals” and “outside agitators” appeared, the St. Louis police killed another man (http://fox2now.com/2014/08/19/officer-involved-shooting-in-north-st-louis-2/) less than three miles from Ferguson. Here we see how defining people as “criminals” and “outsiders” is itself an act of violence, setting the stage for further violence. You can predict police behavior at protests with a fair degree of accuracy based on the rhetoric they deploy in advance to prepare the terrain.
So when we hear them say “outside agitators,” we know the authorities are getting ready to spill blood. All the better, from their perspective, if people buy into this rhetoric and police themselves so no officer has to get his hands dirty. This is often called for in the name of avoiding violence, but self-policing returns us to the same passivity that enables police violence to occur in the first place. How many people would have even heard about Michael Brown if not for the “criminals” and “agitators” who brought his death to our attention? Self-policing also preserves the impression that we all choose this state of affairs of our own free will, reinforcing the impression that anyone who does not is an outsider.
“All sides agree there are a select number of people—distinct from the majority of protesters—who are fomenting violence.” –CNN

http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/r/agitators/images/police1370.jpg
What is an “outside agitator,” anyway? Deploying the National Guard to a town of 21,000 people—isn’t that outside agitation? When Occupy Oakland was in the news in 2011, there was a lot of rhetoric about “outside agitators” coming to the city to start trouble with police, until it came to light that over 90% of Oakland cops lived outside of Oakland (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-high-costs-of-outsourcing-policeandnbsp/Content?oid=3306199). Surely if anyone deserves to be labeled outside agitators—in Ferguson, Oakland, or any other community around the US—it is the authorities.
But what about people who come from out of town to participate in protests? The CNN article (http://www.krdo.com/news/agitators-in-ferguson-called-a-disgrace/27612752) claimed that “among those arrested are residents of Chicago, Brooklyn, Washington, San Francisco, Austin, Des Moines, and Huntsville, Alabama, according to jail records.”
This might sound like convincing evidence to middle class readers. But anyone who has been poor and precarious knows that the permanent address you give when you are arrested may not be the same as the place you actually live. You might give a different address because you aren’t sure your current housing will last, because the landlord doesn’t know your place has more people in it than are named on the lease, or simply because you don’t want local vigilantes to know where to find you. Instead, you might give a more reliable long-term address, perhaps from another state.
Still, let’s imagine that some of these arrestees who gave out-of-town addresses are in Ferguson for the very first time. Wouldn’t that make them outside agitators? Perhaps it would, if the issue was specific to Ferguson alone and they had no stake in it. But in “Chicago (http://truth-out.org/news/item/8308-unarmed-black-woman-shot-and-killed-by-chicago-police-officer-less-than-a-month-after-trayvon-martin), Brooklyn (http://www.vice.com/read/tough-with-badges-punks-without-them-kimani-gray-and-two-weeks-of-struggle-in-flatbush-brooklyn), Washington, San Francisco (http://justice4alexnieto.org/), Austin (http://hiphopandpolitics.com/2012/04/06/29-black-people-have-been-killed-by-policesecurity-since-jan-2012-16-since-trayvon/), Des Moines, and Huntsville, Alabama” the police have killed black men under identical circumstances. The militarization (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=2), brutality, and systematic racism of the police are in effect all around the country, not just in Ferguson. When people are suffering the same forms of oppression everywhere, it makes sense for us to come to each other’s assistance, to make common cause.
This is not outside agitation. It is solidarity.
So long as we understand the problems we face individualistically, we will be powerless against them. Solidarity has always been the most important tool of the oppressed. This is why the authorities go to such lengths to demonize anyone who has the courage to take risks to support others. Throughout the civil rights struggles of the 20th century, participants who are celebrated as heroes today were tarred as “outside agitators.” The term has a long history on the tongues of racists and reactionaries.
In this light, it is ironic, if not unexpected, that one of the corporate media stereotypes of the “outside agitator” is the “white anarchist” (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/ferguson-protest-monday.html)—as if all anarchists were white (http://zinelibrary.info/files/ocor_book_1.pdf). It’s no longer considered decorous to call people race traitors, so the allegation is inverted: white people who fight alongside black and brown people must not have their best interests at heart, certainly not as much as the police and corporate media do. Although declaring oneself an anarchist does not magically free a white person of the racism that pervades our society, it is racist indeed to attribute all the unrest in Ferguson to “white anarchists,” denying the existence or agency of black and brown participants.
This is the corporate media attempting to play a race card of its own, in order to create divisions between those who struggle against police brutality. It’s not surprising that the authorities would seek to create discord along racial lines—one of the chief reasons race was invented (http://www.amazon.com/The-Invention-White-Race-Volume/dp/1844677699) was to divide those who would otherwise have a common interest in overturning hierarchy.


To emphasize this once more, we have to understand the deployment of rhetoric about “outside agitators” as a military operation intended to isolate and target an enemy: divide and conquer. The enemy that the authorities are aiming at is predominantly black and brown, but it is not just a specific social body; it is also an aspect of our humanity, a part of all of us. The ultimate goal of the police is not so much to brutalize and pacify specific individuals as it is to extract rebelliousness itself from the social fabric. They seek to externalize agitation, so anyone who stands up for herself will be seen as an outsider, as deviant and antisocial.
This would be more likely to succeed if most people were integrated into comfortable places in their power structure. But the problem with their strategy, at this particular historical juncture, is that more and more of us are finding ourselves outside: outside a steady workplace, outside a recognized position of political legitimacy, outside the incentives that reward people for keeping quiet. We are finding ourselves outside, and finding each other. We are finding that it doesn’t make sense to go on being docile, that our only hope is to stake everything on fighting together for our collective survival rather than contending amongst ourselves for a place in the hierarchy.
Next time, the authorities will be lucky if the disturbances are confined to a single town, so they can accuse those who go there of being outside agitators. The racism and police brutality for which Ferguson is now infamous are widespread. The next conflagration could spread everywhere, like Occupy did. Stop killing us, or else.




source: http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/r/agitators/index.html

[Red Economist]

Next time, the authorities will be lucky if the disturbances are confined to a single town, so they can accuse those who go there of being outside agitators. The racism and police brutality for which Ferguson is now infamous are widespread. The next conflagration could spread everywhere, like Occupy did. Stop killing us, or else.

Disturbing, but would else can you say aside from "don't shoot"? :unsure:

[The Intransigent Faction]

Speaking of media coverage...I've been catching up on all of that, and there seem to be a whole bunch of 'versions' of what happened from different eyewitnesses.

Some people claim Michael Brown tried to grab his gun and injured his eye, and others say he was running away with his back turned, and some say he had his hands up. It's a moot point, really, since there's no excuse for what the cops did, but if the cops' version collapses under hard evidence, that would be interesting to see.

[Geiseric]

Speaking of media coverage...I've been catching up on all of that, and there seem to be a whole bunch of 'versions' of what happened from different eyewitnesses.

Some people claim Michael Brown tried to grab his gun and injured his eye, and others say he was running away with his back turned, and some say he had his hands up. It's a moot point, really, since there's no excuse for what the cops did, but if the cops' version collapses under hard evidence, that would be interesting to see.

The cops story is changing all the time, about everything. I always disregard what they say out of principle, but when its obvious they're lying and white people have a hard time grasping that, its frustrating.

[o well this is ok I guess]

the RCP has been going in there and, more or less, bullying and yelling at the protesters as well as the cops. it's disgraceful. any outsiders should be in the town as a support capacity. not trying to co-opt a leading role. that's opportunistic and self-serving. if they want to take a leading role in protests against police brutality or the system, they need to organize in their own communities. i bet Chicago residents could use the RCP's help a lot more than Ferguson, tbqh. dude you're talking about the rcp
saying "they shouldn't try to co-opt movements" is like saying 'they should really not have a cult of bob"
it ain't gonna happen. ever.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://gawker.com/who-are-the-revolutionary-communists-allegedly-agitat-1623920601

This article is bologna and nothing but a smear campaign written by liberal twits.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

the RCP is fine being there as long as they don't try co-opting a leadership role in the protests, which is what they're trying to do. by many accounts, they're intentionally agitating for violence in a community that doesn't want violence. if they are there for a support role, it'd be fine. but they're not. they're being opportunistic, attention-hungry assholes. but, then again, i'm not sure how much you can expect from the cult of avakian.

I think it's weird people keep mentioning Avakian when his involvement includes merely his membership in the organization. This has nothing to do with him or some alleged cult and to me it seems like this is just some easy way to take pot shots but doesn't actually or accurately reflect the situation on the ground.

[Prole]

Ferguson is but a taste for the future in my opinion. We have sustained protests bordering on rioting, amnesty international on american soil, and journalists getting shot/arrested. While this may not be "it" you can't deny that frustration is growing in America at a startling rate, and as politicians do nothing but attempt to stamp out the dissent without addressing the actual concerns, this frustration will only increase.

I firmly believe that unless the core issues facing our society today are addressed, namely socio-economic inequality and structural violence in general, we will see this type of unrest and clashing between the classes increase.

For what it's worth, this is coming from a severe sceptic who up until a year or so ago didn't believe people would ever demand change. Our hope lies in the direction taken during and directly after any meaningful movement.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think it's weird people keep mentioning Avakian when his involvement includes merely his membership in the organization. This has nothing to do with him or some alleged cult and to me it seems like this is just some easy way to take pot shots but doesn't actually or accurately reflect the situation on the ground.

I'm guessing you haven't been accosted by some young Maoist with a Bob T-shirt talking your ear off about the greatness of the "New Synthesis" or whatever other "brilliant" new idea Avakian has come up with.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm guessing you haven't been accosted by some young Maoist with a Bob T-shirt talking your ear off about the greatness of the "New Synthesis" or whatever other new "brilliant" new idea Avakian has come up with.

This differs from other Marxists how? I could say the above and switch out the names and have it apply to a lot of Marxists I've encountered, across the 'tendency' board. I just think this is a ridiculous shot at the RCP when I've seen no evidence substantiating their apparent annoying, opportunistic and looney behavior. Aside from one link which again, my response is, of course some liberals are going to try to paint the RCP in such a way and try be dismissive towards any and all voices calling for direct action and or violence.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This differs from other Marxists how? I could say the above and switch out the names and have it apply to a lot of Marxists I've encountered, across the 'tendency' board. I just think this is a ridiculous shot at the RCP when I've seen no evidence substantiating their apparent annoying, opportunistic and looney behavior. Aside from one link which again, my response is, of course some liberals are going to try to paint the RCP in such a way and try be dismissive towards any and all voices calling for direct action and or violence.

While most Marxists parties, to varying degrees, partake in cultlike reveration of some (usually long dead) theorist or theorists, I've never run into a movement, right or left, as willing to promote their party chief other than the LaRouchies.

[BIXX]

Yeah, the massacre of our people, because we use an antiquated yet holy word, makes the death of any prole just "meh"


ASS


Haha... You're a fucking idiot.

I wasn't trivializing the pain and suffering and death of people at the hands of police, I wasn't trivializing minority struggles, I was trivializing your shitty, dumbass post.

[Sharia Lawn]

First sentence you'll be guaranteed to hear the name Bob Avakian being spoken by an RCPer you are meeting for the first time. You might not hear capitalism. You might not hear sociailsm. You will hear Bob Avakian though.

[Loony Le Fist]

It was very convenient how the communists showed up. Too convenient. I think Izvestia's post speaks for more than it's words.

[Loony Le Fist]

The cops story is changing all the time, about everything. I always disregard what they say out of principle, but when its obvious they're lying and white people have a hard time grasping that, its frustrating.

The sheer amount of police apology that surrounds every one of these tragedies in the US is sickening. There are some signs that things are changing for the better. I see more being written and published about police abuse. It also seems that people are less and less willing to simply go along. In the US, I think the individualistic culture might actually work to save us. If the right-wingers don't succeed in mucking up language to stop it, that is--something we all know they are quite effective at.

[Creative Destruction]

This article is bologna and nothing but a smear campaign written by liberal twits.

the videos of the RCP twits yelling at the protesters is clear enough.

[Ele'ill]

the videos of the RCP twits yelling at the protesters is clear enough.

This is false. There was yelling between what appears to be rcp folks, who for intents and purposes here i don't give a shit about, and some protesters. That does not mean that it is 'the rcp against Ferguson'. That does not mean that 'the rcp were outside rioters and ferguson has faith in and wants legal state justice or acceptable forms of protest'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is false. There was yelling between what appears to be rcp folks, who for intents and purposes here i don't give a shit about, and some protesters. That does not mean that it is 'the rcp against Ferguson'. That does not mean that 'the rcp were outside rioters and ferguson has faith in and wants legal state justice or acceptable forms of protest'.

For the record I think the RCP have form when it comes to outside agitation (google trayvon martin protest), but it's a mere side track. Ultimately they will fail because they have shown at these events that they can't communicate their ideas for uniting people in revolutionary struggle. Focusing all our attentions on their failing ideas distracts us from who should be the real object of our anger: the police and the whole corrupted, racist system that operates in places like Ferguson all across America.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Okay i know i'm going to get mauled for this most likely but i'm gonna say it anyway cause it's not like it makes a difference.

What if say the citizens of that area could somehow adopt a sort of defensive strategy much like the Black Panthers did in the US and that the Free Derry civil rights association did in the occupied 6 counties? Yes we all know that in order to do this we would have to let in people who many of us would not consider Communist but hell we argue about that anyway so i don't see why that should divide us. The panthers where far more Socialist then they where left wing black nationalists anyway as reading Mao and Marx where standard practice for new members.

The Derry Citizens Defense Association managed to create a no go area for both police and military in 69 until operation motorman by the British army in 72. Granted it varies on your definition of autonomy as your pretty much always getting attacked by the security forces. Both the PIRA and OIRA operated in Derry at that time and many of them where "outsiders" by today's standards. But many people seemed to welcome them and even support them in the long run though there where some incidents.

So i don't see why if such a thing has already happened before in western countries that actual work can be done to move towards a Socialist revolution. It's been done before i just think people have become more passive.

Thankfully it's really only old farts who get their news off CNN, Fox or whatever. They all report the same shit with a slightly different spin.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, well, well!

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/cnn_refutes_claim_that_officer_darren_wilson_had_a _fractured_eye_socket/

The lie is exposed. That didn't take long!

[The Modern Prometheus]

That was a huge surprise indeed :ohmy: . You have to punch someone fairly hard to break their eye socket and i doubt you could get off that kinda punch with the police on you. So yeah bullshit from the start.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That was a huge surprise indeed :ohmy: . You have to punch someone fairly hard to break their eye socket and i doubt you could get off that kinda punch with the police on you. So yeah bullshit from the start.

Tbh, it's pretty easy with a 40 bottle tho, like slurricane or the 411 but the glass kinds. I also feel too peoples are trying to do te same thing to the RCP, that they did to black blocc during Occupy. It's amazing how it always the most radical and violent voices are "outside agitators" trying to cause trouble.

interesting article (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/who-is-an-outside-agitator/)

another interesting article (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/love-me-ferguson-im-a-liberal/)

[The Modern Prometheus]

Tbh, it's pretty easy with a 40 bottle tho, like slurricane or the 411 but the glass kinds. I also feel too peoples are trying to do te same thing to the RCP, that they did to black blocc during Occupy. It's amazing how it always the most radical and violent voices are "outside agitators" trying to cause trouble.

interesting article (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/who-is-an-outside-agitator/)

another interesting article (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/love-me-ferguson-im-a-liberal/)

Well yes a knuckle duster would do it fairly easy too and a few other ways i am not going to mention so i don't give anyone any ideas. Plus you can do it if you got a good shot in anyway. I've seen that injury a fair bit playing hockey actually and holy fuck does it look painful. That pig would have dropped like a sack of bricks crying out for morphine with a injury like that.

As for the outside voices causing trouble i am of the opinion that any action must start from within. The people have to stick up for themselves you can't do it for them. By all means if they welcome outside help later on that would be okay but they must initiate any action non violent or violent from within.

[Geiseric]

This article is bologna and nothing but a smear campaign written by liberal twits.

>Implying that since they are liberals they are wrong about everything

[Geiseric]

Tbh, it's pretty easy with a 40 bottle tho, like slurricane or the 411 but the glass kinds. I also feel too peoples are trying to do te same thing to the RCP, that they did to black blocc during Occupy. It's amazing how it always the most radical and violent voices are "outside agitators" trying to cause trouble.

interesting article (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/who-is-an-outside-agitator/)

another interesting article (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/love-me-ferguson-im-a-liberal/)

Maybe thats because the Blac Bloc are fucking useless idiots who deserve to eat shit due to their actions which put productive members of the socialist community in danger? Also since their idea of a revolutionary demonstration is to do petty vandalism? A leadership that is wrong and which will lead to the destruction of the nonviolent, "Justice for Brown," grassroots youth movement, directly or indirectly, cannot be tolerated at this juncture in Ferguson. Any attempts by the RCP or any other faux "Leftists," to incite any escalation is unacceptable.

Their role should be to obtain support for the demonstrators demands in the area where they are from. Not to go to Ferguson and create a situation where they are in between the protesters who cannot afford violence, whether a minority of more the zealous and personally effected realizes that or not, and the police who are looking for a reason to crack skulls.

[Geiseric]

This is false. There was yelling between what appears to be rcp folks, who for intents and purposes here i don't give a shit about, and some protesters. That does not mean that it is 'the rcp against Ferguson'. That does not mean that 'the rcp were outside rioters and ferguson has faith in and wants legal state justice or acceptable forms of protest'.

Great strawman! Your point about legal state justice made me gag, is that the only way you can argue? By putting words in peoples mouths? Where the fuck did we say that we trust the state to deal with this? How would a violent demonstration lead to the indictment of the pig? Where did we say that the argument of "Acceptable forms of protest" by the pigs is acceptable? If you dont respond directly i'm never going to respond to you again and i'm going to put you on ignore. This isn't constructive, and it's clear your mind is made up to sound "more radical" than us by making us seem like we're on the same side as the pigs which isn't acceptable.

[Hermes]

Their role should be to obtain support for the demonstrators demands in the area where they are from. Not to go to Ferguson and create a situation where they are in between the protesters who cannot afford violence, whether a minority of more the zealous and personally effected realizes that or not, and the police who are looking for a reason to crack skulls.

d'you really think that the police won't crack skulls if all the 'outsiders' go away? for that matter, do you really think everything that is violent in ferguson, against the police/state, are done by 'outsiders', and the only residents there are 'peaceful nonviolent' groups?

[Geiseric]

d'you really think that the police won't crack skulls if all the 'outsiders' go away? for that matter, do you really think everything that is violent in ferguson, against the police/state, are done by 'outsiders', and the only residents there are 'peaceful nonviolent' groups?
Yes unless you consider Fox News coverage to be trustworthy, there is no indicator that the protesters in Ferguson are after any confrontation with the police. In fact they want the police to leave, permanently, which can only be done politically, by a statewide or nationwide movement to neuter the police force. They also want Brown's killer to be indicted on murder charges, which the RCP's ultraleft "more revolutionary than you" members aren't really helping with.

If personal self defense is possible then it's supported by myself and most people in the country. There is a huge difference from that and offensive warfare against the police, which WILL be lost by whoever is stupid enough to try, if the conditions for that are absent, which they currently are since the struggle is confined to a single town. Personal self defense is a current reality for many in the town! That is the character of the struggle, a town under siege. Not an attempt to seize state power (the monopoly on violence and political decision making by one or several working class political bodies).

If these solidarity demonstrations (which nobody on this forum is really part of), grow then it might be a different story if a nationwide state of emergency is announced and civil war is imposed by the bourgeoisie against these basic democratic demands which are being raised, namely for all individuals to be held accountable. At that point, once the organization is there, the defense organizations will be led by the most class conscious members of the black, spanish speaking, and to an extent in some poor white communities.

[Red Economist]

It's a few days old, but here's John Oliver's take on the riots and the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maybe thats because the Blac Bloc are fucking twats who deserve to eat shit due to their idiotic actions which put productive members of the socialist community in danger? Also since their idea of a revolutionary demonstration is to do petty vandalism? A leadership that is wrong and which will lead to the destruction of the nonviolent, "Justice for Brown," grassroots youth movement, directly or indirectly, cannot be tolerated at this juncture in Ferguson. Any attempts by the RCP or any other faux "Leftists," to incite any escalation is unacceptable.

Their role should be to obtain support for the demonstrators demands in the area where they are from. Not to go to Ferguson and create a situation where they are in between the protesters who cannot afford violence, whether a minority of more the zealous and personally effected realizes that or not, and the police who are looking for a reason to crack skulls.

This is pretty much what's wrong with the modern American Left, right here, summed up in a nutshell. Wow. I also don't really think it's cool to just throw around twat. I don't like it. That's gross.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Great strawman! Your point about legal state justice made me gag, is that the only way you can argue? By putting words in peoples mouths? Where the fuck did we say that we trust the state to deal with this? How would a violent demonstration lead to the indictment of the pig? Where did we say that the argument of "Acceptable forms of protest" by the pigs is acceptable? If you dont respond directly i'm never going to respond to you again and i'm going to put you on ignore. This isn't constructive, and it's clear your mind is made up to sound "more radical" than us by making us seem like we're on the same side as the pigs which isn't acceptable.

It's not a straw man you idiota. It's called arriving at a conclusion by logical default following you're incoherent jabberings. Now then, Jabber Jaw, pray tell, what do you did appropriate within the context of a militarized police with snipers and fat beat street nazis waving m4s around calling people animals and being biting at the bit to use deadly force? Where they're theeatning and y and all journalists and shit? Lemme guess, you're the kinda asshole whole tell people to hold hands and sit down and just accept a generous helping of pepper spray.

I say, kill the pigs. All of them. Every single one. Why are you trying to silence radical and revolutionary sentiments? You do realize with this outside agitator shit is some antiCommunist, anti-black bullshit from the civil rights era, right?

[Hermes]

Yes unless you consider Fox News coverage to be trustworthy, there is no indicator that the protesters in Ferguson are after any confrontation with the police. In fact they want the police to leave, permanently, which can only be done politically, by a statewide or nationwide movement to neuter the police force. They also want Brown's killer to be indicted on murder charges, which the RCP's ultraleft "more revolutionary than you" members aren't really helping with.

If personal self defense is possible then it's supported by myself and most people in the country. There is a huge difference from that and offensive warfare against the police, which WILL be lost by whoever is stupid enough to try, if the conditions for that are absent, which they currently are since the struggle is confined to a single town. Personal self defense is a current reality for many in the town! That is the character of the struggle, a town under siege. Not an attempt to seize state power (the monopoly on violence and political decision making by one or several working class political bodies).

If these solidarity demonstrations (which nobody on this forum is really part of), grow then it might be a different story if a nationwide state of emergency is announced and civil war is imposed by the bourgeoisie against these basic democratic demands which are being raised, namely for all individuals to be held accountable. At that point, once the organization is there, the defense organizations will be led by the most class conscious members of the black, spanish speaking, and to an extent in some poor white communities.

I don't think 'ultraleft' describes the RCP unless you just throw it about as a derogatory term for things you don't like.

Further, if you think that the police recognize the defense of the community as anything other than violence, I think you're mistaken.

What is it that you recommend, exactly? Everyone staying in their houses with the curfew, waiting for the whole issue to blow over and for the officer in question to come back on duty? With the knowledge that the entire police force will stay the same, and that people will continue to be killed?

[BIXX]

Maybe thats because the Blac Bloc are fucking twats who deserve to eat shit due to their idiotic actions which put productive members of the socialist community in danger? Also since their idea of a revolutionary demonstration is to do petty vandalism? A leadership that is wrong and which will lead to the destruction of the nonviolent, "Justice for Brown," grassroots youth movement, directly or indirectly, cannot be tolerated at this juncture in Ferguson. Any attempts by the RCP or any other faux "Leftists," to incite any escalation is unacceptable.

Their role should be to obtain support for the demonstrators demands in the area where they are from. Not to go to Ferguson and create a situation where they are in between the protesters who cannot afford violence, whether a minority of more the zealous and personally effected realizes that or not, and the police who are looking for a reason to crack skulls.


It sounds like you think the black bloc is an organization? It's not. That's not the way it is at all. Also black bloccers don't fool themselves into thinking that "petty vandalism" makes a protest revolutionary.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yes, let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya as we petition the bourgeois state to arrest some murderous pig. Punishing this one pig will go a long way toward solving the problems that led to this debacle.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya as we petition the bourgeois state to arrest some murderous pig. Punishing this one pig will go a long way toward solving the problems that led to this debacle.

No, but offing all the white overseers and replacing them with actual members of te community would be a nice start though.

[Slavic]

lolz I love how Geiseric basically just stated that the only time violence against police is acceptable is during some kind of nationwide civil war.

loloololzolzoloz

One can only hope that a nationwide militant struggle magically appears on some thursday instead of, ya know, a single brutal police act galvanizing movements in other cities.

[Geiseric]

lolz I love how Geiseric basically just stated that the only time violence against police is acceptable is during some kind of nationwide civil war.

loloololzolzoloz

One can only hope that a nationwide militant struggle magically appears on some thursday instead of, ya know, a single brutal police act galvanizing movements in other cities.

Why dont you go out and shoot the nearest pig? Otherwise shut up. Tactically if you do choose to go along with my suggestion you will lose. So go ahead tough guy, show us how revolutionary you are. If you're not willing to go through with it then dont expect Ferguson residents (most of whom are unarmed) to do it.

[Geiseric]

I don't think 'ultraleft' describes the RCP unless you just throw it about as a derogatory term for things you don't like.

Further, if you think that the police recognize the defense of the community as anything other than violence, I think you're mistaken.

What is it that you recommend, exactly? Everyone staying in their houses with the curfew, waiting for the whole issue to blow over and for the officer in question to come back on duty? With the knowledge that the entire police force will stay the same, and that people will continue to be killed?

What the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read anything I said? I said "if were going to beat the police we have to do this instead of violence RIGHT NOW." That doesnt make me pro cop you asshat.

[Geiseric]

This is pretty much what's wrong with the modern American Left, right here, summed up in a nutshell. Wow. I also don't really think it's cool to just throw around twat. I don't like it. That's gross.

Maybe you and the other internet leftists are whats wrong with the american left?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maybe you and the other internet leftists are whats wrong with the american left?

Lmfao internet leftists indeed. Sure, alright, if that's what makes you feel better, go with that. :lol:

[o well this is ok I guess]

Maybe you and the other internet leftists are whats wrong with the american left? dude you've got 3k posts on this board who are you to talk

[Ele'ill]

If you dont respond directly i'm never going to respond to you again and i'm going to put you on ignore.


i responded to you directly every time and i don't care if you put me on ignore

[Geiseric]

dude you've got 3k posts on this board who are you to talk

Over a period of 6 years that averages at about 2 posts a day. I dont even come on here every day, and I avtually participate in actual organizing at college and in the community.

[Geiseric]

i responded to you directly every time and i don't care if you put me on ignore

Thats bull, you constantly avoided answering my and Rednoise's arguments in a direct way.

[Ele'ill]

Thats bull, you constantly avoided answering my and Rednoise's arguments in a direct way.

I couldn't have been more direct in response to your and rednoise's position which is here


the videos of the RCP twits yelling at the protesters is clear enough.


when I said:


This is false. There was yelling between what appears to be rcp folks, who for intents and purposes here i don't give a shit about, and some protesters. That does not mean that it is 'the rcp against Ferguson'. That does not mean that 'the rcp were outside rioters and ferguson has faith in and wants legal state justice or acceptable forms of protest'.

[Geiseric]

I don't know what you mean by 'violence' but there was an interview with some people from the location the morning after, who were a part of it, who were saying it should happen more and that it wasn't enough (the riots) and they cited the protection of commerce/capital as being the main worry from the media instead of police killing people. I am looking for a direct link to the video interview.

This is the direct quote from the interview, the quotes are snipped, bolded is my own

This was the only "evidence" for the epigones pro violence side. It isnt substantial or conclusive, and is very vague! Its a fucking joke if youre going to base a political argument off of this.

[Geiseric]

I couldn't have been more direct in response to your and rednoise's position which is here




when I said:

I never even said the residents want "legal state justice" which implys amnesty, you pulled that out of your ass. Same with the "legal form of protest" which is determined by the cops in the firstplace. The demonstration wants to be peaceful but the cops are raising tensions by dictating the rules for them, such as "you need to keep walking" instead of protesting in a single spot. So by sitting still it is still an illegal protest, which plays into your argument.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Over a period of 6 years that averages at about 2 posts a day. I dont even come on here every day, and I avtually participate in actual organizing at college and in the community. dude 2 avg is a lot. Like, a lot. you've got a higher average than the person you accused of internet leftism, even.

[Ele'ill]

This was the only "evidence" for the epigones pro violence side. It isnt substantial or conclusive, and is very vague! Its a fucking joke if youre going to base a political argument off of this.

This isn't complicated Geiseric, I think you just need to stop and think about what I am posting. What that interview did is show that the linear narrative trolled by people who are scared and legitimately not down with things that are happening, and for different reasons trolled by megalomanical activists who collect anybody who isn't white like trophies to build their organizing resumes, wasn't an accurate narrative, as two brave souls stepped up and did the interview and said some pretty militant things about the number of folks who performed the actual actions of blocking the streets, looting, etc.. If you can't understand what I mean by proving your 'the people of Ferguson' narrative wrong, and honestly every other 'the people of' narratives cause its the same every time this type of event occurs, then I suggest you take a long while to ponder it without posting more hysterics and come back with some type of valid criticism that isn't yelling and name calling.

[Geiseric]

dude 2 avg is a lot. Like, a lot. you've got a higher average than the person you accused of internet leftism, even.

Maybe thats because I posted alot more when I was in high school? I dunno but its irrelevant, I've actually been organizing with real working class organizations since i was 16, in the immigrants rights and education movements. The same cannot be said for many people here whose crux of communist activity is here.

[Geiseric]

This isn't complicated Geiseric, I think you just need to stop and think about what I am posting. What that interview did is show that the linear narrative trolled by people who are scared and legitimately not down with things that are happening, and for different reasons trolled by megalomanical activists who collect anybody who isn't white like trophies to build their organizing resumes, wasn't an accurate narrative, as two brave souls stepped up and did the interview and said some pretty militant things about the number of folks who performed the actual actions of blocking the streets, looting, etc.. If you can't understand what I mean by proving your 'the people of Ferguson' narrative wrong, and honestly every other 'the people of' narratives cause its the same every time this type of event occurs, then I suggest you take a long while to ponder it without posting more hysterics and come back with some type of valid criticism that isn't yelling and name calling.

"Not down with things that are happening" like what? What is happening? Looting was confined to maybe 2 stores and even the owners said the looters werent from Ferguson. So you have no fuckong evidence.

[Ele'ill]

I never even said the residents want "legal state justice" which implys amnesty, you pulled that out of your ass. Same with the "legal form of protest" which is determined by the cops in the firstplace.

direct quote by you :rolleyes:


Where the fuck did we say that we trust the state to deal with this?


How would a violent demonstration lead to the indictment of the pig?


Where did we say that the argument of "Acceptable forms of protest" by the pigs is acceptable?

(cops have an excellent track record getting away with murder, legally, indictment)


The demonstration wants to be peaceful

Not all of the people wanted to be peaceful, and they weren't all peaceful

[Ele'ill]

"Not down with things that are happening" like what? What is happening?

What?


Looting was confined to maybe 2 stores and even the owners said the looters werent from Ferguson. So you have no fuckong evidence.

oh cool so the looters in the vast majority of the pictures with their faces covered at night who broke in later went up and introduced themselves to the store owners and said they weren't from the area. Can you give a detailed interview that not only states what you're claiming here but intelligently refutes the photos of people with their faces covered and identities concealed as being not from the area?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Maybe thats because I posted alot more when I was in high school? I dunno but its irrelevant, I've actually been organizing with real working class organizations since i was 16, in the immigrants rights and education movements. The same cannot be said for many people here whose crux of communist activity is here. It's not irrelevant. How can you deride someones internet presence when, for all anyone else can see, you've got just as big of one?
get over yourself, man. you're not the only activist in the world that uses the internet. trying to start a more-concious-than-thou contest doesn't impress anyone here.

[Geiseric]

What?



oh cool so the looters in the vast majority of the pictures with their faces covered at night who broke in later went up and introduced themselves to the store owners and said they weren't from the area. Can you give a detailed interview that not only states what you're claiming here but intelligently refutes the photos of people with their faces covered and identities concealed as being not from the area?

Its public knowlege, the interview with the store owners was broadcasted live on CNN. And they could recognize people who regularly come in out of a town of 20,000 people. Its funny though, youre so excited to take the side of the looters to support your croc argument.

Also its a direct demand of majority of the residents to see the pig indicted for murder, im not fucking making this up. They want to see him executed like every other pig who has murdered. Or life in prison, which is just as good.

[Geiseric]

It's not irrelevant. How can you deride someones internet presence when, for all anyone else can see, you've got just as big of one?
get over yourself, man. you're not the only activist in the world that uses the internet. trying to start a more-concious-than-thou contest doesn't impress anyone here.

Its so pathetic seeing people on the internet supporting rabble rousers, when they are 1. Not from that community and 2. When they are not active in actual anti police brutality organizing. Which I am.

[Ele'ill]

Its public knowlege, the interview with the store owners was broadcasted live on CNN.

okay it should be easily accessible so can you post it and then address the other issues I brought up?





And they could recognize people who regularly come in out of a town of 20,000 people.

they would recognize 20,000 people and with their faces covered? does that make sense to you? didn't boots riley pull this by saying that he knows every person in oakland and they all agree with him?



Its funny though, youre so excited to take the side of the looters to support your croc argument.

Actually I've only criticiszed the narrative that 'everyone in Ferguson wants the same thing' because it isn't true (i actually posted an interview)




Also its a direct demand of majority of the residents to see the pig indicted for murder, im not fucking making this up. They want to see him executed like every other pig who has murdered. Or life in prison, which is just as good.

Can you show evidence that the vast majority of the residents want legal justice? That they have faith that legal justice against cops works? Then can you provide evidence showing that they have faith that it will happen?


See this is called backing up your claims. This is what I did by proving the 'everyone in ferguson wants the same thing' narrative wrong by showing an interview with ferguson residents proving otherwise.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Its so pathetic seeing people on the internet supporting rabble rousers, when they are 1. Not from that community and 2. When they are not active in actual anti police brutality organizing. Which I am. People talking about places they don't live on the internet???????? What is the world coming to??????? Cmon man don't act like you've never done it.
and again, the fuck do you know about everyones rl lives? you're some shithead on a forum. I'm some shithead on a forum. We're all functionally anonymous shitheads on the internet. Is activism just some sort of ego booster for you, that you need to mention your cred on a tiny internet forum?

[Sharia Lawn]

Its so pathetic seeing people on the internet supporting rabble rousers, when they are 1. Not from that community and 2. When they are not active in actual anti police brutality organizing. Which I am.

I note you are from San Francisco, not Ferguson.

[Geiseric]

I note you are from San Francisco, not Ferguson.

Right but I actually am advertising the program of the demonstration in Ferguson, as opposed to my own opinion.

[Geiseric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8LXOiH0-NU
There you fucking go.

[Sharia Lawn]

Right but I actually am advertising the program of the demonstration in Ferguson, as opposed to my own opinion.

When other people counter you by arguing that there isn't a single program among the demonstrators, you claim their view has no legitimacy because they aren't in Ferguson. You are not in Ferguson, yet you are claiming to know the program of the demonstrators there. How is that a fair way to argue?

[The Modern Prometheus]

Yes we are all twats with opinions on this matter nothing more nothing else. As for people advocating violence defensive use of weapons could be justified to the public at large i think and possibly draw more attention to the side of the protesters. But actively attacking the police would be a bad idea at this point as it could create a national backlash and the outsiders will more or less get the blame just like they have been blaming Communists of all stripes for political violence ever since the start of the cold war.

Are you legally allowed to carry a gun in Ferguson does anybody know? Because i sure as shit would have a concealed carry permit as id rather have a fighting chance and take a few uniforms with me if i'm going to get ganged up on by abunch of pigs with small penis syndrome.

[Geiseric]

When other people counter you by arguing that there isn't a single program among the demonstrators, you claim their view has no legitimacy because they aren't in Ferguson. You are not in Ferguson, yet you are claiming to know the program of the demonstrators there. How is that a fair way to argue?

Except for the fact that every major media outlet is highlighting that this protest movement isn't violent? have you done any research or watched the coverage on CNN during the protests? Fox News are the ones who are saying that the protesters are violent, IN ORDER TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR THE COPS. There is an objective reality to the situation, most of the protesters who are out every night are youth who are unarmed. Why would they want to physically fight the police instead of getting the police to leave perminantly?

Also there is a single vague article that Mari3l posted which doesn't directly address the argument. He has a single person who said that maybe the looting was a good thing.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Its so pathetic seeing people on the internet supporting rabble rousers, when they are 1. Not from that community and 2. When they are not active in actual anti police brutality organizing. Which I am.

Aside from I am, and you know jack shit about what I do outside this forum. As OK said, this is really pretty silly on your part.

[Geiseric]

Yes we are all twats with opinions on this matter nothing more nothing else. As for people advocating violence defensive use of weapons could be justified to the public at large i think and possibly draw more attention to the side of the protesters. But actively attacking the police would be a bad idea at this point as it could create a national backlash and the outsiders will more or less get the blame just like they have been blaming Communists of all stripes for political violence ever since the start of the cold war.

Are you legally allowed to carry a gun in Ferguson does anybody know? Because i sure as shit would have a concealed carry permit as id rather have a fighting chance and take a few uniforms with me if i'm going to get ganged up on by abunch of pigs with small penis syndrome.

Yes that is different from looting and doing a "violent protest" which is a ridiculous thing in the first place, because another word for that is a "seizure of power" which isn't sought after. The people in Ferguson are creating their own police force, democratically chosen with a direct mandate from the demonstrators and their families. That should be supported over a few hooligans who are trying to loot stores.

[Sharia Lawn]

Except for the fact that every major media outlet is highlighting that this protest movement isn't violent?

Is it possible that bourgeois media outlets would have some incentive for portraying the events in this way? Is it possible that they are wrong?

[Geiseric]

Is it possible that bourgeois media outlets would have some incentive for portraying the events in this way? Is it possible that they are wrong?

Maybe but different outlets are saying different things. FOX however even agrees with Mari3l and Василис&, maybe they should just quote their corespondents, who dont really talk to anybody other than cops, to back their arguments.

Governor imposes curfew in Ferguson
"This is not to silence the PEOPLE of Ferguson or this region or others, but to contain those who are drowning out the voice of the people with their actions," Nixon said. "We will not allow a handful of looters to endanger the rest of this community."

Either way the curfew wouldn't be in place if the looters didn't give the pigs an excuse. It is unacceptable under any circumstance. Saying that the demonstrators are motivated by "booty" is ridiculous. The looters are filling the role of police provocateurs, consciously or unconsciously.

[Sharia Lawn]

Maybe but different outlets are saying different things.

Governor imposes curfew in Ferguson
"This is not to silence the PEOPLE of Ferguson or this region or others, but to contain those who are drowning out the voice of the people with their actions," Nixon said. "We will not allow a handful of looters to endanger the rest of this community."

Either way the curfew wouldn't be in place if the looters didn't give the pigs an excuse. It is unacceptable under any circumstance. Saying that the demonstrators are motivated by "booty" is ridiculous. The looters are filling the role of police provocateurs, consciously or unconsciously.

If you extend this logic out far enough, it stymies any potentially illegal act of resistance against law enforcement. If you were in the South in the 1950s, would you be arguing that SNCC protestors shouldn't try to sit at the lunch counters because it just gives the police an excuse to turn the hoses on them? As a reminder, when the revolution comes, it won't be legal.

[Geiseric]

If you extend this logic out far enough, it stymies any potentially illegal act of resistance against law enforcement. If you were in the South in the 1950s, would you be arguing that SNCC protestors shouldn't try to sit at the lunch counters because it just gives the police an excuse to turn the hoses on them? As a reminder, when the revolution comes, it won't be legal.

Looting and illegal protesting are different things. You should learn the distinction or quit politics.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maybe but different outlets are saying different things.

Governor imposes curfew in Ferguson
"This is not to silence the PEOPLE of Ferguson or this region or others, but to contain those who are drowning out the voice of the people with their actions," Nixon said. "We will not allow a handful of looters to endanger the rest of this community."

Either way the curfew wouldn't be in place if the looters didn't give the pigs an excuse. It is unacceptable under any circumstance. Saying that the demonstrators are motivated by "booty" is ridiculous. The looters are filling the role of police provocateurs, consciously or unconsciously.

Yes, if only pissed off community members would stop being so pissed off and behave more rationally. I mean, come on guys, looting is illegal. So is jaywalking, so let's all remember while protesting to stay within the cross walk and look both ways. I mean, are you serious with this shit?

[Sharia Lawn]

Looting and illegal protesting are different things. You should learn the distinction or quit politics.

They are different. What is the significance of this difference in the context of the discussion you've been having with users here over violence and looting in Ferguson? How would you be responding differently if the citizens of Ferguson were engaging in violent or illegal acts that weren't looting?

[Geiseric]

They are different. What is the significance of this difference in the context of the discussion you've been having with users here over violence and looting in Ferguson? How would you be responding differently in citizens of Ferguson were engaging in violent or illegal acts that weren't looting?

If the violence was directed at the cops I would support the people in Ferguson because their minds are made up, but that's not the case. The looters are isolating the community from the rest of the country. For example I support the Palestinians rights to shoot rockets at Israel, but I don't support the looting of stores owned by generally poor Palestinians by a small section of Palestinian demonstrators. That would be a stupid tactical choice. Mari3l and Василис& support the later out of some misguided principle.

The demonstrators are in the position where they have to throw back the tear gas canisters at the police, which I support. I support self defense. Looting =/= Self defense despite what the internet epigones are saying.

[PhoenixAsh]

I lolled at the word rabble rouser

[Sharia Lawn]

If the violence was directed at the cops I would support the people in Ferguson because their minds are made up, but that's not the case. The looters are isolating the community from the rest of the country.

Ok, this is the part in the discussion where you explain why you would treat looting differently than violence against LE. Wouldn't that violence against cops also alienate Ferguson protestors?

Your comments here make it appear that your goal is to groom citizens of Ferguson into winners of a national popularity contest, instead of supporting a working-class fight back.

[Geiseric]

Ok, this is the part in the discussion where you explain why you would treat looting differently than violence against LE. Wouldn't that violence against cops also alienate Ferguson protestors?

Your comments here make it appear that your goal is to groom citizens of Ferguson into winners of a national popularity contest, instead of supporting a working-class fight back.

I can't believe I have to explain this. Self defense against the state is always justified.

Looting a store that is owned by people who live in your community is counter productive. The demonstrators understand this, the only people who don't understand this are people on this website. Why don't you go and loot a store, if that is so revolutionary? Maybe the entire revolution will just be store lootings and mass arson! That's how limited the political comprehension of the people on this website is.

As Marx said, "Looting a nearby corner store is the epitome of revolutionary excellence!" Except he never said that.

[Sharia Lawn]

I can't believe I have to explain this. Self defense against the state is always justified.

Looting a store that is owned by people who live in your community is counter productive. The demonstrators understand this, the only people who don't understand this are people on this website. Why don't you go and loot a store, if that is so revolutionary? Maybe the entire revolution will just be store lootings and mass arson! That's how limited the political comprehension of the people on this website is.

As Marx said, "Looting a nearby corner store is the epitome of revolutionary excellence!" Except he never said that.

Unless you consider all violence directed against LE as self-defense, your response doesn't really clarify your previous statement distinguishing looting from violence.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Marx never said anything about wearing blue jeans to protests either, so y'all should stop doing that as well. Either show up in your Sunday best or just drop politics already

[Per Levy]

Looting a store that is owned by people who live in your community is counter productive.

i thought "outsiders" did the looting and not people of the community. anyway, why are you so concerned about the property of the petit bourgeoisie geis?

also, do you really think the police and the state need a looting or a little violence in order to act? isnt that a bit naive?

one last thing geis, throwing around "ultraleft" at stuff that isnt ultraleft is, as usual, pretty silly and your whole "im an activiste and you arnt" attitude gets pretty tiresome and isnt an argument for anything.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Marx never said anything about wearing blue jeans to protests either, so y'all should stop doing that as well. Either show up in your Sunday best or just drop politics already

Those loafers better have pennies or go home mister. We should also hand out massive amounts of donuts to the cops as well so maybe they'll be a little friendlier. :)

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps we need to explain something, what is happening in Ferguson is not a revolution. What is happening in Ferguson is a group of people who feel, and are, oppressed and marginalized getting increasingly fed up and angry and venting this anger. This is part of class war...and it has potential to increase class consciousness in a revolutionary way. But it is not there...not by a long shot. What is however happening is the break down of bourgeois control and people standing up for themselves and attacking the system in any way they see fit.

Where some course of action may be seen as counter productive...dismissing them as the result of mere "rabble rousers" and denouncing them in strong words is in fact playing into the bourgeois narrative but is also highly arrogant.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Those loafers better have pennies or go home mister. We should also hand out massive amounts of donuts to the cops as well so maybe they'll be a little friendlier. :)
Sorta like this, yeah? :P
http://s8.postimg.org/58jdj8mp1/fishing_for_pigs.jpg

[The Modern Prometheus]

Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news? That just lends credence to the Liberal argument that the protest movement is not class based or about justice for the victims or minority community at all but rather that people are using it as a excuse to get themselves some new laptops and Iphones. Now if say people looted wallmart the best option to be or try to be handled would be to hand what was looted out in a manner consistent with Socialism. But in order to do that one has to engage the Lumpenproletariat which is a issue that also needs to be addressed.

[bropasaran]

Speaking of protests in general, most common outsiders are ones like these:

3twtuHer6i8

[The Modern Prometheus]

That is why i suspect locals would look at those from other areas who advocate violent protests with great suspicion. Even though i advocate self defense against the police and am not particularly turned off by people throwing bricks or Molotov's at them but if i was a local in that community i would be very wary of anyone not from there who advocate violence as i would immediately think of the possibility that they are a informer.

The situation in Ferguson is almost reminiscent of the October Crises that happened in Canada back in 70. The war measures act was invoked on a entire civilian population because of the acts of a very small group. Martial law was brought in but unlike in Ferguson habeas corpus was suspended and you could be interned for 7 days for absolutely no reason. Trudeau's lovely idea was to criminalize and marginalize the Quebec separatist movement like had been done to Communists parties across Canada. So you had police informers as well as undercover pigs trying to incite violence and sometimes even participating in it. To this day it's not really known just how far the police forces went with that. Also the police where basically acting as a army in that case as well and some Canadian police forces do use weapons like submachine guns and the lot that is far more of a military style weapon then what most people would think of as cops having or needing.

If i was in Ferguson i know id be very wary of any outsiders who come there and suddenly have this call to arms. It seems like tactics by the police to get members of the movement thrown in jail to undermine it all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news?

I didn't realise this was a marketing campaign.


That just lends credence to the Liberal argument that the protest movement is not class based

Anyone who doesn't see the class dynamics of looting is either a cop or bourgeois politico.


people are using it as a excuse to get themselves some new laptops and Iphones.

It's called re-appropriation. Why do you have a problem with working class people taking back products of their labour?

[The Feral Underclass]

This is an article written by people on the ground, and does not corroborate Geiseric's Trot version of events.

Ferguson: over one week in (http://libcom.org/library/ferguson-over-one-week)

[helot]

Wow, this thread really is reminding me of the lefties back in 2011 whining about people rioting and looting after the murder of Duggan...

[The Feral Underclass]

Wow, this thread really is reminding me of the lefties back in 2011 whining about people rioting and looting after the murder of Duggan...

The only solution to this continuous problem is to exclude leftist elements from any organising positions. (http://antirevisionism.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/header.jpg)

[The Modern Prometheus]

I didn't realise this was a marketing campaign.

No it's not but the propaganda campaign is important to any fight. If we have learned nothing from the past i hope it's that we know we must counter bourgeois propaganda with our own. Hell if your going to loot these shops why not give the food to the working class of the community who need it? Electronics such as laptops and tablets could be given to the working class families of the community who have kids who could use this stuff for school. That would actually look good and counters any Liberal argument about looting just being a money grab by hoodlums.



Anyone who doesn't see the class dynamics of looting is either a cop or bourgeois politico.


Yes there is a class dynamic to it but there are also people who just loot for the sake of it and that all to often does attract middle class people looking for a easy grab.



It's called re-appropriation. Why do you have a problem with working class people taking back products of their labour?

I don't at all and in my younger days i sure did enough individual re appropriation of wealth myself. But with the worlds spotlight watching it's best to give the bourgeois media as little fodder as possible for their ridiculous arguments. Having people running up the street with flatscreens doesn't scream class warfare though does it?

[helot]

No it's not but the propaganda campaign is important to any fight. If we have learned nothing from the past i hope it's that we know we must counter bourgeois propaganda with our own. Hell if your going to loot these shops why not give the food to the working class of the community who need it? Electronics such as laptops and tablets could be given to the working class families of the community who have kids who could use this stuff for school. That would actually look good and counters any Liberal argument about looting just being a money grab by hoodlums.

What makes you think that if it was an organised expropriation like what you point out that the media would change their tune? They won't. The same claims will be made, claims of "criminality" "thugs" "outside agitators" etc etc.






I don't at all and in my younger days i sure did enough individual re appropriation of wealth myself. But with the worlds spotlight watching it's best to give the bourgeois media as little fodder as possible for their ridiculous arguments.

Their ridiculous arguments will only not surface if whatever's going on is contained and has no teeth.




Having people running up the street with flatscreens doesn't scream class warfare though does it?

Yeah it does, you just have to listen.

[Red Economist]

Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news? That just lends credence to the Liberal argument that the protest movement is not class based or about justice for the victims or minority community at all but rather that people are using it as a excuse to get themselves some new laptops and Iphones. Now if say people looted wallmart the best option to be or try to be handled would be to hand what was looted out in a manner consistent with Socialism. But in order to do that one has to engage the Lumpenproletariat which is a issue that also needs to be addressed.



It's called re-appropriation. Why do you have a problem with working class people taking back products of their labour?

I don't know why I'm even going to bother- but...

you realize that the 're-appropriation of the products of the working classes labour' leaves the class structure of society unchanged?

Look, I realize it probably feels great. It feels like you're fighting back against an oppressive system and that you finally got your revenge. You get to feel like it's Grand Theft Auto where you can steal some stuff and destroy some stuff. You get to feel big after a lifetime of feeling small and diminished by the 'system'. But here's the problem. After your "re-appropriation", the police and balliffs will break down your door, take the stuff back and throw you in jail. You're five minutes of freedom become five years in prison- or whatever the legal system feels like when it's in the middle of a "let's make an example of these people " mood swing, assuming the police haven't planted drugs, child porn or bomb making literature on you because that's the kind of thing these 'dangerous extremists' do.

The local stores you 're-appropriated' from go bust because the insurance companies won't pay up and say it's the rioters fault; the police get some new toys to beat black people with; the military-industrial complex does a roaring trade as domestic arms sales go through the roof because everyone thinks they're going to be robbed; religious-conservatives get to rant about how man is inherently sinful and justify a police state; and the news can say "there is no alternative; people are too selfish to better themselves" and get on some 'expert' to give a load of psychbabble about how people are governed by 'animal instincts' and need tough new police powers to keep the (black) wage slaves in order because people can't be free.

Then somewhere in Congress, the Republicans and Democrats get to dust off some old legislation that fallen into dis-use, or find new ones from the gun lobby that they've been preparing for this moment and introduce new policing powers. They talk tough on TV, get air-time, maybe a few votes and there's a contest about who can be the biggest asshole to ordinary people and debate the easy answer of not looking at the problems and thinking people are the problem. You know, ''politics'''.

And you know what the best part is; the companies get free advertising through product placement because the 24 hour news repeats the same images of people stealing their stuff. And people go "hey, that stuff must be good, if people are willing to steal it".

The System Wins. Or as they say in Monopoly: Go Directly to Jail, Do not Pass Go, Do not Collect £200. And you're really going to need that "get out of jail free" card.

Stay the course. Fight this thing in the long-run. And you'll probably still end up in jail anyway- but at least it won't be because you 're-appropriated' new Iphone 6 before it came out.

[The Feral Underclass]

No it's not but the propaganda campaign is important to any fight. If we have learned nothing from the past i hope it's that we know we must counter bourgeois propaganda with our own.

And your propaganda campaign involves distancing yourself from expressions of class anger? Propaganda campaigns are only useful if the message you are articulating is honest. When you talk about "important to any fight," what you mean is the interest of the political mechanisms that you support, not to the actual class -- although no doubt you conflate the two.


Hell if your going to loot these shops why not give the food to the working class of the community who need it?

Because people in Ferguson aren't born with Marx and Engles implanted in their brains. Turning expressions of class anger i.e. looting into an act of political coherency requires militants to be organised and actively implementing strategies, not walking away from it because it makes white people who watch the news feel uneasy.


Electronics such as laptops and tablets could be given to the working class families of the community who have kids who could use this stuff for school. That would actually look good and counters any Liberal argument about looting just being a money grab by hoodlums.

Your obsession with the bourgeois media betrays our underlying substitutionist mentality. For you, this isn't about understanding the nature of looting and bringing an analysis and coherency to those expressions, it is about controlling the outcomes of dissent so that you can win a political game with the ruling class. You want things to "look good" because it placates people and softens the politics to make it more palatable for those whose political support you crave.

The fact that you call this a "money grab" and refer to people as "hoodlums" underscores this mentality. You evoke the ideology of the ruling classes, just like any collaberationist, without understanding that it's the very ideology of the ruling classes that makes "money grabbing" a desirable objective in the first place. You are essentially castigating young, black people for wanting to achieve something they have been ideologically indoctrinated into believing is the appropriate way of being. Everyone has laptops and iPhones except poor people, so when you live in a world where those objects are held up as things to covert, you can't then shocked when people want to achieve that status when the opportunity arises...

And instead of understanding that analysis of culture, ideology and capitalism, you choose, as with all party-hacks, to distance yourself, castigate and politically abandon them. You even throw in some bourgeois terminology just to get your point across.

You're no better than a fucking cop.


Yes there is a class dynamic to it but there are also people who just loot for the sake of it and that all to often does attract middle class people looking for a easy grab.

Good! I'm glad they loot for the sake of it!

And of course they loot for the sake of it? Why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they? When ideology pounds you over the head day-in and day-out, telling you that you are only worth something if you have these objects, why wouldn't they take them when they can? Why shouldn't they take them? They belong to them!

And this nonsense about middle class people being attracted to looting is just your attempt at evading the reality of this. Middle class people don't go looting. They don't need to.


I don't at all and in my younger days i sure did enough individual re appropriation of wealth myself.

Yes you do. You've just articulated that in two posts.


But with the worlds spotlight watching it's best to give the bourgeois media as little fodder as possible for their ridiculous arguments.

Fuck the bourgeois media! Who gives a fuck about their ridiculous arguments? The only reason you would care about that is because you want to win some bourgeois political game.


Having people running up the street with flatscreens doesn't scream class warfare though does it?

That is exactly what it screams. Because that is what it is! Incoherent, unpoliticised class warefare. The job of militants is to bring coherency and bring politics to it, not call them money grabbing hoodlums and try and get the bourgeois media to say nice things about them.

[helot]

you realize that the 're-appropriation of the products of the working classes labour' leaves the class structure of society unchanged?

That applies to pretty much everything short of revolutionary war.





The local stores you 're-appropriated' from go bust because the insurance companies won't pay up and say it's the rioters fault; the police get some new toys to beat black people with; the military-industrial complex does a roaring trade as domestic arms sales go through the roof because everyone thinks they're going to be robbed; religious-conservatives get to rant about how man is inherently sinful and justify a police state; and the news can say "there is no alternative; people are too selfish to better themselves" and get on some 'expert' to give a load of psychbabble about how people are governed by 'animal instincts' and need tough new police powers to keep the (black) wage slaves in order because people can't be free.

Then somewhere in Congress, the Republicans and Democrats get to dust off some old legislation that fallen into dis-use, or find new ones from the gun lobby that they've been preparing for this moment and introduce new policing powers. They talk tough on TV, get air-time, maybe a few votes and there's a contest about who can be the biggest asshole to ordinary people and debate the easy answer of not looking at the problems and thinking people are the problem. You know, ''politics'''.


Is basically an argument to never do anything. Black people rebel in any way and the same things you pointed out will happen.




Stay the course. Fight this thing in the long-run. And you'll probably still end up in jail anyway- but at least it won't be because you 're-appropriated' new Iphone 6 before it came out.
and if that long-term fight has any teeth whatsoever the same things you pointed out in your post as a criticism of looting applies.

[The Feral Underclass]

you realize that the 're-appropriation of the products of the working classes labour' leaves the class structure of society unchanged

Look, I realize it probably feels great. It feels like you're fighting back against an oppressive system and that you finally got your revenge. You get to feel like it's Grand Theft Auto where you can steal some stuff and destroy some stuff. You get to feel big after a lifetime of feeling small and diminished by the 'system'. But here's the problem. After your "re-appropriation", the police and balliffs will break down your door, take the stuff back and throw you in jail. You're five minutes of freedom become five years in prison- or whatever the legal system feels like when it's in the middle of a "let's make an example of these people " mood swing, assuming the police haven't planted drugs, child porn or bomb making literature on you because that's the kind of thing these 'dangerous extremists' do

The local stores you 're-appropriated' from go bust because the insurance companies won't pay up and say it's the rioters fault; the police get some new toys to beat black people with; the military-industrial complex does a roaring trade as domestic arms sales go through the roof because everyone thinks they're going to be robbed; religious-conservatives get to rant about how man is inherently sinful and justify a police state; and the news can say "there is no alternative; people are too selfish to better themselves" and get on some 'expert' to give a load of psychbabble about how people are governed by 'animal instincts' and need tough new police powers to keep the (black) wage slaves in order because people can't be free.

Then somewhere in Congress, the Republicans and Democrats get to dust off some old legislation that fallen into dis-use, or find new ones from the gun lobby that they've been preparing for this moment and introduce new policing powers. They talk tough on TV, get air-time, maybe a few votes and there's a contest about who can be the biggest asshole to ordinary people and debate the easy answer of not looking at the problems and thinking people are the problem. You know, ''politics'''.

And you know what the best part is; the companies get free advertising through product placement because the 24 hour news repeats the same images of people stealing their stuff. And people go "hey, that stuff must be good, if people are willing to steal it".

The System Wins. Or as they say in Monopoly: Go Directly to Jail, Do not Pass Go, Do not Collect £200. And you're really going to need that "get out of jail free" card.

Stay the course. Fight this thing in the long-run. And you'll probably still end up in jail anyway- but at least it won't be because you 're-appropriated' new Iphone 6 before it came out.

Is this directed at me?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The local stores you 're-appropriated' from go bust because the insurance companies won't pay up and say it's the rioters fault

Who even cares. I mean, yeah, let's be extra careful so the petite-bourgeoisie, the media and so on don't get offended. That won't get you very far.

[Red Economist]

Is this directed at me?

Yes.


Is basically an argument to never do anything. Black people rebel in any way and the same things you pointed out will happen.

No. It's an argument against making it so fucking easy for the fascist fucks. Most people see looters on TV and they feel uncomfortable and ask 'whose going to put a stop to this?'

Cue the police... the people who are the cause of the problem: and now people think they're the solution.


That applies to pretty much everything short of revolutionary war.

Welcome to the Far Left. Would you like a Che-T shirt?



and if that long-term fight has any teeth whatsoever the same things you pointed out in your post as a criticism of looting applies.

The police in the US are killing a black person once every 28 hours. Does that mean they're not worth fighting for?


Who even cares. I mean, yeah, let's be extra careful so the petite-bourgeoisie, the media and so on don't get offended. That won't get you very far.

Yeah, I mean it's not as if we're just doing it to Jewish Stores right? it's not like we're creating victims and picking on the easy target because we run away from the cops and get our power-trip from kicking the little guy? Let's watch the world burn- it's so much easier than build a new world.

oh- wait. That's the shit we're fighting against, only with more power, a uniform and a fuck load of heavy weaponry.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No. It's an argument against making it so fucking easy for the fascist fucks. Most people see looters on TV and they feel uncomfortable and ask 'whose going to put a stop to this?'

Cue the police... the people who are the cause of the problem: and now people think they're the solution.

This is really the crux of the problem, you proceed from some "people" undifferentiated by class. This is populism. Of course the middle strata are going to ask for the police to Do Something (TM). They would, with or without TV reports (it always amuses me that supposed materialists attribute nearly magical powers to mass media), and the police would get sent whether the move was popular or not.


Yeah, I mean it's not as if we're just doing it to Jewish Stores right? it's not like we're creating victims and picking on the easy target because we run away from the cops and get our power-trip from kicking the little guy? Let's watch the world burn- it's so much easier than build a new world.

oh- wait. That's the shit we're fighting against, only with more power, a uniform and a fuck load of heavy weaponry.

Well, no, "the shit we're fighting against" is capitalism, not some vague "kicking the little guy". The petit-bourgeois "little guy" is just as much a part of the problem as Northrop Grumman, and anyone who forgets that is well on their way to Naderite populism.

I mean, unlike TAT, I don't think this has any political potential, but I'm amazed at the sheer number of posters who moralise over this. It's the great pizza shop window-breaking debacle all over again.

[helot]

No. It's an argument against making it so fucking easy for the fascist fucks

If your argument against something is summed up in that it looks bad and might be used as an excuse for repression you need to develop better arguments. They don't need an excuse as is obvious by the amount of unarmed black people killed by the pigs.

Your argument has only one logical conclusion: submit.




Most people see looters on TV and they feel uncomfortable and ask 'whose going to put a stop to this?' So? The same can be said of strikes. Shit, it can be said of a group of black people congregating for whatever reason.





Welcome to the Far Left. Would you like a Che-T shirt?

Ah so for you the far left is an exercise in sitting on your hands until 'the revolution'?




The police in the US are killing a black person once every 28 hours. Does that mean they're not worth fighting for?

Why you asking me that question? I'm not going around saying people shouldn't riot, shouldn't loot etc because the media will portray them negatively, that's you. I was merely stating that your argument would still apply in this 'long-term fight'.

[Red Economist]

This is really the crux of the problem, you proceed from some "people" undifferentiated by class. This is populism. Of course the middle strata are going to ask for the police to Do Something (TM). They would, with or without TV reports (it always amuses me that supposed materialists attribute nearly magical powers to mass media), and the police would get sent whether the move was popular or not.

that's a fair point. But you'll have to forgive me if I take the social democratic view that popularity might actually matter if we are to make immediate changes and not have to wait till the ruling class has pissed off everyone else in the US.



Well, no, "the shit we're fighting against" is capitalism, not some vague "kicking the little guy". The petit-bourgeois "little guy" is just as much a part of the problem as Northrop Grumman, and anyone who forgets that is well on their way to Naderite populism.

I mean, unlike TAT, I don't think this has any political potential, but I'm amazed at the sheer number of posters who moralise over this. It's the great pizza shop window-breaking debacle all over again.

We're also fighting against the objectification of people as commodities- one consequence of which is that we accept people as collateral damage and how we accept structural injustice as inevitable, rather than actually try to master social relations so we can do things better and not let the 'little guy' get screwed simply because they're little and not an essential part of our master plan.
And whilst moralizing over these issues might not be the best thing to do; if property is theft- we should be going after the thief, not the property that's been stolen. That's where the problem lies.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes.

Oh, right. For a moment I thought you were condescending to some sixth-grader with a Lenin badge, rather than talking to a 32 year old man with 18 years of experience in the communist movement.


you realize that the 're-appropriation of the products of the working classes labour' leaves the class structure of society unchanged

You know, funnily enough I did.


Look, I realize it probably feels great. It feels like you're fighting back against an oppressive system and that you finally got your revenge. You get to feel like it's Grand Theft Auto where you can steal some stuff and destroy some stuff. You get to feel big after a lifetime of feeling small and diminished by the 'system'. But here's the problem. After your "re-appropriation", the police and balliffs will break down your door, take the stuff back and throw you in jail. You're five minutes of freedom become five years in prison- or whatever the legal system feels like when it's in the middle of a "let's make an example of these people " mood swing, assuming the police haven't planted drugs, child porn or bomb making literature on you because that's the kind of thing these 'dangerous extremists' do

I don't tend to judge political activity and militancy based on how it makes me feel. I do, however, judge that activity and militancy based on the best possible outcomes for achieving my objective.

You see, my objective is to build a self-confident counterpower. By that, I mean the working class organised to take militant action to challenge capitalism and the state, escalate conflict and defend their gains.

Rioting and looting are the first steps of an insurrection. It is the genesis for revolutionary struggle. It represents a departure from bourgeois order to revolutionary potential. It represents that moment that members of the class feel able to break down social convention that has confined them like a prison and start to do things on their own terms.

The point of militants, as I said in my previous posts, is to bring politics to these insurrectionary actions and move them towards a coherent process of building a counterpower. That includes building community defence councils, steering re-appropriation towards social manifestations, building solidarity campaigns, establishing organisation to house, feed and protect inhabitants of a community etcetera.

What this allows for is a collective response to the police and bailiffs coming to break down people's doors; to people being sent to prison or to evictions. What this organisation does is build upon that confidence that has come into existence as a result of these riots and looting, and promotes a self-awareness amongst the class that politicises them and empowers them to take further action. It's what we call in the business: Escalation. You know, it's that thing you need in order to build revolutionary momentum.

What are your objectives here? What is the purpose of your intervention? What do you see as being a successful development on the ground? I'm asking you genuine questions here, because I can't seem to understand what it is that you want...

Because I'm really confused by what you're saying. It seems to me that your political outlook here is fundamentally conservative. What you are essentially arguing for is for things to stay the same. Don't riot, because it'll make the police react. Don't loot, because it'll look bad on the TV and white America will want to put a stop to it. Presumably you want people to go to officially recognised demonstrations that cause no problems and forward an agenda that was written for them and does nothing to actually address the imbalance of power, or correct the deep economic injustices that they feel. Am I warm?


The local stores you 're-appropriated' from go bust because the insurance companies won't pay up and say it's the rioters fault; the police get some new toys to beat black people with; the military-industrial complex does a roaring trade as domestic arms sales go through the roof because everyone thinks they're going to be robbed; religious-conservatives get to rant about how man is inherently sinful and justify a police state; and the news can say "there is no alternative; people are too selfish to better themselves" and get on some 'expert' to give a load of psychbabble about how people are governed by 'animal instincts' and need tough new police powers to keep the (black) wage slaves in order because people can't be free.

Your focus here seems to be primarily on some kind of "metanarrative" of intra-bourgeois behaviours in time of conflict. Your analysis doesn't relate to grassroot possibilities at all. You re so detached from what is possible and from what is necessary it is difficult to even understand whose side you're on.

Yes, the state reacts to conflict in this way, but what does that say about how people organise on the ground? Where is the entry point in your ramblings to actually discuss what happens in the community? I mean, from what you're saying we can understand how insurance companies and the religious right and the police and the government and the bourgeois media will respond, but you haven't actually talked about how the working class should respond...


And you know what the best part is; the companies get free advertising through product placement because the 24 hour news repeats the same images of people stealing their stuff. And people go "hey, that stuff must be good, if people are willing to steal it".

The System Wins. Or as they say in Monopoly: Go Directly to Jail, Do not Pass Go, Do not Collect £200. And you're really going to need that "get out of jail free" card.

The only reason the "system wins" in your dystopian analysis is because you haven't actually talked about the class. Within your narrative the working class don't seem to play any significant part, other than to stand ideally by and watch the bourgeois political system behave -- shockingly to you it seems -- like the bourgeois political system.

The system can only win if the working class are unorganised, lacking confidence, unprepared to fight, collaborate, maintain leftist party strategies and follow a policy of de-escalation.


Stay the course. Fight this thing in the long-run.

What is this course you talk about?


And you'll probably still end up in jail anyway- but at least it won't be because you 're-appropriated' new Iphone 6 before it came out.

The only reason people go to prison for looting is because the far left didn't do their job properly.

[bropasaran]

The most important thing with any struggle is mass support. Looting and violence, besides alienating most demographic groups on the ground turning it into almost exlusivelly young male thing, also alienates the broader public.

[The Feral Underclass]

The most important thing with any struggle is mass support.

No it isn't. The most important thing with any struggle is organisation.


Looting and violence, besides alienating most demographic groups on the ground turning it into almost exlusivelly young male thing, also alienates the broader public.

This is bourgeois nonsense.

[Red Economist]

What are your objectives here? What is the purpose of your intervention? What do you see as being a successful development on the ground? I'm asking you genuine questions here, because I can't seem to understand what it is that you want...

I've put this first because I saw 'red' and flipped because it seemed like a pointless and opportunistic position. we can't keep letting people expect the worst of themselves when we really need to believe that people can do better- and fast. The basis of the entire system is the 'human nature argument'; that we're all assholes and trying to build a better world is a pointless exercise because of that. looting just feeds that illusion.


I don't tend to judge political activity and militancy based on how it makes me feel. I do, however, judge that activity and militancy based on the best possible outcomes for achieving my objective.


The best possible outcome of looting is that people realise that they wanted to do it because of how much they hate the system, but that will be the exception because of the way people repress things. most people will regret it, feel like shit and the system will heap even more of it onto them because they made a mistake in so far as they did not consciously accept that decision and made it in the 'heat of the moment'. That actually strengthens the system by making people feel guilty- not us. This is something that has to be done by education- not by turning people into criminals because they 'got stupid' and went with what everyone else was doing.


You see, my objective is to build a self-confident counterpower. By that, I mean the working class organised to take militant action to challenge capitalism and the state, escalate conflict and defend their gains.

But what is that power entitled to do? Loot? Surely, the blueprint of a political organisation develops as the blueprint of the kind of society you're going to create. And I can't tell you how much the phrase 'escalate conflict' sounds like an abuse of power- even if it is the lesser power.


Rioting and looting are the first steps of an insurrection. It is the genus of future struggle. It represents a departure from bourgeois order to revolutionary potential. It represents that moment that members of the class feel able to break down convention and start to do things on their own terms.

it's not a convention. It's a law. And whilst I want people to be free- I don't want them to take stupid risks and putting themselves in trouble without intending to. Your giving the cops a reason to hurt people indiscriminately- one they really don't need. And your putting ordinary people in the front line by exploiting an opportunistic and irrational behavior which is not automatically revolutionary-merely criminal. It's not subversive- it just creates more victims and takes away people's dignity by making them face the fact their sense of self-control is a lie perpetrated by the system.


The point of militants, as I said in my previous posts, is to bring politics to these insurrectionary actions and move them towards a coherent process of building a counterpower. That includes building community defence councils, steering re-appropriation towards social manifestations, building solidarity campaigns, establishing organisation to house, feed and protect inhabitants of a community etcetera.

Surely, there is enough of a case already for these things? looting is not a "coherent process of building a counterpower". It is contary to the collectivistic ethic that you want to promote, and is just a criminal extension of the consumerist desire for instant gratification.


What this allows for is a collective response to the police and bailiffs coming to break down people's doors; to people being sent to prison or to evictions. What this organisation does is build upon that confidence that has come into existence as a result of these riots and looting, and promotes a self-awareness amongst the class that politicises them and empowers them to take further action. It's what we call in the business: Escalation.

The moral case for a collective response is made by the police. it is the sense of being turned into helpless victims that makes people want to defend themselves. They do it all the time- so why give them an ounce of legitimacy at the last moment? If you know democracy isn't going to work, why do you stop people from finding it out by themselves.
people can only find this out in practice by inching there way to freedom.

I'm not saying I like police brutality- but until a lot of people say 'this is a problem' by them seeing it as unprovoked, you are really screwed and by making it look like the 'solution', your actually delaying the realization that people in the US live in a police state for no reason other than the arms companies want to sell weapons, and the police think heavy weaponry is cool because they get to 'act out' like on TV and the movies. surely that's terrifying enough?



Because I'm really confused by what you're saying. It seems to me that your political outlook here is fundamentally conservative. What you are essentially arguing for is for things to stay the same. Don't riot, because it'll make the police react. Don't loot, because it'll look bad on the TV and white America will want to put a stop to it. Presumably you want people to go to officially recognised demonstrations that cause no problems and forward an agenda that was written for them and does nothing to actually address the imbalance of power, or correct the deep economic injustices that they feel. Am I warm?

Revolution makes me conservative because of how easily it turns in on itself and how quickly the psychology of crowds takes over and I don't think that should be manipulated for political expediency- and I realize I'm turning down the easy answer of being a demagogue, but that's because I think it's a hard question and that's getting people to free themselves. The possibility a revolution could become a dictatorship is my primary concern and I've hesitated about being on the far left- but those dam rages keep me coming back.
Looting doesn't just look bad on TV, it makes bad revolutionaries because they still have the same idea that they have the power and 'might makes right'. I might be wrong, but surely as an anarchist- the danger that people will exercise freedom without a sense of responsibility for it's consequences somewhere along the lines has got to bother you? We live in a society where 'liberty' (for the ruling class) is a code-word for tyranny- so that's got to figure in our thinking of how we stop people from thinking that's ok, or is even the norm.

[PhoenixAsh]

OMG...they threw brick through a window. OMG they burned down a cop car. OMG some cops got killed. OMG they burned down the policestation. OMG they looted a store.


Ok. Lets all go home and pack it up. Lets forget this ever happened. Because...you know...we might offend the police and the middle class/petit-bourgeois shopkeepers who then clamor for police action.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

that's a fair point. But you'll have to forgive me if I take the social democratic view that popularity might actually matter if we are to make immediate changes and not have to wait till the ruling class has pissed off everyone else in the US.

Well, to be honest I'm not sure how to respond to this, as you yourself admit that this is a social-democratic view. The main problem, again, is that you take popularity, rather than independent class action, as the main guarantor of change.


We're also fighting against the objectification of people as commodities- one consequence of which is that we accept people as collateral damage and how we accept structural injustice as inevitable, rather than actually try to master social relations so we can do things better and not let the 'little guy' get screwed simply because they're little and not an essential part of our master plan.

The little guy is part of the system of exploitation and private property. Sure, that doesn't mean they are to be targeted personally, but there is a clear class line between them and the proletariat, felt by the proletarians themselves.

As for the rest, well, this just demonstrates how your conception of socialism is different than the one I or TAT (I shudder to think we agree on anything) have - we fight for material change, not vague shifts in opinion.


And whilst moralizing over these issues might not be the best thing to do; if property is theft- we should be going after the thief, not the property that's been stolen. That's where the problem lies.

I don't even understand what this means.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've put this first because I saw 'red' and flipped because it seemed like a pointless and opportunistic position. we can't keep letting people expect the worst of themselves when we really need to believe that people can do better- and fast.

You haven't answered any of my questions. Is that because you don't have any answers?


The basis of the entire system is the 'human nature argument'; that we're all assholes and trying to build a better world is a pointless exercise because of that. looting just feeds that illusion.

That is absolutely not what the basis of the "entire system" is. The basis of the "entire system" are the means of productions.


The best possible outcome of looting is that people realise that they wanted to do it because of how much they hate the system, but that will be the exception because of the way people repress things. most people will regret it, feel like shit and the system will heap even more of it onto them because they made a mistake in so far as they did not consciously accept that decision and made it in the 'heat of the moment'. That actually strengthens the system by making people feel guilty- not us. This is something that has to be done by education- not by turning people into criminals because they 'got stupid' and went with what everyone else was doing.

The only reason it could make people feel guilty is if bourgeois ideology is reinforced, which is precisely what you are doing.

As I said in my previous post, which you have ignored, the best possible outcome for looting and rioting is that it takes on a political dimension. That is the job of communist militants.


But what is that power entitled to do? Loot?

Seize the means of production. That is one of grand objectives of a working class counterpower.


Surely, the blueprint of a political organisation develops as the blueprint of the kind of society you're going to create. And I can't tell you how much the phrase 'escalate conflict' sounds like an abuse of power- even if it is the lesser power.

The internal framework of a political organisation should always reflect the society you wish to create, but in terms of its objectives, this is class war; the nature of the conflict dictates the way it is fought.

And I am not promoting looting as a strategy. I am merely understanding it in its context and providing an analysis for its significance as a phenomenon.


it's not a convention. It's a law.

What's the practical difference?


And whilst I want people to be free- I don't want them to take stupid risks and putting themselves in trouble without intending to. Your giving the cops a reason to hurt people indiscriminately- one they really don't need. And your putting ordinary people in the front line by exploiting an opportunistic and irrational behavior which is not automatically revolutionary-merely criminal. It's not subversive- it just creates more victims and takes away people's dignity by making them face the fact their sense of self-control is a lie perpetrated by the system.

Firstly, I am not putting anyone anywhere. I am not telling people to go out and loot, nor am I promoting it as a revolutionary strategy. People loot bof the reasons I have stated. Our response as communists (although I'm beginning to think you're not a communist) is to give meaning to that phenomenon; understand it in context and use it to build a working class counterpower. Secondly, the cops don't need a reason to act the way they do: That's why the problem in Ferguson happened in the first place. You seem to be confused about that, since you've repeated it twice now.


Surely, there is enough of a case already for these things? looting is not a "coherent process of building a counterpower". It is contary to the collectivistic ethic that you want to promote, and is just a criminal extension of the consumerist desire for instant gratification.

Ugh. No it isn't a coherent process, that's why I said it's necessary for militants to provide that coherency. Also, it can only be contrary to "collectivist ethics" if those objects were somehow the ownership of the "collective." They're not really, are they? They are products of working class labour, owned by capitalists and used to make profit.


The moral case for a collective response is made by the police. it is the sense of being turned into helpless victims that makes people want to defend themselves. They do it all the time- so why give them an ounce of legitimacy at the last moment? If you know democracy isn't going to work, why do you stop people from finding it out by themselves.
people can only find this out in practice by inching there way to freedom.

I don't really understand how this paragraph relates to what I said...

I said: "What this allows for is a collective response to the police and bailiffs coming to break down people's doors; to people being sent to prison or to evictions. What this organisation does is build upon that confidence that has come into existence as a result of these riots and looting, and promotes a self-awareness amongst the class that politicises them and empowers them to take further action. It's what we call in the business: Escalation."

How does what you said relate to this?


I'm not saying I like police brutality- but until a lot of people say 'this is a problem' by them seeing it as unprovoked, you are really screwed and by making it look like the 'solution', your actually delaying the realization that people in the US live in a police state for no reason other than the arms companies want to sell weapons, and the police think heavy weaponry is cool because they get to 'act out' like on TV and the movies. surely that's terrifying enough?

People saying "this is a problem" is meaningless nonsense. It has no practical significance to anything. The only way you can build a genuine movement to challenge capitalism and the state, and influence people's politics is through struggle. In order to wage struggle you need organisation. What I am talking about is organisation. How is what you're talking about relevant to that?


Revolution makes me conservative because of how easily it turns in on itself and how quickly the psychology of crowds takes over and I don't think that should be manipulated for political expediency- and I realize I'm turning down the easy answer of being a demagogue, but that's because I think it's a hard question and that's getting people to free themselves. The possibility a revolution could become a dictatorship is my primary concern and I've hesitated about being on the far left- but those dam rages keep me coming back.

It's not a hard question at all. The answer, in the abstract, is simple: You build working class counterpower and seize the means of production. The question then is how do you achieve that? Looting is a demonstrable genesis for organising. It is an entry point for militants to build such a movement, making it politically incompetent to castigate those who participate in such activity.


Looting doesn't just look bad on TV, it makes bad revolutionaries because they still have the same idea that they have the power and 'might makes right'. I might be wrong, but surely as an anarchist- the danger that people will exercise freedom without a sense of responsibility for it's consequences somewhere along the lines has got to bother you? We live in a society where 'liberty' (for the ruling class) is a code-word for tyranny- so that's got to figure in our thinking of how we stop people from thinking that's ok, or is even the norm.

Firstly, I'm not an anarchist. Secondly, I don't really understand how you are making the link between what I said and people not taking responsibility. That's the whole point of building political organisation; for bringing politics and coherency to these insurrectionary actions. It's so people do take responsibility. That's the whole fucking point.

[Red Economist]

Your focus here seems to be primarily on some kind of "metanarrative" of intra-bourgeois behaviours in time of conflict. Your analysis doesn't relate to grassroot possibilities at all. You re so detached from what is possible and from what is necessary it is difficult to even understand whose side you're on.

This is true. I do leave out class analysis much of the time. The intra-bourgeois metanarative is very much part of the fact that the bourgeois state is in control and the 'intra-bourgeois' behavior is in the short-run all we've got because they hold the legal powers. we have allies amongst the bourgeoisie- but they will never be the majority. It will be a fairly conflicting set of the well-meaning social reformers and the conservatives who want to preserve society by making sure the proletariat isn' 'that' pissed off. But if that's there a way we can go about achieving our objectives with as little damage as possible- surely that's the best way?


Yes, the state reacts to conflict in this way, but what does that say about how people organise on the ground? Where is the entry point in your ramblings to actually discuss what happens in the community? I mean, from what you're saying we can understand how insurance companies and the religious right and the police and the government and the bourgeois media will respond, but you haven't actually talked about how the working class should respond...

Where is the entry point for the proletariat in a bourgeois democracy? Unless we get proletarians in a parliament/congress and they represent us- the bourgeois state will never work in the interests of the proletariat. But that is a hard truth to swallow.



The only reason the "system wins" in your dystopian analysis is because you haven't actually talked about the class. Within your narrative the working class don't seem to play any significant part, other than to stand ideally by and watch the bourgeois political system behave -- shockingly to you it seems -- like the bourgeois political system.

In the political struggle- the proletariat can only play a very limited role in changing the nature of the bourgeois state. regrettably it can never make a bourgeois state 'proletarian' so it will work in it's interests.
I am 'shocked' by the bourgeois political system, because I recognize that the bourgeoisie is as human as me and it disturbs me to think how the hell they got like that and how easy it would be for me to become like that.


The system can only win if the working class are unorganised, lacking confidence, unprepared to fight, collaborate, maintain leftist party strategies and follow a policy of de-escalation.

Only if they stay democratic. I live in the UK, but what I'm reading about the US is telling me it is seriously stretching the limits of what a 'free society' can do. I honestly think another terrorist attack and if you put a republican in the white house (possibly even a democrat, but I'm not sure) and the US could be a dictatorship. the constitution is only as real as people are willing to make it.


What is this course you talk about?

Anything that doesn't lead to a new and/or worse form of tyranny. If I thought that was siding with the bourgeoisie I would take it- but honestly, they have just completely lost it. they don't care about anything beyond their own noses. I don't know if that's their intention or just ideological blindness- but the effect is the same and that is profoundly troubling given the amount of power they exercise- even in a supposedly 'liberal' system with 'limited' government.
I'm a 'Communist' and I think you're lucky to be an anarchist as it doesn't come with so much baggage. The only reason I stay communist is because that is where the really difficult questions are and until they've got some really solid answers, not just a happy go lucky 'better luck next time', we can't have a revolution. As an ideology, neo-liberalism is practically based on a fear of totalitarianism- and yes, it's not telling the whole truth- but there's enough to make us think twice.
I honestly don't know if we actually have an understanding of human society which is sufficient to say that a 'communist revolution' could have a controlled or predictable outcome and not result in a new stalin, mao or pol pot; ultimately they needed people to do their bidding and could not have been a singular evil and we 'missed that'. But how could we- it takes decades for these things to develop, so how did we miss the development of a state whose political organization was based on industrialized terror? It was not a 'one-off' or a fluke; there was something 'more' going on there that we just couldn't or wouldn't see at the time.

And I sincerely try my best not to imagine what they would do today as the technologies have moved on and if we got it wrong it would easily be worse than last time. Imagine what a police state that actually wanted people to think 'state approved thoughts' could do with Facebook, Google etc. Think how much personal information is already out there and what could be done with it. I know the NSA is watching, and they're assholes, but they're are worse people out there- especially the ones who think evil deeds are justified by good intentions. I think the NSA just shit themselves about nuclear terrorism and stuff like that, it's not really a conscious, planned design; that would appear to be the difference.The internet censorship in China is not the limit of what this technology is capable of being used for. The fact that Facebook could manipulate people's moods by content control should be a BIG warning of what happens if someone really wanted to use it against people and it's potential propaganda value. I think it was geobeols who said something like it's about getting people to talk to each other about the things you want them to talk about- and what would he do with something like Facebook; post subtley, pro government messages on as their facebook status without them knowing and influence people that way?
So if a central feature of my politics is my conservative unease, I hope you'll understand why.


The only reason people go to prison for looting is because the far left didn't do their job properly.

No. We can break the law and we'll go to prison- but do you honestly think they wouldn't try to get us in there anyway? it's easier for them to take us out of the equation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is true. I do leave out class analysis much of the time. The intra-bourgeois metanarative is very much part of the fact that the bourgeois state is in control and the 'intra-bourgeois' behavior is in the short-run all we've got because they hold the legal powers. we have allies amongst the bourgeoisie- but they will never be the majority. It will be a fairly conflicting set of the well-meaning social reformers and the conservatives who want to preserve society by making sure the proletariat isn' 'that' pissed off. But if that's there a way we can go about achieving our objectives with as little damage as possible- surely that's the best way?



Where is the entry point for the proletariat in a bourgeois democracy? Unless we get proletarians in a parliament/congress and they represent us- the bourgeois state will never work in the interests of the proletariat. But that is a hard truth to swallow.

An even harder truth to swallow is that the bourgeois state will never work in the interests of the proletariat, full stop. It just happens to be the truth.

[bropasaran]

The most important thing with any struggle is organisation.
No it isn't. If a struggle is disorganized but has mass support, it will achieve it's goals or at least make the situation better; if a struggle is organized to perfection but acts in a way to alienate the general population, it will alienate that general population from both it's short term and it's long term goals.


This is bourgeois nonsense.Calling reality bourgois nonsense doen't make it go away. It's a clear tendency on every major protest- when it goes violent, older people leave, families, people with children, leave, women leave, the people who stay are almost exclusively young males, which only helps to achieve what I mentioned in the previous passage.

These two facts are why the police, as a rule, incites violence by escalating the atmosphere of the situation and by using provocateurs. If the pop-anarchist hormone-driven worship of riots as something that's going to promote some progressive cause were to be true, the police would never do that, and the media would never portray riots, in fear that it would make the leftist stuggles (more) popular. But the police and the media do exactly that, and the rioting never does anything then to to reinforce, among the majority of the working people, the caricatured image of leftist tendencies as being the ideologies of disorder and savagery.

[The Feral Underclass]

No it isn't. If a struggle is disorganized but has mass support, it will achieve it's goals or at least make the situation better

Yes it is. How can a movement have goals if it is disorganised?


if a struggle is organized to perfection but acts in a way to alienate the general population, it will alienate that general population from both it's short term and it's long term goals.

Then it is not effective. But you can't have effectiveness without organisation.


Calling reality bourgois nonsense doen't make it go away.

Based upon what is this a reality? It is certainly the reality of the narrative that the bourgeois media establish. I see no evidence within my community and those that I have connections with that rioting and looting is alienating to them.


It's a clear tendency on every major protest- when it goes violent, older people leave, families, people with children, leave, women leave, the people who stay are almost exclusively young males, which only aides achieving the point I made in the previous passage.

So your basis for this "reality" is how people respond in spontaneous, unpoliticised protest environments? That's absurd.


These two facts are why the police, as a rule, incites violence by escalating the atmosphere of the situation and by using provocateurs. If the pop-anarchist hormone-driven worship of riots as something that's going to anything good for some progressive cause were to be true, the police would never do that, and the media would never portray riots, in fear that it would make the leftist stuggles (more) popular. But the police and the media do exactly that, and the rioting never does anything then to to reinforce, among the majority of the working people, the caricatured image of leftist tendencies as being the ideologies of disorder and savagery.

The police incite violence because it gives them them a justification to use violence. The bourgeois media will always negatively report on riots because that's their ideological role.

In any case, I lack confidence in your credibility to make assessments on how the working class respond to riot and looting phenomenons. The fact that you rely upon bourgeois stereotypes of anarchists, as well as the response of the police and bourgeois media as part of your argument only reinforces your lack of credibility.

I have made a very clear argument in this thread for why rioting and looting are significant to political struggle and you have ignored it. Instead you have used this opportunity to reinforce bourgeois media stereotypes of anarchists and implied that the bourgeois state would be less severe given the right conditions.

As I said: bourgeois nonsense.

[Red Economist]

You haven't answered any of my questions. Is that because you don't have any answers?

No, I don't have the answer. I'm not trying to take them ready made from a pre-existing ideology. The Twenieth century proved us all wrong and we have to re-think things.


That is absolutely not what the basis of the "entire system" is. The basis of the "entire system" are the means of productions.

You're forgetting the active role of the superstructure/ideology in determining how people behave. How people think limits what people can do. If people think human nature is selfish- it becomes self-fulling and they perpetuate the system.


The only reason it could make people feel guilty is if bourgeois ideology is reinforced, which is precisely what you are doing.

As I said in my previous post, which you have ignored, the best possible outcome for looting and rioting is that it takes on a political dimension. That is the job of communist militants.

it doesn't automatically follow that looting will take on the political dimension you want it to. If people loot out of impulse- how is that going to lead to conscious realization of a political objective? it can't- the conflict between individual 'want' as in consumerism is not compatable with the kind of altruistic behavior that is required to build and work in an organization.



Seize the means of production. That is one of grand objectives of a working class counterpower.

looting means your seizing the products of the means of production- not the means of production.


The internal framework of a political organisation should always reflect the society you wish to create, but in terms of its objectives, this is class war; the nature of the conflict dictates the way it is fought.

And I am not promoting looting as a strategy. I am merely understanding it in its context and providing an analysis for its significance as a phenomenon.

So, if the nature of class conflict necessitated state terror- you would support it? even though past history shows it ended up becoming totally indiscriminate, rather than the kind of surgical attitude it would have needed to be (even saying that gives me chills).


What's the practical difference?

The difference between a convention and a law, is that if you break a convention is a kind on non-verbal agreement. Nothing happens. If you break the law, you go to prison.


Firstly, I am not putting anyone anywhere. I am not telling people to go out and loot, nor am I promoting it as a revolutionary strategy. People loot bof the reasons I have stated. Our response as communists (although I'm beginning to think you're not a communist) is to give meaning to that phenomenon; understand it in context and use it to build a working class counterpower. Secondly, the cops don't need a reason to act the way they do: That's why the problem in Ferguson happened in the first place. You seem to be confused about that, since you've repeated it twice now.

The Cops do need a reason to act the way they do- racism. They assume that black people are more likely criminal and therefore act as if that is true irrespective of whether it is. Cops are still human- just fucked up.

Surely the meaning of the pheneomena is self-evident? "I want an Iphone- I take an Iphone"? What possible meaning could there be to this other than wanting revenge against the status quo for not giving us the things we expect to have?


Ugh. No it isn't a coherent process, that's why I said it's necessary for militants to provide that coherency. Also, it can only be contrary to "collectivist ethics" if those objects were somehow the ownership of the "collective." They're not really, are they? They are products of working class labour, owned by capitalists and used to make profit.

You cannot control the process. it's a spontaneous one. The only way there could be control over that process is by self-control.

Surely in a communist society they're are still going to be conflicts over resources. Therefore, there will be a system to allocate those resources and not everyone will get what they want. This is particularly true because consumerism inflates people's want so they demand more to keep the corporations profit margins up. The important thing is to try and find a way to make sure they get what they need. There will still be a version of 'thou shall not steal' under communism. We cannot share things indefinitely- there is a physical limit to what we have.


The moral case for a collective response is made by the police. it is the sense of being turned into helpless victims that makes people want to defend themselves. They do it all the time- so why give them an ounce of legitimacy at the last moment? If you know democracy isn't going to work, why do you stop people from finding it out by themselves.
people can only find this out in practice by inching there way to freedom.


I don't really understand how this paragraph relates to what I said...

I said: "What this allows for is a collective response to the police and bailiffs coming to break down people's doors; to people being sent to prison or to evictions. What this organisation does is build upon that confidence that has come into existence as a result of these riots and looting, and promotes a self-awareness amongst the class that politicises them and empowers them to take further action. It's what we call in the business: Escalation."

How does what you said relate to this?

'Escalation'- let the police escalate it to the point of no return/revolution. not you.


People saying "this is a problem" is meaningless nonsense. It has no practical significance to anything. The only way you can build a genuine movement to challenge capitalism and the state, and influence people's politics is through struggle. In order to wage struggle you need organisation. What I am talking about is organisation. How is what you're talking about relevant to that?

The Vanguardist pattern of organisation with intellectuals leading the proletariat (the leninist model) created a new class system. (there's some dispute over terminology there, but you know what I'm saying). A political party is a vanguard, so how is reproducing the system of organization that got us into the biggest mess of the twentieth century not going to have the same results?


It's not a hard question at all. The answer, in the abstract, is simple: You build working class counterpower and seize the means of production. The question then is how do you achieve that? Looting is a demonstrable genesis for organising. It is an entry point for militants to build such a movement, making it politically incompetent to castigate those who participate in such activity.

That's what we did before. It didn't work. Something was missing in that whole process which meant we produced a totalitarian system. 'human nature' is the wrong answer only because it's idealist, but there has to be a material cause for why communism created a society which was less free, not more free. We need a movement that allows for internal dissent or else it cannot, even in a dialectical sense of creative destruction, evolve and change itself. The huge amount of factionalism shows that the biggest out let of dissent is to leave an organisation- not change it from the inside.


Firstly, I'm not an anarchist. Secondly, I don't really understand how you are making the link between what I said and people not taking responsibility. That's the whole point of building political organisation; for bringing politics and coherency to these insurrectionary actions. It's so people do take responsibility. That's the whole fucking point.

The way that reads means you assume that looting is an insurrectionary action and that your following the looters, not leading them. You're not taking responsibility- you're using people's lack of responsibility as a subversive cover for your own politics.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is true. I do leave out class analysis much of the time. The intra-bourgeois metanarative is very much part of the fact that the bourgeois state is in control and the 'intra-bourgeois' behavior is in the short-run all we've got because they hold the legal powers. we have allies amongst the bourgeoisie- but they will never be the majority. It will be a fairly conflicting set of the well-meaning social reformers and the conservatives who want to preserve society by making sure the proletariat isn' 'that' pissed off. But if that's there a way we can go about achieving our objectives with as little damage as possible- surely that's the best way?



Where is the entry point for the proletariat in a bourgeois democracy? Unless we get proletarians in a parliament/congress and they represent us- the bourgeois state will never work in the interests of the proletariat. But that is a hard truth to swallow.



In the political struggle- the proletariat can only play a very limited role in changing the nature of the bourgeois state. regrettably it can never make a bourgeois state 'proletarian' so it will work in it's interests.
I am 'shocked' by the bourgeois political system, because I recognize that the bourgeoisie is as human as me and it disturbs me to think how the hell they got like that and how easy it would be for me to become like that.



Only if they stay democratic. I live in the UK, but what I'm reading about the US is telling me it is seriously stretching the limits of what a 'free society' can do. I honestly think another terrorist attack and if you put a republican in the white house (possibly even a democrat, but I'm not sure) and the US could be a dictatorship. the constitution is only as real as people are willing to make it.



Anything that doesn't lead to a new and/or worse form of tyranny. If I thought that was siding with the bourgeoisie I would take it- but honestly, they have just completely lost it. they don't care about anything beyond their own noses. I don't know if that's their intention or just ideological blindness- but the effect is the same and that is profoundly troubling given the amount of power they exercise- even in a supposedly 'liberal' system with 'limited' government.
I'm a 'Communist' and I think you're lucky to be an anarchist as it doesn't come with so much baggage. The only reason I stay communist is because that is where the really difficult questions are and until they've got some really solid answers, not just a happy go lucky 'better luck next time', we can't have a revolution. As an ideology, neo-liberalism is practically based on a fear of totalitarianism- and yes, it's not telling the whole truth- but there's enough to make us think twice.
I honestly don't know if we actually have an understanding of human society which is sufficient to say that a 'communist revolution' could have a controlled or predictable outcome and not result in a new stalin, mao or pol pot; ultimately they needed people to do their bidding and could not have been a singular evil and we 'missed that'. But how could we- it takes decades for these things to develop, so how did we miss the development of a state whose political organization was based on industrialized terror? It was not a 'one-off' or a fluke; there was something 'more' going on there that we just couldn't or wouldn't see at the time.

And I sincerely try my best not to imagine what they would do today as the technologies have moved on and if we got it wrong it would easily be worse than last time. Imagine what a police state that actually wanted people to think 'state approved thoughts' could do with Facebook, Google etc. Think how much personal information is already out there and what could be done with it. I know the NSA is watching, and they're assholes, but they're are worse people out there- especially the ones who think evil deeds are justified by good intentions. I think the NSA just shit themselves about nuclear terrorism and stuff like that, it's not really a conscious, planned design; that would appear to be the difference.The internet censorship in China is not the limit of what this technology is capable of being used for. The fact that Facebook could manipulate people's moods by content control should be a BIG warning of what happens if someone really wanted to use it against people and it's potential propaganda value. I think it was geobeols who said something like it's about getting people to talk to each other about the things you want them to talk about- and what would he do with something like Facebook; post subtley, pro government messages on as their facebook status without them knowing and influence people that way?
So if a central feature of my politics is my conservative unease, I hope you'll understand why.



No. We can break the law and we'll go to prison- but do you honestly think they wouldn't try to get us in there anyway? it's easier for them to take us out of the equation.

Behold. The rotting corpse of the left in all its putrefied glory.

[The Feral Underclass]

You're forgetting the active role of the superstructure/ideology in determining how people behave. How people think limits what people can do. If people think human nature is selfish- it becomes self-fulling and they perpetuate the system.

No, I'm not forgetting about it. I am simply correcting your statement that the entire system is predicated on the human nature argument. It is not.


it doesn't automatically follow that looting will take on the political dimension you want it to. If people loot out of impulse- how is that going to lead to conscious realization of a political objective? it can't- the conflict between individual 'want' as in consumerism is not compatable with the kind of altruistic behavior that is required to build and work in an organization.

Do you have any experience in organising within riot communities? Your assessment is simply wrong. In the August Riots of 2011, many rioters looted for their families. One man looted baby clothes and diapers.

Your understanding of looting is based on what the bourgeois media tell you and not on practical engagement within these communities. The notion that people's desire for consumer goods within the confines of a political revolt cannot reach a political dimension is demonstrably false.

People in the London riots wanted direction. They wanted the politics so that they could expand what they were doing. The left failed to provide it. If you read the article I posted in this thread, you can clearly see that there is an effort being made in Ferguson to co-ordinate and escalate action in a political dimension and that people are responding.


looting means your seizing the products of the means of production- not the means of production.

I didn't say it was...


So, if the nature of class conflict necessitated state terror- you would support it? even though past history shows it ended up becoming totally indiscriminate, rather than the kind of surgical attitude it would have needed to be (even saying that gives me chills).

I reject the premise of your question. But do I support class violence against our enemies? The answer is yes.


The difference between a convention and a law, is that if you break a convention is a kind on non-verbal agreement. Nothing happens. If you break the law, you go to prison.

Is it a fact that everyone who breaks the law goes to prison?


The Cops do need a reason to act the way they do- racism. They assume that black people are more likely criminal and therefore act as if that is true irrespective of whether it is. Cops are still human- just fucked up.

If the cops needed a reason every time they acted the way they do, Mike Brown wouldn't have been killed.


Surely the meaning of the pheneomena is self-evident? "I want an Iphone- I take an Iphone"? What possible meaning could there be to this other than wanting revenge against the status quo for not giving us the things we expect to have?

The meaning of communism. A belief in the possibility that you can fundamentally alter the nature of reality. That if you can loot, you can revolt.


You cannot control the process. it's a spontaneous one. The only way there could be control over that process is by self-control.

That's why you need political organisation in order to intervene.


Surely in a communist society they're are still going to be conflicts over resources. Therefore, there will be a system to allocate those resources and not everyone will get what they want. This is particularly true because consumerism inflates people's want so they demand more to keep the corporations profit margins up. The important thing is to try and find a way to make sure they get what they need. There will still be a version of 'thou shall not steal' under communism. We cannot share things indefinitely- there is a physical limit to what we have.

You're conflating a functioning communist society with class struggle.


'Escalation'- let the police escalate it to the point of no return/revolution. not you.

Fuck you! That's my response to that.


The Vanguardist pattern of organisation with intellectuals leading the proletariat (the leninist model) created a new class system. (there's some dispute over terminology there, but you know what I'm saying). A political party is a vanguard, so how is reproducing the system of organization that got us into the biggest mess of the twentieth century not going to have the same results?

Why are you saying this to me?


That's what we did before. It didn't work. Something was missing in that whole process which meant we produced a totalitarian system. 'human nature' is the wrong answer only because it's idealist, but there has to be a material cause for why communism created a society which was less free, not more free. We need a movement that allows for internal dissent or else it cannot, even in a dialectical sense of creative destruction, evolve and change itself. The huge amount of factionalism shows that the biggest out let of dissent is to leave an organisation- not change it from the inside.

What was missing was actual worker control.


The way that reads means you assume that looting is an insurrectionary action and that your following the looters, not leading them. You're not taking responsibility- you're using people's lack of responsibility as a subversive cover for your own politics.

Clarify for me what this responsibility is? What responsibility is that we should be taking?

[Red Economist]

Behold. The rotting corpse of the left in all its putrefied glory.Correction. Our rotting corpses if we mess with forces we don't understand. Our rotting corpses swinging from the noose of the fascists who use our ideology and our name to empower themselves over the people we wish to serve. Our putrefied glory if we become the creators of a revolution that then swallows it's children and their future. Our names being erased from the history books as we're tortured to confess crimes we didn't commit by our own side. Our Future creating the next gulags, the next killing fields, the next nightmares of the twenty-first century, the next secret police that breaks down the door to stop people from thinking and living for themselves, from loving who they want and being with who they want. Our Mistake if we get this shit wrong, if we don't learn the lessons it took the deaths of nearly fifty to a hundred million people to know we got it wrong. Our tragedy for wanting to better ourselves, only to find we are the victims of what the liberals call, our own 'human nature' because we thought it better to change everyone else rather than change ourselves. Our Legacy to live and die as the prisoners in a system of our own making.

And if you can't accept that- you exactly the same as the cowards who will kill us because they've got orders and want to live just one more day in servitude- whether red or white. This shit scares me. It should scare you too.

(edit: this is my last post for today, so feel free to come up with whatever you want. But right now, I'd say you are hiding behind your ideology because it's an easier answer than to accept what we collectively did and could easily do again.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Correction. Our rotting corpses if we mess with forces we don't understand. Our rotting corpses swinging from the noose of the fascists who use our ideology and our name to empower themselves over the people we wish to serve. Our putrefied glory if we become the creators of a revolution that then swallows it's children and their future. Our names being erased from the history books as we're tortured to confess crimes we didn't commit by our own side. Our Future creating the next gulags, the next killing fields, the next nightmares of the twenty-first century, the next secret police that breaks down the door to stop people from thinking and living for themselves, from loving who they want and being with who they want. Our Mistake if we get this shit wrong, if we don't learn the lessons it took the deaths of nearly fifty to a hundred million people to know we got it wrong. Our tragedy for wanting to better ourselves, only to find we are the victims of what the liberals call, our own 'human nature' because we thought it better to change everyone else rather than change ourselves. Our Legacy to live and die as the prisoners in a system of our own making.

And if you can't accept that- you exactly the same as the cowards who will kill us because they've got orders and want to live just one more day in servitude- whether red or white. This shit scares me. It should scare you too.

(edit: this is my last post for today, so feel free to come up with whatever you want. But right now, I'd say you are hiding behind your ideology because it's an easier answer than to accept what we collectively did and could easily do again.)

I have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about :confused:

I don't understand how this has gone from a discussion about how to politicise riots to the murder of hundreds of millions of people...I can't work out if you've just not understood what I've been saying or whether you're insane

[helot]

I have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about :confused:


basically that we should be too scared to do anything:confused:

[The Feral Underclass]

basically that we should be too scared to do anything:confused:

Well that saves a lot of time and effort.

[Geiseric]

OMG...they threw brick through a window. OMG they burned down a cop car. OMG some cops got killed. OMG they burned down the policestation. OMG they looted a store.


Ok. Lets all go home and pack it up. Lets forget this ever happened. Because...you know...we might offend the police and the middle class/petit-bourgeois shopkeepers who then clamor for police action.

You're a quack. Stop acting like you know what you're talking about because you couldnt tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

[Sharia Lawn]

You're a quack. Stop acting like you know what you're talking about because you couldnt tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

There is nothing of substance here to respond to. :confused:

[PhoenixAsh]

You're a quack. Stop acting like you know what you're talking about because you couldnt tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

You are absolutely correct. I can't tell the difference between the bourgeois parrots here and the bourgeois.

Now...don't you have some sports fans that you need to accuse of pedophilia? Go on...hop along now little troll.

[Geiseric]

Who even cares. I mean, yeah, let's be extra careful so the petite-bourgeoisie, the media and so on don't get offended. That won't get you very far.

You dont even participate in organizing demonstrations for anti police brutality. I know this because you're a spart, and as usual your groups abysmal politics fails to surprise me.

[Geiseric]

Unless you consider all violence directed against LE as self-defense, your response doesn't really clarify your previous statement distinguishing looting from violence.

I said explicitly muliple times that "violence against the state is different from violence against petit bourgeois business." If you cant understand that then you shouldnt participate in politics, like I suggested earlier.

[PhoenixAsh]

I said explicitly muliple times that "violence against the state is different from violence against petit bourgeois business." If you cant understand that then you shouldnt participate in politics, like I suggested earlier.

Aha. So basically you are merely arguing for the protection of the petit-bourgeois and their property. Not the first time you are doing that or parrot petit-bourgeois mentality and morals.

[Sharia Lawn]

I said explicitly muliple times that "violence against the state is different from violence against petit bourgeois business." If you cant understand that then you shouldnt participate in politics, like I suggested earlier.

Do you remember what my response to your statement was?

[Lily Briscoe]

I really don't understand why people even bother engaging 'Geiseric', I can't imagine there is a single person who reads revleft who takes anything he says even remotely seriously. Probably better for the sake of discussion to simply ignore him...

[Geiseric]

Aha. So basically you are merely arguing for the protection of the petit-bourgeois and their property. Not the first time you are doing that or parrot petit-bourgeois mentality and morals.

The small petit bourgeoisie, who only employ their families and several other people, will at some point need to be bought over to the side of the working class. It isnt rocket science, read about the russian revolution which was put togarher by real socialists and anarchists (who didnt loot corner stores because that makes you look like an idiot, they already realized this) and see how real politics work. I cant believe so many petit theorists have become mods. Looting and "direct action" is the petty theory here, not the side trying to keep the demonstration safe from cops, who are waiting for people like you to crack down on their real goal.

The cops didnt even protect the stores being looted, intentionally. They were all over the fucking town and they were waiting for looting to happen so they could take advantage of the idiots for their own benefit.

[The Feral Underclass]

People like Geiseric are too busy trying to make everyone's lives under capitalism as comfortable as possible to concern himself with revolutionary strategy. He sees himself more as a social worker than a communist.

[PhoenixAsh]

The small petit bourgeoisie, who only employ their families and several other people, will at some point need to be bought over to the side of the working class. It isnt rocket science, read about the russian revolution which was put togarher by real socialists and anarchists (who didnt loot corner stores because that makes you look like an idiot, they already realized this) and see how real politics work. I cant believe so many petit theorists have become mods. Looting and "direct action" is the petty theory here, not the side trying to keep the demonstration safe from cops, who are waiting for people like you to crack down on their real goal.

The cops didnt even protect the stores being looted, intentionally. They were all over the fucking town and they were waiting for looting to happen so they could take advantage of the idiots for their own benefit.


Ow... So now the petit-bourgeois are needed for a proletarian revolution.

Sure Geiseric. Whatever.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You dont even participate in organizing demonstrations for anti police brutality. I know this because you're a spart, and as usual your groups abysmal politics fails to surprise me.

So, because I don't "even participate in organizing demonstrations for anti police brutality" (sic), which you know because you're such an expert on Trotskyist politics (even though you don't even know who the Lambertistes in Germany are), I can't point out the basic class line between the proletariat and the petite-bourgeoisie. Fair enough. Now, in real-life politics, what you're doing here is called cop-baiting, and it's a really clever shortcut to never again being taken seriously, at best. Perhaps the SO isn't for you, but the SEP is really into calling everyone CIA operatives, police provocateurs, FBI-GPU agents and so on, perhaps you should think about joining? Or perhaps you're too busy weeping over the poor petite bourgeoisie.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

People like Geiseric are too busy trying to make everyone's lives under capitalism as comfortable as possible to concern himself with revolutionary strategy. He sees himself more as social worker than a communist.

Hey man, government benefits are pretty sweet

[The Feral Underclass]

Hey man, government benefits are pretty sweet

That's true. Free healthcare and education is also pretty cool...Thanks Geiseric.

[Luís Henrique]

What is this "outside"?

Particularly, in the light of quantum theory...

Seriously, revolution is impossible in one town, and, even if it was, it would be unlikely that Ferguson would be the town. Reaction obviously plays with spontaneism - the poor people of Ferguson don't want to clash with police and destroy bank agencies or groceries - and requires that only those who have been whipped talk about whips (to which a part of the politically correct left bows down immediately, of course). Wannabe adventurerists of course ask themselves, or revleft, whether they should go to Ferguson to do the revolution (as they have asked before about Peru, Chiapas, Greece, Nepal, and perhaps the Middle Earth).

And we should focus on solidarity where we are, not on whether we are "inside" or "outside" or should move inside the geographical place lest we remain outside the political issue.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

"white european heterosexual male"?

Obvious codeword for "Tchaikowski".

Luís Henrique

[Per Levy]

The small petit bourgeoisie, who only employ their families and several other people, will at some point need to be bought over to the side of the working class.

class colaborationist nonsense. but im curious, how do you want to win them over geis? telling them that their buisnesess will all stop existing and their proberty seized?


It isnt rocket science, read about the russian revolution which was put togarher by real socialists and anarchists

like you geis? also, the usa of 2014 are of course the same as russia in 1917, right? so geis tell me where are all the poor peasants? oh they dont exist... ah well.


(who didnt loot corner stores because that makes you look like an idiot, they already realized this)

yeah the bolsheviks never looted stores or robbed banks... oh wait.


and see how real politics work.

and what is this real poltics you speak of geis? calling everything you dont like ultraleft and brag a lot about your "college organizing"?


You dont even participate in organizing demonstrations for anti police brutality. I know this because you're a spart, and as usual your groups abysmal politics fails to surprise me.

well then, tell me again what revolutionary politcs do your german comrades do in the spd? i always wanted to know that geis(guilt by assosiation is always nice). also, all this judging of people you hardly know anything about, do you act like this in real life too or are you just that judgemental on here?

[Geiseric]

class colaborationist nonsense. but im curious, how do you want to win them over geis? telling them that their buisnesess will all stop existing and their proberty seized?



like you geis? also, the usa of 2014 are of course the same as russia in 1917, right? so geis tell me where are all the poor peasants? oh they dont exist... ah well.



yeah the bolsheviks never looted stores or robbed banks... oh wait.



and what is this real poltics you speak of geis? calling everything you dont like ultraleft and brag a lot about your "college organizing"?



well then, tell me again what revolutionary politcs do your german comrades do in the spd? i always wanted to know that geis(guilt by assosiation is always nice). also, all this judging of people you hardly know anything about, do you act like this in real life too or are you just that judgemental on here?

Robbing banks is much different than looting a store. If its so revolutionary why dont we just all do it now and tomorrow we'll live in a socialist utopia. You can create socialism in your town, just loot all of the stores and start a riot. Also you can argue with marx and engels about the petit bourgeois question, im not making that up.

[The Feral Underclass]

I really don't understand why people even bother engaging 'Geiseric', I can't imagine there is a single person who reads revleft who takes anything he says even remotely seriously. Probably better for the sake of discussion to simply ignore him...

I would just like to reiterate Strix's post.

[Ele'ill]

Robbing banks is much different than looting a store.

Why




If its so revolutionary why dont we just all do it now and tomorrow we'll live in a socialist utopia.

Do you understand what communism is?

[Geiseric]

The petty bourgeois is destined to lose their conflict with the petit bourgeoisie, and become either working class or lumpen. This is how the working class was created in the first place. So it doesnt make sense for the working class to pit the petit bourgeois against itself, in fact the middle classes can be the determining factor, in countries where there exists a peasantry or a large amount of small businesses. The haute bourgeoisie strives to monopolize the MOP at the detriment of the petty bourgeois. Thus temporary alliances with the petty bourgeois in a town like Ferguson can proove to be crucial.

This is orthodox marxist theory, read chapter 3 of the communist manifesto if you want more elaboration.

[Geiseric]

Why





Do you understand what communism is?

Because banks are owned by the haute bourgeoisie wheras corner stores are owned by the petit bourgeoisie who are themselves in debt to the former anyways?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The petty bourgeois is destined to lose their conflict with the petit bourgeoisie, and become either working class or lumpen. This is how the working class was created in the first place. So it doesnt make sense for the working class to pit the petit bourgeois against itself, in fact the middle classes can be the determining factor, in countries where there exists a peasantry or a large amount of small businesses. The haute bourgeoisie strives to monopolize the MOP at the detriment of the petty bourgeois. Thus temporary alliances with the petty bourgeois in a town like Ferguson can proove to be crucial.

This is orthodox marxist theory, read chapter 3 of the communist manifesto if you want more elaboration.

And here we have it, Stalin's old canard of a "civil war with the peasantry", spouted by an ostensible Trotskyist.

[Luís Henrique]

Why

Because bank robbery, whatever its other qualities or lack thereof, fulfills a material role in struggle - providing cash for the revolutionary organisation.

Looting only serves to create a "fuzzy warmth" on the hearts of looters.

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

Because bank robbery, whatever its other qualities or lack thereof, fulfills a material role in struggle - providing cash for the revolutionary organisation.

Looting only serves to create a "fuzzy warmth" on the hearts of looters.

Luís Henrique


I don't know if you're being serious but at the juncture in which bank robberies start being used for revolutionary purposes I think rupture involving mass looting would be just as revolutionary in providing communities with the wealth they have been surrounded by but unable to engage with for the last however many hundreds of years. That stuff is theirs. Currently these types of actions take on a more individual based focus but I don't really have any issues with that.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Rioting and destruction of property and illegal drug use and jaywalking and assault and stealing and such is all very illegal. We need to obey and respect the law, I mean, had Michael Brown just respected the law a little more, we wouldn't b protesting now. But hey, we're here. Might as well take some pix and peddle Trotsky.

[Lily Briscoe]

Personally, I think moralizing about what is basically an expression of working class anger on the one hand (in an attempt to appeal to small business owners, no less), and fetishizing looting and riots on the other hand, are both pretty bad approaches.

I don't really see much 'potential' in any of this. Like I said, I think it's an expression of working class anger, but unfortunately I think it's an impotent one. And for the people pointing toward 'escalation' as the way forward, I basically think the result of "escalation" will be that more people are brutalized by the police and that's about it. I don't see "a way forward" here.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't really see much 'potential' in any of this. Like I said, I think it's an expression of working class anger, but unfortunately I think it's an impotent one.

It's only impotent because the left is impotent. An expression of working class anger can only be impotent if communists fail to do their job properly.


And for the people pointing toward 'escalation' as the way forward, I basically think the result of "escalation" will be that more people are brutalized by the police and that's about it.

That's only possible if communist militants fail in their tasks. Police brutality can only exist if people aren't organised.


I don't see "a way forward" here.

If you cannot see a way forward here, then there is no way forward anywhere.

[Red Economist]

I have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about :confused:

I don't understand how this has gone from a discussion about how to politicise riots to the murder of hundreds of millions of people...I can't work out if you've just not understood what I've been saying or whether you're insane

Unfortunately the latter. I occasionally 'flip',and it's caused me a lot of problems and proven to be very destructive to my personal life. This is not the first time it's happened, but it is just the first time on revleft. so I will just bow out of this discussion and might get a self-restricted ban for a while. I'll see how I feel about it tomorrow. Just trust me when I say 'mental illness sucks'. My apologies to The Anarchist Tension, 870 and Helot (I think that's everyone I quoted) as this was unprovoked, genuinely insane but unintended trolling. It just 'swallows' you up and robs you of the ability to think straight, so I didn't 'know' what I was saying by the end- it's like a kind of tunnel vision when it happens. So I'm sorry about that.

[Ele'ill]

Personally, I think moralizing about what is basically an expression of working class anger on the one hand (in an attempt to appeal to small business owners, no less), and fetishizing looting and riots on the other hand, are both pretty bad approaches.


I understand your points here, at least where you're coming from, but I disagree at least atm. At what point does actual 'working class anger' stop being labeled by leftists as 'ah its just working class anger' and move into a realm of 'yeah angry folks burned and looted following a street march against police for murdering someone in their community'? Simply because the left is carrying a running commentary on events from what they see as the sidelines doesn't mean those sidelines are real, it doesn't mean the terrain they acknowledge is genuine and set in stone, it doesn't mean that sections of 'the working class' (whatever that means in 2014) can't revolt and learn and escalate.

[The Feral Underclass]

I get very confused when reading these threads about just what exactly it is you're all waiting for. I mean, what is the specific event that is going to occur when you think "here is the way forward"? I don't understand what it is you think is going to happen that is somehow going to make you realise the potential of something. It fucking baffles me.

It's like you're all just sat behind your computers going "well this isn't the moment. That's not the thing that's supposed happen"...Are you waiting for a sign or something? I don't get it.

[Hrafn]

We're waiting for the Rapture.

[PhoenixAsh]

On the third day of a new moon when the four horsemen of the revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Marx and Trotsky ride out then, and only then, it will be time.

It is foretold.

[Sharia Lawn]

We're waiting for the Rapture.

No, we're waiting for an overweight bearded guy to scream at us what to do.

[PhoenixAsh]

But first the hobbits need to get the hammer and sickle to mount Doom.

[Le Libérer]

I didn't realise this was a marketing campaign.



Anyone who doesn't see the class dynamics of looting is either a cop or bourgeois politico.



It's called re-appropriation. Why do you have a problem with working class people taking back products of their labour?

This. And further more, after reading 7 pages in this thread, it seems many of you consider destruction of property as violence.

For instance: Geiseric (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=25912):

said explicitly muliple times that "violence against the state is different from violence against petit bourgeois business." If you cant understand that then you shouldnt participate in politics, like I suggested earlier. Destruction of property is not violence, it's vandalism. There is an huge difference between smashing up a store front and causing physical harm to a person unless of course you think of people as the ethical equivalent to property.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No, we're waiting for an overweight bearded guy to scream at us what to do.

Mao didn't have facial hair. Stupid.

[helot]

Mao didn't have facial hair. Stupid.


He'd have looked way sexier if he did though.

[human strike]

In 2011 after the Stokes Croft riots (or "Tesco Riots" as some, especially in the police and media referred to it) in Bristol it was said a lot about how the rioters were outsides and, "Not even from Stokes Croft." Now, Stokes Croft is a single street of corner shops, cafes and bars; barely anybody lives on it. They always chat this "outside agitators" bollocks. Who is and who isn't allowed to riot? If you're from the same city? County? State? It's just more of that stupid legitimate vs. illegitimate protester shit.

[Lily Briscoe]

It's only impotent because the left is impotent. An expression of working class anger can only be impotent if communists fail to do their job properly.

That's only possible if communist militants fail in their tasks. Police brutality can only exist if people aren't organised.

I don't really see it this way. The left in the US is certainly completely impotent. But I think that's a symptom of the weakness of the working class here rather than the cause of it. Even if the left wasn't impotent though, I really don't think the left is the determinant factor. This conception seems to basically reduce the working class to the status of some directionless mass to be manipulated by leftists, the strength or weakness of which can be reduced to how successful communist militants are in carrying out 'their tasks'. I don't think it works that way.

At any rate, regardless of the state of the left, I think riots by their nature tend to be pretty much impervious to any sort of 'political intervention', even moreso when they occur in the absence of more widespread social and political upheaval. Out of interest, though, what in concrete terms do you think 'leftists' (or 'communist militants', if you prefer) in the area should be doing in relation to the events in Ferguson?

[Lily Briscoe]

I understand your points here, at least where you're coming from, but I disagree at least atm. At what point does actual 'working class anger' stop being labeled by leftists as 'ah its just working class anger' and move into a realm of 'yeah angry folks burned and looted following a street march against police for murdering someone in their community'?

What is the distinction here? "Angry [people*] burned and looted following a street march against police for murdering someone in their community" seems like a pretty clear expression of "working class anger", right?


Simply because the left is carrying a running commentary on events from what they see as the sidelines doesn't mean those sidelines are real, it doesn't mean the terrain they acknowledge is genuine and set in stone, it doesn't mean that sections of 'the working class' (whatever that means in 2014) can't revolt and learn and escalate.I don't know if you would mind rewording this? I'm not quite getting what you're saying.

On a side note, I think 'the working class' means the same thing in 2014 that it's always meant under capitalism...

*:grin:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

He'd have looked way sexier if he did though.

http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/20110905-mao-01.jpg

He was still a teen sensation tho

http://i0.wp.com/www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Chairman_Mao_Death_2.jpg?resize=560%2C381

[Lily Briscoe]

Man, can you guys post that stuff somewhere else, it's already hard enough to sift through this thread.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Man, can you guys post that stuff somewhere else, it's already hard enough to sift through this thread.

Ermergerhd merlti-merdier!? Der ferkkkkkkkk

[Futility Personified]

The right wing understandings of this i've heard are pretty shocking. One person was a proponent of "he smoked cannabis or shoplifted, he got what was coming to him". Another completely downplayed any idea of racism on behalf of the police.

Ultimately, when it comes to winning people over the media will always present what happens in a negative light. There will never be a positive perception on behalf of the rioters. Conservative types will not come over to our side of the fence, and liberals will always be inclined to shop out revolutionaries, because we have fundamentally different goals from them.

When these things occur, this is where leftists should be. Preventing worker on worker violence, but not interfering with expropriations or vandalism against capitalist property. When these things happen, residential areas may come up against it and organised leftists should try and use any on-the-ground influence they have to channel this anger away from working class people and areas towards more appropriate recipients of class anger.

[human strike]

The right wing understandings of this i've heard are pretty shocking. One person was a proponent of "he smoked cannabis or shoplifted, he got what was coming to him".

When a young black man allegedly shoplifts he deserves to be shot; when a white student shoots up a cinema it's a tragedy that he's ruined his prospects in life.

[The Modern Prometheus]

And your propaganda campaign involves distancing yourself from expressions of class anger? Propaganda campaigns are only useful if the message you are articulating is honest. When you talk about "important to any fight," what you mean is the interest of the political mechanisms that you support, not to the actual class -- although no doubt you conflate the two.

No not distancing myself from class anger but rather channeling it in a more effective way. The whole goal of the thing would be as a defensive measure against the state which would mean attacking state forces like the police if necessary or defending people against attacks from police i should say. It would be abit more dangerous then lugging a TV up the street but hey not only can noone say we are afraid to fight against the forces of the state but it would do alot more then looting a few shops as it's not like your making a economic impact by looting a few lousy Petite bourgeois stores.



Because people in Ferguson aren't born with Marx and Engles implanted in their brains. Turning expressions of class anger i.e. looting into an act of political coherency requires militants to be organised and actively implementing strategies, not walking away from it because it makes white people who watch the news feel uneasy.


Okay so are you saying that you aren't even doing it for the working class of Ferguson? If your not doing the looting to benefit the working class i hardly see much point in it. I agree that militants need to be organized but it must involve the local population as well or it's just useless. Also general strikes work much better then looting in hurting the economy and i think Union activity would be far more productive and sustainable for hurting the bourgeois.



Your obsession with the bourgeois media betrays our underlying substitutionist mentality. For you, this isn't about understanding the nature of looting and bringing an analysis and coherency to those expressions, it is about controlling the outcomes of dissent so that you can win a political game with the ruling class. You want things to "look good" because it placates people and softens the politics to make it more palatable for those whose political support you crave.

Most Socialists i know don't exactly think that looting looks good either. Why bother risking getting yourself arrested for something that makes such very little difference in the long run. I mean if your doing to get locked up for being in a protester make it worth it.

[Ocean Seal]

And revleft is the place to make this announcement?


I sort of turned off when I saw you'd started your post with 'Comrades'. It's such a turn off to talk in 2014 in language more appropriate in 1914.


Also it just... I don't know... Felt so self important? Like posting it here could make an actual change. That made me feel kinda meh.


Tbf i've never thought that a critique based on absolute totalitarianism and politicians being omnipotent spawn of satan has traction.

In reality we live in a class system where one class holds social domination - to a certain degree - over another class. Politics is a revolving door, though. Whilst the surveillance state is scary in its scope and actions, i'm not sure that the people who control it are either so powerful or evil to 'round us up and kill us off' - I tihnk their interest is just to do the bidding of capital and uphold 'law and order' from their end.


I've heard that a lot of the trolling on RevLeft is instigated by outsiders.

Sometimes I wonder why I don't spend much time on revleft anyone.

You people are more concerned with making fun of your fellow members who are excited about the possibility of potential action, than you are with providing any valuable discussion.

Let me ask you a question, if you really think that this thread has zero value and it is self-important to address the board then why do you feel self-important enough to comment and turn this into a three page thread when so many other valuable threads concerning direct action don't even get a response.

Is it hard to think, and you'd rather make snide comments?




The RCP was trying to incite mob violence, and got arrested. Anarchists from the nearby college towns are the ones looting. So this is a serious issue. The people in Ferguson are not interested in violence.

No its not. Fuck the petty bourgeois sense of preserving property. We don't own it or share in its wealth. And that shit about "college anarchists looting" is bullshit. People are looting because they are poor and its convenient now and I applaud them.

[Loony Le Fist]

Sometimes I wonder why I don't spend much time on revleft anyone.

You people are more concerned with making fun of your fellow members who are excited about the possibility of potential action, than you are with providing any valuable discussion.

Let me ask you a question, if you really think that this thread has zero value and it is self-important to address the board then why do you feel self-important enough to comment and turn this into a three page thread when so many other valuable threads concerning direct action don't even get a response.

Word.

Quite an insightful comment. I truly appreciate you providing clarity and bringing up an excellent point. I also tire of the cynicism and negativity towards members who are excited about the possibility of action. If there's one thing the left needs right now, it's enthusiasm. We've had more than our fill of defeatism and misanthropy for far too long.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't really see it this way. The left in the US is certainly completely impotent. But I think that's a symptom of the weakness of the working class here rather than the cause of it.

If the working class is weak, it is because it is disorganised. That is because the left is impotent.


Even if the left wasn't impotent though, I really don't think the left is the determinant factor. This conception seems to basically reduce the working class to the status of some directionless mass to be manipulated by leftists, the strength or weakness of which can be reduced to how successful communist militants are in carrying out 'their tasks'. I don't think it works that way.

It's not a question of manipulation, it's a question of organisation. The strength of the working class can be measured by how organised it is in the face of capitalism and the state. The task of communist militants is to bring that organisation.

If it doesn't work that way, what way does it work?


At any rate, regardless of the state of the left, I think riots by their nature tend to be pretty much impervious to any sort of 'political intervention', even moreso when they occur in the absence of more widespread social and political upheaval.

I don't understand how this statement can be true when you consider the widespread unrest across much of Middle East and its subsequent politicisation. Riots routinely take on political dimensions and have done throughout history.


Out of interest, though, what in concrete terms do you think 'leftists' (or 'communist militants', if you prefer) in the area should be doing in relation to the events in Ferguson?

What some are already doing: Bringing organisation and co-ordination to the dissent. In essence, communist militants should be bringing coherency in the form of ideas and strategy. Arguing for organisation, arguing a particular line and moving dissent towards establishing institutions of working class power.

[The Feral Underclass]

No not distancing myself from class anger but rather channeling it in a more effective way.

You referred to them as money grabbing hoodlums. You're a liar.


The whole goal of the thing would be as a defensive measure against the state which would mean attacking state forces like the police if necessary or defending people against attacks from police i should say. It would be abit more dangerous then lugging a TV up the street but hey not only can noone say we are afraid to fight against the forces of the state but it would do alot more then looting a few shops as it's not like your making a economic impact by looting a few lousy Petite bourgeois stores.

How do you achieve these things if you are alienating the very people prepared to take these kinds of risks?


Okay so are you saying that you aren't even doing it for the working class of Ferguson? If your not doing the looting to benefit the working class i hardly see much point in it. I agree that militants need to be organized but it must involve the local population as well or it's just useless.

I'm not making a case for looting. I'm not saying that looting is a strategy that should be employed. Nor am I suggesting that people should do it because they can. I'm certainly not saying I am a looter or that I would go looting.

My argument is that those people who do loot are doing so as a response to their alienation and oppression under capitalism, and that they represent a departure from bourgeois convention that if politicised has a potential to create momentum.


Also general strikes work much better then looting in hurting the economy and i think Union activity would be far more productive and sustainable for hurting the bourgeois.

You seem to have got this idea in your head that I am making a case for looting as a strategy. I am not. Looting as a phenomenon is a fact. It happens. My intervention in this thread is to criticise those (i.e. you) who choose to distance themselves from it instead of understanding its potential.


Most Socialists i know don't exactly think that looting looks good either. Why bother risking getting yourself arrested for something that makes such very little difference in the long run. I mean if your doing to get locked up for being in a protester make it worth it.

Well, most socialists are fucking idiots, so it doesn't surprise me. As I said previously, people bother to take that risk because they want objects that they are told they should covert. People loot because it provides them with status symbols they are otherwise denied. They are prepared to risk arrest because they are in a social situation of upheaval whereby the consequences of these actions seem puny or irrelevant.

What should our response to that be? For you, it should be to castigate them and distance yourself in order to satisfy some political agenda that's palatable for the bourgeois media. What I am saying is that the response should be one of open support, understanding and an attempt to politicise the potential of those actions.

[PhoenixAsh]

^ This. One hundred time this!

It is the ONLY revolutionary response to these instances.

People are angry. Angry enough to break conventions and the status quo. These actions are a direct result of class society and an intrinsic part of class warfare. Instead of distancing and instead of trying to placate the cops, petit-bourgeois, bourgeois and media we should focus on utilizing this anger into creating politicized class consciousness.

We are not here to look good in the news reels of FOX and CNN.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is an interesting feature from Aljazeera

Ferguson: City under siege (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2014/08/ferguson-city-under-siege-2014824101439980398.html)

[brigadista]

Ferguson people are put under pressure they need our support not smears...

[Luís Henrique]

I don't know if you're being serious

I am always serious, except when I am not.


but at the juncture in which bank robberies start being used for revolutionary purposes I think rupture involving mass looting would be just as revolutionary in providing communities with the wealth they have been surrounded by but unable to engage with for the last however many hundreds of years.

Well, I really don't support bank robberies; I think they are a substitutionist tactics.

But I have never seen "mass looting" in the way you seem to think of. Generally, in a juncture in which it would become feasible, what happens is mass expropriation of means of production. In other words, you seize the shops, not the commodities in their showcase.


Currently these types of actions take on a more individual based focus but I don't really have any issues with that.

I'm pretty sure of that.

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

hang on a second luis I have to go make a thread in the tech forum about not being able to post, edit, quote, multi quote, etc..

[Ele'ill]

Well, I really don't support bank robberies; I think they are a substitutionist tactics.

I don't see the qualitative nature of tactics limited to a quantitative metric of involvement.


But I have never seen "mass looting" in the way you seem to think of.

I think you probably have. My position isn't so much 'fuck yeah looting' as it is a criticism of the criticism that these types of events and activities are adventurist and some how outside of the sphere of 'appropriate activity' for people to be involved in.





Generally, in a juncture in which it would become feasible, what happens is mass expropriation of means of production. In other words, you seize the shops, not the commodities in their showcase.

But you understand that when we're talking about a revolutionary situation or something like it as 'the juncture' I am leaving discretion up to people based on their knowledge of their geographic location, their desires, and their needs, and not providing for them a technical manual as a program. I think in a lot of situations some options are workable others options are not. This applies to all levels of struggle. I don't think what you are describing was really an option in this situation, the burning, smash, looting, and open confrontation was, and I think that definitely creates opportunities for the future.

[John Nada]

Is that the right term?
FERGUSON, Mo. — It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.

“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them.

In the weeks afterward, until his shooting death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, on Aug. 9, they detected a change in him as he spoke seriously about religion and the Bible. He was grappling with life’s mysteries.
“I let him know like, if the police ever get on you, I don’t care what you doing, give it up,” Mr. Ewing said. “Because if you do one wrong move, they’ll shoot you. They’ll kill you.”
Mr. Brown was sometimes philosophical, as he showed in his final hours.

“Everything happen for a reason,” he posted to Facebook the night before he was shot. “Just start putting 2 n 2 together. You’ll see it.”Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us/michael-brown-spent-last-weeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?ref=us

There's more posts in this thread about looking good for liberals and protecting petty-bourgeois property than ones mentioning Michael Brown.Who was murdered by a fucking racist pig.:(
FERGUSON, Mo. — On the early afternoon of Feb. 28, 2013, Officer Darren Wilson answered a police call of a suspicious vehicle where, the police said, the occupants might have been making a drug transaction. After a struggle, Officer Wilson subdued the suspect and grabbed his car keys before help arrived, the police said.

A large amount of marijuana was found in the car, the police said, and the 28-year-old suspect now faces seven charges, including possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and resisting arrest. The incident won Officer Wilson a commendation, presented by the police chief this year as Officer Wilson stood, hands clasped before him, and city officials looked on.
Yet on the streets of Ferguson, some residents say they question the very environment that Officer Wilson was functioning in, and they argue that inappropriate stops have become pervasive. Data on municipal courts across Missouri in 2013 — gathered by a nonprofit group, ArchCity Defenders, as well as The New York Times — show that relative to the size of the city, Ferguson had the highest rate of warrants issued in the state among cities larger than 5,000 people, as well as some of the highest rates of fines collected and nontraffic violation cases filed.
In the formal presentation of the commendation this year, Chief Jackson read, as Officer Wilson stood before him: “In recognition of outstanding police work while investigating a suspicious vehicle call, acting alone you struggled with one subject and was able to gain control of the subject and his car keys until assistance arrived.”Besides the Ferguson Commune, there's a lot of reasons to riot. Like why the fuck is Wilson(a know killer)being protected by the state, when they put a comprador police chief in charge now! :rolleyes:

Hopefully at the very least the incidences of kidnappings by police will go down. Fuck pacifiers, both inside and out!

[Thirsty Crow]

One simple, basic point.

Communists ought to avoid framing the view on situations such as this (the looting) in terms of "what looks good". What looks good is in the first place structured according to the interests of the ruling class (mostly through ideological re/workings of acceptable and desirable kinds of behavior) so that way you're setting yourself up for a nice slippery slope, in the form of "well what if militant workers' action in the form of strikes simply doesn't look good". That way an actual understanding of how and with which effects this happens is eclipsed by a misguided attempt at pandering to the very same expectations and norms that are set up as an ideological, and effective, condition of the maintenance of the current order. Because there's no chance in hell that the well behaved and respected guardians of this way of life will ever change their tune and stop demonizing any and all expressions of class war - especially those that include mass militant action (this particular situation isn't one of those). There's no mainstream, normal respectability to be won.
Connected to this is the idea that playing nice is crucial in winning mass support; but that simply misses the point, which is what kind of support - active (organized to an extent, no doubt) and effective (actually conflicting with institutions in a way that either threatens or actually does damage), or passive, mere verbal support (or worse, a token facebook sentence or "like"). That's not to discount the latter as completely insigificant, but as insufficient for moving things forward; the question is how to get from the latter to the former.

The issue is not to jump the gun and see any illegal activity as revolutionary activity; very far from it. But nowhere is this being maintained, as far as I can tell.

[The Modern Prometheus]

You referred to them as money grabbing hoodlums. You're a liar.

No i said abunch of people running down the road with flatscreens and laptops would look like money grubbing hoodlums when plastered all over the media. We don't have to nor should we pander to the bourgeois media by we could practice basic propaganda by not feeding them shit to print about us.



How do you achieve these things if you are alienating the very people prepared to take these kinds of risks?

Well you don't alienate them. You can't very well go in there and tell people what to do in their own community now can you? No they'd kick your ass good and proper if you tried. However i think our goal should be to work with them and if necessary help them defend their community from police brutality. The Lumpenproletariat can be used as a revolutionary force but their anger must be channeled towards productive revolutionary means to be effective.




I'm not making a case for looting. I'm not saying that looting is a strategy that should be employed. Nor am I suggesting that people should do it because they can. I'm certainly not saying I am a looter or that I would go looting.

My argument is that those people who do loot are doing so as a response to their alienation and oppression under capitalism, and that they represent a departure from bourgeois convention that if politicised has a potential to create momentum.

Well i guess i misunderstood you then and i am certainly not going to argue about you on the causes of looting. I come from a rather poor rural working class area so yes i know a thing or 2 about redistribution of the wealth so to speak and i never felt the least bit bad stealing from the Petite bourgeois or bourgeois as they sure as hell stole enough from the working class over the years. However i think it's strategy in a revolutionary situation has very limited use.




You seem to have got this idea in your head that I am making a case for looting as a strategy. I am not. Looting as a phenomenon is a fact. It happens. My intervention in this thread is to criticise those (i.e. you) who choose to distance themselves from it instead of understanding its potential.

I didn't distance myself from it. I just realize much unlike some people here that not everyone is a Anarchist or a Marxist and if outside Anarchists or Communists come in and start looting the place it may just look bad.




Well, most socialists are fucking idiots, so it doesn't surprise me. As I said previously, people bother to take that risk because they want objects that they are told they should covert. People loot because it provides them with status symbols they are otherwise denied. They are prepared to risk arrest because they are in a social situation of upheaval whereby the consequences of these actions seem puny or irrelevant.

What should our response to that be? For you, it should be to castigate them and distance yourself in order to satisfy some political agenda that's palatable for the bourgeois media. What I am saying is that the response should be one of open support, understanding and an attempt to politicise the potential of those actions.

Alot of people think most Anarchists are idiots too but they aren't so the same argument could be applied to your lot. No shit people loot because they want the things that they are supposed to want because of capitalism yet can't achieve that level of success because of the very same system. I think we should harness that energy into more direct action on the state forces themselves. That way we can keep the struggle focused on the bourgeois state.

[The Feral Underclass]

No i said abunch of people running down the road with flatscreens and laptops would look like money grubbing hoodlums when plastered all over the media. We don't have to nor should we pander to the bourgeois media by we could practice basic propaganda by not feeding them shit to print about us.

And you still haven't provided any reason for why that is important. You started off this discussion saying, "Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news?" That is you distancing yourself from looters, and so far you've not actually explained, despite my best efforts to understand, why this is significant.


Well you don't alienate them.

The whole premise of your argument has been to distance yourself from looters. If you are now changing your mind, that's fine, but that is not what you began this discussion talking about.


You can't very well go in there and tell people what to do in their own community now can you? No they'd kick your ass good and proper if you tried. However i think our goal should be to work with them and if necessary help them defend their community from police brutality. The Lumpenproletariat can be used as a revolutionary force but their anger must be channeled towards productive revolutionary means to be effective.

Right, and you can't achieve that if your argument is that looting doesn't look good in the bourgeois media. That's not the basis to begin a dialogue.


Well i guess i misunderstood you then and i am certainly not going to argue about you on the causes of looting. I come from a rather poor rural working class area so yes i know a thing or 2 about redistribution of the wealth so to speak and i never felt the least bit bad stealing from the Petite bourgeois or bourgeois as they sure as hell stole enough from the working class over the years. However i think it's strategy in a revolutionary situation has very limited use.

Yes, you've said this, and I've given several explanations for why it's not limited.


I didn't distance myself from it.

As well as the quote above, you also said, "the propaganda campaign is important to any fight. If we have learned nothing from the past i hope it's that we know we must counter bourgeois propaganda with our own...with the worlds spotlight watching it's best to give the bourgeois media as little fodder as possible for their ridiculous arguments."


I just realize much unlike some people here that not everyone is a Anarchist or a Marxist and if outside Anarchists or Communists come in and start looting the place it may just look bad.

No one has suggested that anarchists and communists should go to Ferguson and start looting.


Alot of people think most Anarchists are idiots too but they aren't so the same argument could be applied to your lot.

They are idiots and it can quite easily be applied to them...And I'm not an anarchist, so they're not "my lot."


No shit people loot because they want the things that they are supposed to want because of capitalism yet can't achieve that level of success because of the very same system.

Well, I'm glad you finally accept that.


I think we should harness that energy into more direct action on the state forces themselves. That way we can keep the struggle focused on the bourgeois state.

Right, but the question is how. My argument is that you can't do that if your first priority is sanitising propaganda to make it more appealing to the bourgeois media, which is what you were arguing for.

[bropasaran]

Mashable has a few clips about Ferguson:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSKUhDnoJjYmjVZXO74EsqQGnAe9pcGDq

What do you think about them?

[The Feral Underclass]

Mashable has a few clips about Ferguson:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSKUhDnoJjYmjVZXO74EsqQGnAe9pcGDq

What do you think about them?

They need to organise.

[Luís Henrique]

During the 2013 protests in Brazil there was some looting. Individual looting, in which people took commodities from shops, and took them home, for their individual consumption.

Also, a noticeable amount of looters went to police or to the shops they looted, a few days after, to return the commodities they had looted.

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

Also, a noticeable amount of looters went to police or to the shops they looted, a few days after, to return the commodities they had looted.

What does this mean exactly? What is your point?

[The Modern Prometheus]

And you still haven't provided any reason for why that is important. You started off this discussion saying, "Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news?" That is you distancing yourself from looters, and so far you've not actually explained, despite my best efforts to understand, why this is significant.

Well heres a newsflash most people aren't Marxists or Anarchists and know nothing of the class politics behind looting. You aren't going to entice them to it either with pictures of people looting shit


No one has suggested that anarchists and communists should go to Ferguson and start looting.

You seemed fairly gun ho about it. Bring me back a new laptop if you do mines on the fritz.


They are idiots and it can quite easily be applied to them...And I'm not an anarchist, so they're not "my lot."


Your right on that. You sound more like some pissed off teenager then anything else.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well heres a newsflash most people aren't Marxists or Anarchists and know nothing of the class politics behind looting. You aren't going to entice them to it either with pictures of people looting shit

I take this to be an admission that you are, in fact, distancing yourself from those who loot in Ferguson.

Well, the role of communist militants in Ferguson and outside of Ferguson is not to abandon the class because they make your job of "enticing" (whatever that means) people to revolutionary politics more difficult. The first priority is to defend the class, not betray them because you are a coward.


You seemed fairly gun ho about it. Bring me back a new laptop if you do mines on the fritz.

Your glib attitude notwithstanding, I have made my position very clear to you in a number of despite. If you remain of the opinion that I have some kind of desire to fetishise looting it is for one of two reasons: either you have spectacularly failed to grasp the point I have repeatedly been making or you are no longer capable of defending your position and have resorted to petty snideness.


Your right on that. You sound more like some pissed off teenager then anything else.

No I don't. I've made a coherent political argument to you. An attempt to dismiss that by employing ageist platitudes isn't going to undermine that position or refute the politics, it simply demonstrates your political bankruptcy.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I take this to be an admission that you are, in fact, distancing yourself from those who loot in Ferguson.


You are in fact wrong on that.


Well, the role of communist militants in Ferguson and outside of Ferguson is not to abandon the class because they make your job of "enticing" (whatever that means) people to revolutionary politics more difficult. The first priority is to defend the class, not betray them because you are a coward.


Defend the working class yes and defend the people against the forces of the state if necessary. Glad we got that out of the way. But if there is no class movement itself going on there what are we supposed to defend? You can't force people to see things your way. By all means we should stand up for the people in Ferguson but unless they want outside help any Communists from outside that area would most likely be leaving Ferguson via the hospital after the cops beat the shit out of you. Granted that's to be expected but if i'm going to get the shit kicked out of me and arrested it's going to be for a good reason.



Your glib attitude notwithstanding, I have made my position very clear to you in a number of despite. If you remain of the opinion that I have some kind of desire to fetishise looting it is for one of two reasons: either you have spectacularly failed to grasp the point I have repeatedly been making or you are no longer capable of defending your position and have resorted to petty snideness.

Before you mount the saddle to your high horse i'll say you resorted to that pages ago.

[The Feral Underclass]

You are in fact wrong on that.

"Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news?"

"the propaganda campaign is important to any fight. If we have learned nothing from the past i hope it's that we know we must counter bourgeois propaganda with our own...with the worlds spotlight watching it's best to give the bourgeois media as little fodder as possible for their ridiculous arguments"


Defend the working class yes and defend the people against the forces of the state if necessary. Glad we got that out of the way. But if there is no class movement itself going on there what are we supposed to defend? You can't force people to see things your way.

So you only want to defend working class people if they're in a "movement"? You are supposed to defend the working class. Even those who are looting.


By all means we should stand up for the people in Ferguson but unless they want outside help any Communists from outside that area would most likely be leaving Ferguson via the hospital after the cops beat the shit out of you. Granted that's to be expected but if i'm going to get the shit kicked out of me and arrested it's going to be for a good reason.

Why do you keep talking about "outside" help?


Before you mount the saddle to your high horse i'll say you resorted to that pages ago.

:rolleyes:

[The Modern Prometheus]

"Looting locally owned stores does look bad and let's face it do we really need pictures of looters all over the news?"

"the propaganda campaign is important to any fight. If we have learned nothing from the past i hope it's that we know we must counter bourgeois propaganda with our own...with the worlds spotlight watching it's best to give the bourgeois media as little fodder as possible for their ridiculous arguments"


How is that abandoning the working class of Ferguson?



So you only want to defend working class people if they're in a "movement"? You are supposed to defend the working class. Even those who are looting.


By defend i was talking more about direct action and i guess i should have made that clearer. If there is no organization within the working class of Ferguson and they have no desire for one what can you do? You can teach them how to make Molotov's in about 5 seconds but teaching them class consciousness would take alot more work.



Why do you keep talking about "outside" help?

I meant if they asked for support from people outside the town of ferguson.

[The Feral Underclass]

How is that abandoning the working class of Ferguson?

Ugh.

We are talking about looters, aren't we?


By defend i was talking more about direct action and i guess i should have made that clearer. If there is no organization within the working class of Ferguson and they have no desire for one what can you do? You can teach them how to make Molotov's in about 5 seconds but teaching them class consciousness would take alot more work.

You can't "teach" people class consciousness. Class consciousness can only come about through struggle.

And I'm not talking about creating an organisation, I am talking about organising. If people of Ferguson are on the streets because they want to challenge the imbalance of power and reject the liberal manifestations of their anger, it follows that they want organisation.

If communist militants in Ferguson discover that those who are rioting actually just want to riot and have no interest in actually doing what they say they want to do, then I guess that would be a very unusual position to find yourself in.


I meant if they asked for support from people outside the town of ferguson.

If you've been asked to go to Ferguson by people in Ferguson to help them organise then that is a good reason to get the shit kicked out of you and arrested.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Ugh.

We are talking about looters, aren't we?


Yes and i am also going to assume that not all the looters are from the working class. I have nothing against riots and such and have been in a few non class based ones myself. But why not teach them the art of propaganda as well?



You can't "teach" people class consciousness. Class consciousness can only come about through struggle.


Well both really in my opinion atleast but yes you do have a point.


And I'm not talking about creating an organisation, I am talking about organising. If people of Ferguson are on the streets because they want to challenge the imbalance of power and reject the liberal manifestations of their anger, it follows that they want organisation.

If communist militants in Ferguson discover that those who are rioting actually just want to riot and have no interest in actually doing what they say they want to do, then I guess that would be a very unusual position to find yourself in.

Id imagine there would be quite a few people who are looting who have not the least idea of Communism. I did hear from a sort of friend of mine down that way that people where giving the protesters free food and water and that alone will boost morale. The Black Panthers had great success with programs such as this.


f you've been asked to go to Ferguson by people in Ferguson to help them organise then that is a good reason to get the shit kicked out of you and arrested.

Yes it would be. I hate the fucking pigs and if i could get a few smacks in id take the beating and arrest. That alone right there would be worth it. I would much rather help the protesters that aren't there to fight from getting hurt themselves then anything else which would definitely make someone from outside that town a target. And if it meant protecting fellow Communists your damn right id proudly take that beating and arrest. Chances are I've been smacked about by alot harder then a few pigs anyway.

[bropasaran]

The Daily Show on Ferguson and race:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ufqeuz/race-off

[Red Commissar]

I know there's been 12 pages of this but I do think the way the media covers events like these is rather revealing about how the media covers protests.

Much like Occupy way back when there is a fixation on trying to cast protestors as not being representative of the local population, pretty much for the express reason of discrediting it as not being representative of what the locals want. The same thing we saw here, especially when they made a point of saying that people who were arrested were not residents of Ferguson.

I suppose this can be contrasted to the way the media might cover protests launched by other groups, particularly those not seen as "left" by the public. A recent example of this would be the whole Cliven Bundy mess when media were creaming over him as an example of someone standing up to THE MAN, and not really harping on the whole outside agitators angle when militia nutters came out of the woodworks to defend his claimed property. That was before of course Bundy decided to hold court on the matters plaguing this country, especially about the state of "the negro", and much to the surprise of no one turned out to be a racist asswipe.

We also get this repeated with anything immigration related with conservative activists pouring into flashpoint communities from their suburbs to protest and make a ruckus, and the media in that case largely accepts the idea that since it is a national problem that them being from outside the community doesn't matter. I highly doubt for example that members of the Minutemen are actually from border communities. Likewise the same pattern holds with people pushing for open-carry laws in cities that do not allow for it. Again, they are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that this is an expression of a national issue, but in the case of Brown here who was clearly a victim of police brutality, it is not seen as such. As if this is somehow an isolated incident- only a few weeks back we had NYPD cops kill Eric Garner, and of course plenty of other 'officer-involved incidents' that do not get covered.

The whole "outsider" thing is a pretty common tactic to discredit protests, it has been for a long time, but it seems to be more readily applied to protests associated with 'left' rather than 'right'. I think the media reaction to this is in of itself a revealing area, especially with the parallels to the Trayvon Martin case.

[coda]

sorry if this has been posted already. It explains the concept of looting within the context of class struggle and as itself, a protest tactic of black liberation.

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/in-defense-of-looting/