Ferguson

[EmilyComintern]

Absolutely shameful. This could potentially trigger massive rebellions across the whole of the United States, and nobody on here seems to be talking about it? Disgraceful.

[Hrafn]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d6/d6b25b682e961e74aff0d55d4ce20d6d114c862ec989aca438 4ea7a5ef68e7b9.jpg

Get off your high horse, buddy.

One, there is no chance of massive rebellions.

Two, I've seen nothing in international news about anything going on in Ferguson, hence I haven't posted about it.

Three, not everyone here is obsessed with American politics, and thus have less incentive to post about it.

Four, people have already posted about it elsewhere. http://www.revleft.com/vb/breaking-news-state-t191330/index.html?t=191330&highlight=ferguson

[The Disillusionist]

It's not gonna trigger anything serious. Americans aren't nearly that in tune with each other. We might see a few demonstrations, but that'll be about it.

I heard a preacher say once that people have to reach a point of intense suffering and hopelessness before they will have the motivation to change either themselves or the situation around them. I don't know what kind of religous point he was trying to make, but I think he was right about that.

Until white Americans start suffering as much from police violence as black Americans, this will remain an isolated "black" issue, and the media will continue to use it to scare white people and widen the "racial" divide. At this point, the police would hardly have to even do anything to quell any "massive rebellion" because the goddamn Middle Class white gun owners would be the first ones to retaliate to protect their precious way of life.

[Decolonize The Left]

Grand Jury decision regarding Brown/Wilson got delayed. At the moment, of more interest is Anonymous' revealing of KKK action in Ferguson (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/anonymous-video-warns-kkk_n_6198810.html).

[Tim Cornelis]

"I heard a preacher say once that people have to reach a point of intense suffering and hopelessness before they will have the motivation to change either themselves or the situation around them. I don't know what kind of religous point he was trying to make, but I think he was right about that."

The exact opposite is proposed in 'The Anatomy of Revolution', hope, not hopelessness, drives revolution and rebellion.

[Sasha]

Yup, deliverance is found through suffering is as much bull for revolution as its for art.
Sure you need to be familiar with injustice to make good revolution as you need to have spend time in the real world to make meaningfull art but there needs to be hope and room to be able to organize for progress. There is no such thing as "nothing to loose", people always have something to loose and unless under very extreme circumstances the hopeless can't afford to start the fight. They might lash out, they might riot but that's not yet the same as revolutionary action even though it can become that in time.

[The Disillusionist]

Yup, deliverance is found through suffering is as much bull for revolution as its for art.
Sure you need to be familiar with injustice to make good revolution as you need to have spend time in the real world to make meaningfull art but there needs to be hope and room to be able to organize for progress. There is no such thing as "nothing to loose", people always have something to loose and unless under very extreme circumstances the hopeless can't afford to start the fight. They might lash out, they might riot but that's not yet the same as revolutionary action even though it can become that in time.

Art is primarily a means of duping the rich into spending their money on invented status symbols. What qualifies as fine art and what qualifies as true art are, to me, two very different things.

You might have a point, but I think a lot of that is just Upper/Middle Class posturing. Once it became hip for priviledged upper-crust kids to call themselves "revolutionaries," all kinds of stuff was written, especially in the post-left community, about how revolution isn't just about the working class and everyone can be part of the revolution, etc, etc. Some of the literature actually did everything it could to undermine the working class in the name of abolishing identity politics or some crap. That's part of where you get those nutjobs claiming that the upper class are just as oppressed as the working class or whatever.

Some of that is good. I'm not claiming that the poor hold a monopoly on revolution. But nowadays you get a lot of spoon-fed upper-crust kids wearing the latest brand name clothes and calling for revolution.... Yeah right. :rolleyes: I'm not saying that everyone should sell everything and be a pauper; if I was I'd be a hypocrite, because my computer is one of my most important sources of information, but I have little respect for comfortably well-off kids who make every effort to play the part of the comfortably well-off and then turn around and try to make themselves out to be freedom fighters or some crap. If you haven't suffered, you really aren't going to make a decent revolutionary. If anything, you're just one of those typical bourgoeis who historically were only interested in revolution for the purpose of elevating their own status to that of even richer bourgeois.

But overall, I actually agree with you. A severely oppressed group of people is not going to have the power to organize and put up a serious resistance. It's for this reason that priviledged half-cocked "revolutionaries" with too much desire to spill blood and too little consideration for the truly oppressed have directly and indirectly killed almost as many people as oppressive states have. However, as you said, if a person is not familiar with injustice (on a personal level, I should add), then that person isn't likely to be worth a damn as an agent of change.

[DOOM]

Shit will probably go down when the grand jury has decided. Nothing's going to happen now.
And even if, it'll only be riot porn. But I guess this counts as revolutionary for some people here.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Cops just murdered a 12 year old kid holding a toy gun in Cleveland.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30172433

[Sasha]

Cops just murdered a 12 year old kid holding a toy gun in Cleveland.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30172433


why didnt i not need to click that link to know the color of the boys skin...

[Hrafn]

why didnt i not need to click that link to know the color of the boys skin...

Because Cleveland is 53.3% black, making it statis- no wait you're right, still gonna be a non-white kid regardless of the city demographics.

[Sasha]

cops probably wouldnt shoot a white 12 year old at a mall even if he had a real gun...

[John Nada]

FERGUSON, Mo. — Officials in St. Louis County were preparing an announcement as early as Monday evening on the grand jury’s deliberations in the case of Darren Wilson, the white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., in August.

The announcement could come late Monday or early Tuesday, according to officials with knowledge of the preparations. Gov. Jay Nixon was also on his way to St. Louis on Monday afternoon, his office said.

A spokesman for Benjamin Crump, a lawyer representing the family of Michael Brown, said that prosecutors had not yet alerted the family that a decision had been reached.

The St. Louis area has been cloaked in anxiety for months as it has waited for a decision by the grand jury, which has been meeting since Aug. 20 to consider criminal charges in the Brown case. The jury, made up of nine whites and three blacks, resumed deliberations Monday.

Residents and business owners have said that if Officer Wilson is not indicted, they fear an immediate repeat of the protests that roiled Ferguson in August.

Should this go into a new thread?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, probably if it isn't already.

[Sasha]

twitter is saying the decision will be announced 8 pm central time, thats about 3 hours from now right?

[consuming negativity]

twitter is saying the decision will be announced 8 pm central time, thats about 3 hours from now right?

i am making this post at 5:34 central time, so yes, but now it's about 2.5 hours from now

[Illegalitarian]

It's not going to be announced until 8pm central time.

I'm thinking they'll nail him on manslaughter if anything and he'll probably spend like half a year in jail before he gets parole. Which would be good, but not good enough

[Creative Destruction]

i am not confident that they'll return a verdict to indict.

[Pure&simple]

I was actually wondering-- what is going on with it??? Did they ever say what's going to happen with the boy's familia?? and to the pos cop?? I know the grand jury is suppoed to announce it- but still, i have not heard anything except they have the miltary and the pigs all ready for riots and even the kkk is all there supporting the cops and even raising money for the freaking pigs familia and lawyers etc etc. Freaking so gross--- they are blatantly telling amerikkka that they are racist and basically don't care what we think about it--- actually taking the support from the actual kkk. wow... ANYWAys- does anyone know anuthing?

[Slavic]

It's not going to be announced until 8pm central time.

I'm thinking they'll nail him on manslaughter if anything and he'll probably spend like half a year in jail before he gets parole. Which would be good, but not good enough

I doubt it. People thought that Zimmerman would catch somekind of charge, and he is not even a cop. Its rare for cops to punish their own kind.

[Illegalitarian]

Yeah but there was at least a degree of doubt in the Zimmerman case and a witness or two saying the guy attacked him and it was self-defense.

This is a case of a cop shooting an unarmed black teen in the streets for what many witnesses say was for no reason at all.


You're probably right, I'm just trying to keep hopeful

[The Disillusionist]

I'm watching it live now. The decision seems to be happening later than they said it would... Totally unprofessional.

I'm guessing that he'll be acquitted, but I'm hoping not. I'll edit this post with the decision as soon as they give it.

Of course, now that they're already 15 minutes late, they're gonna blabber and self-promote for another 15 minutes before giving any real information.... The way he's talking though, it's sounding like he's building up to an acquittal decision.

Looks like he might blabber for yet another 15 minute stretch.

Ok. No charges, no surprise.

FINAL DECISION: No charges.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

It's Official:

No indictment coming.

[Slippers]

Somehow I thought the sheer inevitability of the verdict would make me less fucking furious when it came

[Illegalitarian]

“A hundred years ago they used to put on a white sheet and use a bloodhound against Negroes. Today they’ve taken off the white sheet and put on police uniforms, they’ve traded in the bloodhounds for police dogs, and they’re still doing the same thing.”
— Malcolm X


Can't say I'm shocked that in America, stealing cigarettes is punishable my extrajudicial killing, and shooting someone for walking towards you is also perfectly fine.. because you know, police certainly aren't trained to take down people much bigger and more powerful than them or anything in order to avoid using that kind of force.

[Palmares]

And now in Ferguson, the looting begins!

[Red Commissar]

I doubt it. People thought that Zimmerman would catch somekind of charge, and he is not even a cop. Its rare for cops to punish their own kind.

Well, what's worse here is that the Zimmerman case at least proceeded to a proper trial, despite the outcome of the trial in the end anyways. This was only a Grand Jury which determines if there is probable cause to indict the person. Basically the grand jury didn't think the evidence that the prosecution chose to present to justify their charges was strong enough. To me that would obviously seem that the state was obviously working against the case to begin with (and again, the state here was the prosecution), and much of the case was falling in the favor of the narrative the defense- the police- were establishing.

Plus the media battle ongoing before in which the state government and police both were poisning the well, making Michael Brown out to be a criminal and trying to justify the cop's reasons for killing him.

Last week though we'd already gotten news about the Governor was putting the national guard on alert and preemptively declaring a state of emergency, and I can't fault people for thinking that the likely decision of the grand jury was already beginning to be known to the state government and police by that point who in turn acted to try and contain (or provoke) protestors.

[Creative Destruction]

And now in Ferguson, the looting begins!

good. take all the shit and burn that fucker to the ground.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

yeah... i dont think that "looting" really illutrates what black folks in ferguson are struggling thru right now and what theyre protesting for

[Sabot Cat]

I'm not ruling out agent provocateurs. The cops have done it before.

[Illegalitarian]

In the words of Ares Targaryen, "burn them all"

[Palmares]

This better?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/11/25/us/FERGUSONBLOG-CARFIRE/FERGUSONBLOG-CARFIRE-blog480.jpg

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Sadly, I kind of expected this outcome. The moment when they said that they were going to wait to release the verdict at 9:00 pm EST, it became pretty obvious that they were stalling for time. I'm actually convinced that they had come to a decision much earlier, but they realized the firestorm they were about to ignite.

[Red Son]

The crushing, sickening inevitability of it all...cue a lot of pundits being as critical of those rioting as the remorseless, murdering cop (he compared Brown to Hulk Hogan and himself to 5 year old re their 'struggle' that lead to shooting...just, fucking hell)..Fox will lap this up.

[Marxizm]

When you take away peoples voice they have no choice but to speak with their hands.

I forgot who said that but it wasnt me ;)

[Marxizm]

yeah... i dont think that "looting" really illutrates what black folks in ferguson are struggling thru right now and what theyre protesting for

"When you take away peoples voice they have no choice but to speak with their hands"

I forgot who said that originally but it wasnt me ;)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

For once I'm not too excited about the rioting. They cancelled school about 14 hours ahead of time, knowing that as a result all the older kids would be out in the street. They knew they weren't going to indict him, they wanted there to be riots, and now they can concentrate on how the riots were "the worst ever" rather than the fact that they let a murderer walk. Hopefully some really expensive shit got burned at least.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Huh. I'd figured he was going to be indicted - at least on manslaughter or something - if nothing else b/c of the political utility of the "bad apple" or exceptional/unfortunate incident.

I guess that's the thing about a grand jury though - it's not a politically calculating organ in-and-of-itself in that way, but rather operates according to the normal standards of white supremacist Amerikkkan law. In other words, I suppose I should have bet the other way, and my thinking on the matter was a bit sloppy.

On a related note, the 9:3 white:black ratio on the grand jury means that the 3/4ths requirement for a decision could literally have been made with all black jurors opposing it. Not that there's anyway to know unless someone wants to go to jail for telling us (discussing the deliberations and voting of a jury is illegal).

Oh, well. I hope this helps some more people understand Amerikkka.

[Raquin]

Has anyone here actually looked over the evidence, especially the autoposy results, except for me? The whole "Brown was holding his hands in the air when he was killed" tale has been debunked by the evidence.


According to several people involved with the investigation, blood spatter analysis indicated that Brown was heading toward the officer during their face-off, but Brown's movement rate could not be determined from the evidence. The location of shell casings and ballistics tests were also consistent with Wilson's account.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#cite_note-WashPost.Evidence-65)
Blood was found on Wilson's gun and inside the car, and tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver's side of Wilson's vehicle, consistent with a struggle at that location. The blood on Wilson's gun indicated that Brown's hand had been very close to the weapon when it was fired, consistent with Wilson's testimony that there had been a struggle over the weapon.[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#cite_note-STLToday.Wound-139)

Microscopic examination of tissue taken from the thumb wound detected the presence of a foreign material consistent with the material which is ejected from a gun while firing. Forensic pathologist Dr. Judy Melinek said the hand wound was consistent with Brown reaching for the gun at the time he was shot. Melinek also noted that the autopsy did not support witnesses who claimed that Brown was shot while fleeing the crime scene or with his hands up, noting that the direction of the gunshot wound on Brown's forearm indicated that Brown's palms could not have been facing Wilson.

The gunshot wound to the top of Brown's head was consistent with Brown either falling forward or being in a lunging position; the shot was instantly fatal.[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#cite_note-STLToday.Wound-139)


I wouldn't indict Wilson either. All the evidence corroborates his account of the events.

Personally, I think Brown deserves a Darwin Award. What happened was basically suicide by cop. Trying to wrestle a gun from a cop is dumb enough, but then trying to tackle the same armed cop is very Darwin Award worthy.

By the way, remember the store owner who was robbed and assaulted by Brown minutes before Brown earned his Darwin Award?
http://i.imgur.com/D3fgDIB.jpg


His store got looted a second time yesterday


http://i.imgur.com/eXaWAMN.png

Now there's your fucking victim. Fuck Brown. I've got no sympathy for him.

[Sasha]

raquins true collours are shining again... fuck you with the biggest of fucks i can give...

[Sasha]

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

Updated by Ezra Klein (http://www.vox.com/authors/ezra-klein) on November 25, 2014, 11:00 a.m. ET @ezraklein (http://twitter.com/ezraklein) [email protected]
Tweet (1,516) (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Officer+Darren+Wilson%27s+story+is+unbe lievable.+Literally.&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2014%2F11%2F25%2F72 81165%2Fdarren-wilsons-story-side%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter% 26utm_campaign%3Dvox%26utm_content%3Darticle-share-top&via=ezraklein) Share (1,272) (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvox.com%2Fe%2F7045206%3F utm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_ campaign%3Dvox%26utm_content%3Darticle-share-top) +1 (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side#) LinkedIn (1) (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&source=Vox&summary=We%27ve+finally+heard+Officer+Darren+Wilso n%27s+side+of+the+story+%E2%80%94+and+it%27s+hard+ to+believe.&title=Officer+Darren+Wilson%27s+story+is+unbelieva ble.%26nbsp%3BLiterally.&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2014%2F11%2F25%2F72 81165%2Fdarren-wilsons-story-side%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dlinkedin %26utm_campaign%3Dvox%26utm_content%3Darticle-share-top) Email (?subject=From%20Vox.com%3A%20Officer%20Darren%20W ilson%27s%20story%20is%20unbelievable.%20Literally .&body=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2014%2F11%2F25%2F7 281165%2Fdarren-wilsons-story-side%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail%26 utm_campaign%3Dvox%26utm_content%3Darticle-share-top) Print

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Cx2VIFLEo087J5-L06AJr9uPMns=/0x0:487x325/755x504/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44225052/wilson_1.0.0.jpg The St. Louis county officials released photos of Officer Darren Wilson after his altercation with Michael Brown.

Don't miss stories. Follow Vox! By signing up, you agree to our terms.




We've finally heard from Officer Darren Wilson (http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri/mike-brown-police-officer-darren-wilson).
Wilson had been publicly silent since the events of August 9, when he shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown (http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri/mike-brown-ferguson-MO-protests) in Ferguson, Missouri. And, even as the grand jury announced its decision not to indict him, he remained silent. He had his attorneys release a statement (http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/24/7278975/read-darren-wilson-releases-statement-on-grand-jury-decision-via-his) on his behalf.
But on Monday night, St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch released the evidence given to the grand jury, including the interview (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html) police did with Wilson in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. And so we got to read, for the first time, Wilson's full, immediate account of his altercation with Brown.
And it is unbelievable.
I mean that in the literal sense of the term: "difficult or impossible to believe." But I want to be clear here. I'm not saying Wilson is lying. I'm not saying his testimony is false. I am saying that the events, as he describes them, are simply bizarre. His story is difficult to believe.
The story Wilson tells goes like this:
At about noon on August 9th, Wilson hears on the radio that there's a theft in progress at the Ferguson Market. The suspect is a black male in a black shirt.
Moments later, Wilson sees two young black men walking down the yellow stripe in the center of the street. He pulls over. "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" he asks.
And then things get weird.
Brown's response to "what's wrong with the sidewalk?", as recorded by Wilson, is "fuck what you have to say." Remember, Wilson is a uniformed police officer, in a police car, and Brown is an 18-year-old kid who just committed a robbery. And when asked to use the sidewalk, Wilson says Brown replied, "Fuck what you have to say."
Wilson says Brown replied, "Fuck what you have to say."
Wilson backs his car up and begins to open the door. "Hey, come here," he said to the kid who just cursed at him. He says Brown replied, "What the fuck you gonna do?" And then Brown, in Wilson's telling, slams the car door closed. Wilson tries to open the door again, tells Brown to get back, and then Brown leans into the vehicle and begins punching him.
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/OJEAB-4yRTeXDraBEELkPOlOEzg=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2491494/454139618.0.jpg
Photos surround Michael Brown's casket in Ferguson, MO. (Richard Perry-Pool/Getty Images)
Let's take a breath and recap. Wilson sees two young black men walking in the middle of the street. He pulls over and politely asks them to use the sidewalk. They refuse. He asks again, still polite. Brown tells Wilson — again, a uniformed police officer in a police car — "fuck what you have to say." Wilson stops his car, tries to get out, and Brown slams the car door on him and then begins punching him through the open window.
What happens next is the most unbelievable moment in the narrative. And so it's probably best that I just quote Wilson's account at length on it.

I was doing the, just scrambling, trying to get his arms out of my face and him from grabbing me and everything else. He turned to his...if he's at my vehicle, he turned to his left and handed the first subject. He said, "here, take these." He was holding a pack of — several packs of cigarillos which was just, what was stolen from the Market Store was several packs of cigarillos. He said, "here, hold these" and when he did that I grabbed his right arm trying just to control something at that point. Um, as I was holding it, and he came around, he came around with his arm extended, fist made, and went like that straight at my face with his...a full swing from his left hand.
So Brown is punching inside the car. Wilson is scrambling to deflect the blows, to protect his face, to regain control of the situation. And then Brown stops, turns to his left, says to his friend, "Here, hold these," and hands him the cigarillos stolen from Ferguson Market. Then he turns back to Wilson and, with his left hand now freed from holding the contraband goods, throws a haymaker at Wilson.
Every bullshit detector in me went off when I read that passage. Which doesn't mean that it didn't happen exactly the way Wilson describes. But it is, again, hard to imagine. Brown, an 18-year-old kid holding stolen goods, decides to attack a cop and, while attacking him, stops, hands his stolen goods to his friend, and then returns to the beatdown. It reads less like something a human would do and more like a moment meant to connect Brown to the robbery.
Wilson next recounts his thought process as he reached for a weapon. He considered using his mace, but at such close range, the mace might get in his eyes, too. He doesn't carry a taser with a fireable cartridge, but even if he did, "it probably wouldn't have hit [Brown] anywhere". Wilson couldn't reach his baton or his flashlight. So he went for his gun.
Brown sees him go for the gun. And he replies: "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me."
"You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me."
Again, stop for a moment and think about that. Brown is punching Wilson, sees the terrified cop reaching for his gun, and says "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me." He dares him to shoot.
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4FF89Iv_GIaybCi9lzH3MzOLmqU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2491498/453759770.0.jpg
A protestors holds up a sign saying "don't shoot". (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
And then Brown grabs Wilson's gun, twists it, and points it at Wilson's "pelvic area". Wilson regains control of the firearm and gets off a shot, shattering the glass. Brown backs up a half step and, realizing he's unharmed, dives back into the car to attack Wilson. Wilson fires again, and then Brown takes off running. (You can see the injuries Wilson sustained from the fight in these photographs (http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/24/7279311/ferguson-darren-wilson-injuries).)
Wilson exits the car to give chase. He yells at Brown to get down on the ground. Here, I'm going to go back to Wilson's words:

When he stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense, aggressive face I've ever seen on a person. When he looked at me, he then did like the hop...you know, like people do to start running. And, he started running at me. During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his shirt into his waistband. And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. He didn't. I fired multiple shots. After I fired the multiple shots, I paused a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state. Still charging, hand still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down.
The stuff about Brown putting his hand in his waistband is meant to suggest that Wilson had reason to believe Brown might pull a gun. But it's strange. We know Brown didn't have a gun. And that's an odd fact to obscure while charging a police officer.
Either way, at that point, Wilson shoots again, and kills Brown.
There are inconsistencies in Wilson's story. He estimates that Brown ran 20-30 feet away from the car and then charged another 10 feet back towards Wilson. But we know Brown died 150 feet away from the car.
There are also consistencies. St Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch said that Brown's DNA was found inside Wilson's car, suggesting there was a physical altercation inside the vehicle.
But the larger question is, in a sense, simpler: Why?
Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?
None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown
None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown. Brown wasn't a hardened felon. He didn't have a death wish. And while he might have been stoned, this isn't how stoned people act. The toxicology report did not indicate he was on PCP or something that would've led to suicidal aggression.
Which doesn't mean Wilson is a liar. Unbelievable things happen every day. The fact that his story raises more questions than it answers doesn't mean it isn't true.
But the point of a trial would have been to try to answer these questions. We would have either found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with Wilson's unbelievable story.


http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

[Hrafn]

You know the misattributed Stalin quote, about some people needing only a single wall, not four?

That's how Raquin makes me feel.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Unreconstructed white supremacist cop-appologist idiocy.

That is about the closest I have ever come to flagrantly abusing my mod powers to ban someone outright.

1. Robbing a shop is not, nor should it be, a capital offense. Especially when that robbery is understood in a context informed by intergenerational poverty, violence, and segregation.
2. In a conflict between Black youth and agents of the white supremacist American state, anyone who sides with the state is a piece of shit.
3. Given the propensity of police to shoot Black youth for literally nothing, trying to grab the gun from a cop's hands may actually be a better survival strategy.
4. C.O.N.T.E.X.T. - Regardless of the specifics of this case, Ferguson is a majority Black town terrorized by Klanner pigs. Siding with the Klanner pigs is unconscionable, and would be even if Mike Brown had been smoking crack and carrying an assault rifle.

[consuming negativity]

>the "real victim" is the store owner

i actually do feel a bit bad for the guy but to call him "the real victim" as if to make light of someone's actual, literal death is ... lol

>if mike brown had been smoking crack and carrying an assault rifle

he might still be alive

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't find that 'unbelievable'. It's perfectly possible someone would act counter-intuitively, which somehow psychology can explain. Maybe he had explosive anger issues, who knows. I don't think it's really important. I essentially agree with Raquin, yet draw opposite conclusions. In the same way that Palestinians throwing rocks at IDF is not a "Darwinian suicide by 'cops'", this was neither. It may well have been a reflexive, impulsive reaction to an occupation force with its constant harassment of members of poor and poor African communities -- even if it wasn't, I still wouldn't side with the cops.

Raquin has always been an oddball, with his apologetics for the Assad regime. He must be a cop lover, no matter what police state.

[DOOM]

Shit will probably go down when the grand jury has decided. Nothing's going to happen now.
And even if, it'll only be riot porn. But I guess this counts as revolutionary for some people here.

Fuck this, burn everything to the ground

[BIXX]

Kids I used to know are pretending that wearing all black is a good way to show solidarity.

Its only a good way to show solidarity if you're rioting.

[Red Commissar]

Sadly, I kind of expected this outcome. The moment when they said that they were going to wait to release the verdict at 9:00 pm EST, it became pretty obvious that they were stalling for time. I'm actually convinced that they had come to a decision much earlier, but they realized the firestorm they were about to ignite.

Yeah, it seems that this long time for the grand jury (3 months) was an attempt to try and starve out some of the potential demonstrators, who'd obviousy won't be able to constantly be present there. Still, they got the narrative they wanted afterwards.

The more I look at this the more I'm upset at the way this whole thing was conducted. It was obvious that the state's prosecutor was, unsurprisingly, on the side of the police and conducted himself in the grand jury rather sympathetically to the police/defense's angle. It really didn't seem like he pursued this with the seriousness you'd usually expect. In that sense the Brown's family accusation that the prosecutor was not really pursuing his duties makes sense, and honestly it should be obvious by the way he handled the press conference afterwards he didn't give a flying shit about Brown. Yes, it's supposed to be an impartial process but in the same vein it's clear he let the grand jury be turned into a circus by the police.

Police can contrive even the most absurd things for traffic stops and parking violations, hell even jaywalking, but it's apparently hard to find evidence to indict a cop for a shooting death. I really don't blame people for feeling the system has failed them (I sure feel the same anger), though the cynic in me would say the system worked as it was intended.

Unfortunately as a poster here already demonstrated there is a focus more on the rioting and anger than the circumstances, and it's this kind of narrative the media and police want to pursue because it puts them in favorable terrain.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i for one cannot fucking stand bourgie anarchist teens showing their "solidarity" by turning protests into riots. stop fetishizing revolution. those people in ferguson arent your play things

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The people in Ferguson are the ones rioting. The 'outside agitator' angle is as old as radical politics

[BIXX]

i for one cannot fucking stand bourgie anarchist teens showing their "solidarity" by turning protests into riots. stop fetishizing revolution. those people in ferguson arent your play things
Lol you're an idiot. Like was said above, its the people in Ferguson who are rioting, not some outside agitator.

[Sasha]

The onion has the best, most accurate analysis yet again; http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-doesnt-know-if-it-can-take-another-bullshit,37541/

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i have serious doubts about how wise it would be to "burn everything to the ground". it is categorically not the strategy of democratically organized marxist workers and vanguard parties. these riots, as a means of radicalizing the masses, fail at every level from a revolutionary proletarian perspective. mobilizing and radicalizing workers involves foremost standing for a revolutionary agenda with concrete demands and strategies and democratic decision-making. this is not to blame rioters or apologize for police brutality and repression. but it's massively irresponsible at best for outsiders such yourselves who claim to stand for class awareness and organization to agitate people this way. i realize that this thread isnt capable, fortunately, of agitating anybody, but your sentiments are in the wrong place

[Lord Testicles]

Personally, I think Brown deserves a Darwin Award. What happened was basically suicide by cop. Trying to wrestle a gun from a cop is dumb enough, but then trying to tackle the same armed cop is very Darwin Award worthy.


You should seriously consider drinking a lot of bleach.



Now there's your fucking victim. Fuck Brown. I've got no sympathy for him.

We'll all be sure to cry tears of pure sorrow at the plight of this poor petite-bourgeoisie store owner.

Way to show some class solidarity Raquin. I guess we all know what side of the barricades you'll be on you gallant defender of property.

[Lily Briscoe]

Dr. Rosenpenis, I think you're massively overestimating the influence of 'outside anarkies' on the events in Ferguson. Personally I don't 'cheer on' rioting and looting and I don't think it has the potential to 'move things forward' in a meaningful way, but what's going on is pretty clearly an expression of working class anger. It isn't 'outsiders' 'stirring things up', it's mostly people who live there and are, understandably, pissed off.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Riots seem a hell of a lot more democratic than any stuffy vanguard rhetoric in my opinion actually. It's weird that you've given yourself the authority to tell these folks what they should do while at the same time you've chastised people in this thread for doing far less.

People in Ferguson don't owe the landlords or shop owners any loyalty fuck their property

[Sasha]

Because "democratically organized marxist workers and vanguard parties" have brought the black proletariat so much improvement....

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Dr. Rosenpenis, I think you're massively overestimating the influence of 'outside anarkies' on the events in Ferguson. Personally I don't 'cheer on' rioting and looting and I don't think it has the potential to 'move things forward' in a meaningful way, but what's going on is pretty clearly an expression of working class anger. It isn't 'outsiders' 'stirring things up', it's mostly people who live there and are, understandably, pissed off.

i agree. rioting generally is an expression of understable and justified anger. but like you said it lacks the potential to move things forward which is why i think it's ridiculous for revolutionary leftists to support it

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Its always much more suspicious to me when leftists come out to criticize a riot. Who cares? Has the class struggle been set back in this country as a result of some strip malls being burned?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Riots seem a hell of a lot more democratic than any stuffy vanguard rhetoric in my opinion actually.

a couple dozen people breaking things in the midst of a protest of tens of thousands that claims to represent the plight of black america = democracy. about as democratic as the dprk tbh

[Creative Destruction]

I wouldn't indict Wilson either. All the evidence corroborates his account of the events.

This is not what grand jury indictments are actually about. Something on the order of 99% of federal grand juries indict, 95% of state grand juries indict. Almost the only exceptions to this are when it involves police-involved shootings. The strength of the evidence or merits of a case do not factor into the grand majority of indictments.

Maybe you should learn a thing or two about the actual process before you run your ignorant ass mouth?

[The Feral Underclass]

Its always much more suspicious to me when leftists come out to criticize a riot. Who cares? Has the class struggle been set back in this country as a result of some strip malls being burned?

What class struggle? Those riots are about as close as you're gonna get.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Its always much more suspicious to me when leftists come out to criticize a riot. Who cares? Has the class struggle been set back in this country as a result of some strip malls being burned?

to be clear, im not here to criticize any rioters in ferguson. im criticizing the infantile pro-riot position of the left. we should stand with folks in the streets and of course aim our criticism at the regime and the bourgeois state. but we shouldnt encourage action that's strategically counter productive

[Creative Destruction]

i have serious doubts about how wise it would be to "burn everything to the ground". it is categorically not the strategy of democratically organized marxist workers and vanguard parties. these riots, as a means of radicalizing the masses, fail at every level from a revolutionary proletarian perspective. mobilizing and radicalizing workers involves foremost standing for a revolutionary agenda with concrete demands and strategies and democratic decision-making. this is not to blame rioters or apologize for police brutality and repression. but it's massively irresponsible at best for outsiders such yourselves who claim to stand for class awareness and organization to agitate people this way. i realize that this thread isnt capable, fortunately, of agitating anybody, but your sentiments are in the wrong place

The point of riots isn't to be organized or lead the working class to revolution. And just because riots exist in such a capacity do not make them unmarxist or anything. We should analyze why they happen and what the material conditions are that set their stage. That is the "Marxist" thing to do.

IMV, riots are like pallet cleansers, in a way. They're undirected and chaotic rage, shortly after an expression of oppression has manifested itself. And, actually, it's not altogether true that they're "undirected" as such. It's a violent response/uprising in a chaotic form in order to return the chaotic violence of the system, in-kind. Looting and burning businesses and other structures of violence should be expected when you've kept people under a pressure cooker. (This isn't strictly the case; there are sports riots, but I'm excluding them because they are of a completely different nature.)

After the free-for-all settles is when people can sit down and look at what has happened, the causes for it and organize around a solution to the problem. I wouldn't participate in a riot, but I wouldn't condemn them either, right off the bat. I condemn the system that makes them possible. And I don't bemoan the losses of businesses it causes, because I don't care. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Most of those businesses will get insurance money, will rebuild and will try to maintain their place in the system. They have an out. The people in the riots do not, which is part of the reason why the riot in the first place. Com

[Creative Destruction]

to be clear, im not here to criticize any rioters in ferguson. im criticizing the infantile pro-riot position of the left. we should stand with folks in the streets and of course aim our criticism at the regime and the bourgeois state. but we shouldnt encourage action that's strategically counter productive

Riots aren't strategy. They're spontaneous shows of violence toward the system and its expressions. A riot in Ferguson isn't going to be "counter productive" to anything. At worst, it's neutral.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What class struggle? Those riots are about as close as you're gonna get.

i think this post illustrates fairly well how inconsequential rioting is. a small isolated island of radical action whose perspectives for greater mobilisation, radicalisation and change are nil. if riots are your prefered form of political action, then theyre quite literally as close as youre ever going to get

[Creative Destruction]

i think this post illustrates fairly well how inconsequential rioting is. a small isolated island of radical action whose perspectives for greater mobilisation, radicalisation and change are nil. if riots are your prefered form of political action, then theyre quite literally as close as youre ever going to get

No one has said that riots are their "preferred form of political action."

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Riots aren't strategy. They're spontaneous shows of violence toward the system and its expressions. A riot in Ferguson isn't going to be "counter productive" to anything. At worst, it's neutral.

as ive said im not condemning anybody for rioting. im condemning leftists for egging it on because they think it's revolutionary, as though it were constructive political radical action. it's counter productive in that it creates disunity in a situation where there is potential to organize effectively

[Creative Destruction]

as ive said im not condemning anybody for rioting. im condemning leftists for egging it on, as though it were constructive political radical action. it's counter productive in that it creates disunity in a situation where there is potential to organize effectively

What are you talking about? They don't "create" disunity; they're responses to disunity. If we had unity in the first place, the white working class would give up their self-segregation and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the black working class; we'd have general strikes instead of riots. It's not up to the rioters to create unity. That's a failure of the white working class, not the rioters. The rioters are in a defensive position. They've been clamoring for white workers to help them stop this shit.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i meant disunity among black americans specifically. obviously the potential for organization right now is among black communities and not the american masses in general. and obviously poc arent in any position to usher in racial harmony or whatever

[The Feral Underclass]

i think this post illustrates fairly well how inconsequential rioting is. a small isolated island of radical action whose perspectives for greater mobilisation, radicalisation and change are nil. if riots are your prefered form of political action, then theyre quite literally as close as youre ever going to get

Spoken like a true collaberationist.

Lets put aside the fact you seem perfectly comfortable with dismissing the black working class of Ferguson as "fetishists," what justification is your arrogant proclamations on what people there should and should not be doing based upon? What justification do you have for dismissing the way people in Ferguson are expressing their anger and frustration? And what exactly is it you want to put in its place? What else is there right now?

If you're not prepared to engage the class where they are in their moment and feel more comfortable belittling and dismissing them, then you have no right to speak of anything. People are rioting, that is a fact. Is it going to lead to anything substantive? Well, it could, but it certainly isn't if you stand on the sidelines shaking your head and tutting with your arms folded like a contemptuous school master overseeing some unruly children...Because that's essentially what you sound like right now.


as ive said im not condemning anybody for rioting. im condemning leftists for egging it on because they think it's revolutionary, as though it were constructive political radical action.

If you're going to condemn "leftists" for celebrating the riots in Ferguson then you're essentially condemning those who are rioting for rioting. Otherwise you're just taking some patronising position in which it's okay for the workers to riot, it's just not okay to be supportive of it. What kind of position is that? Rioting is an expression of open hostility and conflict with society. It's not a revolutionary act in-and-of itself, but it is an insurrectionary moment in which working class people see themselves outside of the logic of capital and the state and are angry enough to take action. The response to that from "leftists" is precisely to egg it on and be supportive of it, otherwise you just isolate yourself and end up siding with the state.


it's counter productive in that it creates disunity in a situation where there is potential to organize effectively

Organise who?! People are rioting! If you want to organise people then it has to start from that premise, not from the sidelines telling people what they're doing "isn't productive." People who are rioting don't need some jumped up communist telling them they're wrong. What they need is support, resources and methods to make their expression of anger more coherent. A riot is a great place to begin that process.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Lets put aside the fact you seem perfectly comfortable with dismissing the black working class of Ferguson as "fetishists,"
Dr. Rosenpenis wasn't calling the people in Ferguson who are rioting 'fetishists' but those behind their computer screens pretending it's a great revolutionary act 'fetishists'. Which would be an accurate description. Not everyone on this thread is doing that but there's a few with that undertone.


If you're going to avoid "leftists" for celebrating the riots in Ferguson then you're essentially condeming people for rioting. Otherwise you're just taking some patronising position in which it's okay for the workers to riot, it's just not okay to be supportive of it. What kind of position is that? Rioting is an expression of open hostility and conflict with society. It's not a revolutionary act in-and-of itself, but it is an insurrectionary moment in which working class people see themselves outside of the logic of capital and the state and are angry enough to take action. The response to that from "leftists" is precisely to egg it on and be supportive of it, otherwise you just isolate yourself and end up siding with the state.
I feel like there's nothing I'm going to say that will convince otherwise but I feel that it's a logical fallacy to claim that you are either for or against the riots and conversely against or for the state. Dr. Rosenpenis isn't saying "oh, think of those poor shop keepers!" or whatever...


What they need is support, resources and methods to make their expression of anger more coherent. A riot is a great place to begin that process.
I don't think I would disagree with you. However, in what way can this constructive support be introduced into a riot?

[The Feral Underclass]

Dr. Rosenpenis wasn't calling the people in Ferguson who are rioting 'fetishists' but those behind their computer screens pretending it's a great revolutionary act 'fetishists'. Which would be an accurate description. Not everyone on this thread is doing that but there's a few with that undertone.

What is the difference between those who support riots as an insurrectionary moment and those who are rioting?


I feel like there's nothing I'm going to say that will convince otherwise but I feel that it's a logical fallacy to claim that you are either for or against the riots and conversely against or for the state. Dr. Rosenpenis isn't saying "oh, think of those poor shop keepers!" or whatever...

Who benefits from claiming the riots are counter-productive? Who benefits from an intervention from the left that seeks the rioting to stop? Rosenpenis isn't for the state, but his language certainly aids the states agenda.


I don't think I would disagree with you. However, in what way can this constructive support be introduced into a riot?

Riots happen in a wave. On a particular day there will be a flash point and then people will dissipate, and then go back the next day and start again. This continues until there is either burn out or state repression is so fierce it makes it impossible. It is in those moments of dissipation that organising has to happen. But you have to be involved in it in order to have the space, time and credibility to do that. You can't organise for organisation (so to speak) in the abstract.

[Sasha]

A riot is a catharsic and empowering experience, it challenges authority and the status quo (and lets not forget its an excellent moment for some hands on redistribution of wealth) and in itself a political act already, its not revolution but its not non-revolutiony either.
I'm hazarding a guess that most of the people being dismissive of riots never been in a proper one.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What they need is support, resources and methods to make their expression of anger more coherent.

exactly


A riot is a great place to begin that process.

no it isnt

like ive said numerous times, and others like giant monkey man have clearly understood, i am not wagging my finger at protesters who are rioting. im saying that supporting riots and going to ferguson to start black blocs and wanking over riot porn isnt a consistent revolutionary leftist position. it's wankery. and pointing that out doesnt isolate you from the protestors. on the contrary, because surely most people on the streets of ferguson and accross america dont even support rioting because this isnt an actual organized mass insurrection, despite what you want it to be.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Now I'm interested in seeing what kind of electronic surveillance data was gained from this event. They can pour over ever little bit of data that went in and out of that area at their own pace. I can't tell if its supposed to be pour or pore

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Who benefits from claiming the riots are counter-productive? Who benefits from an intervention from the left that seeks the rioting to stop? Rosenpenis isn't for the state, but his language certainly aids the states agenda.
Why? Because he's calling for the black workers in Ferguson to organise in other ways to challenge the state? How is that, in any way, the same as liberal propaganda? How does having a discussion about rioting, in the context of a revolutionary forum, and suggesting it's not a path the working class should take if it wants to dismantle capitalism show 'aid' for the state? :confused:


Riots happen in a wave. On a particular day there will be a flash point and then people will dissipate, and then go back the next day and start again. This continues until there is either burn out or state repression is so fierce it makes it impossible. It is in those moments of dissipation that organising has to happen. But you have to be involved in it in order to have the space, time and credibility to do that. You can't organise for organisation (so to speak) in the abstract.
Why do you have to have been involved in the riot to have a say? Doesn't that exclude, for example, disabled people or parents with kids to look after who couldn't get involved in the riot but nonetheless have a vested interest in the organisation of their community? 'You weren't there, man!' isn't a valid reason to exclude members of the community (or people outside the community trying to show solidarity) from trying to help. I agree, though, that before and after these flash points are the key moments for workers to get organising. Hopefully something positive can be built out of it.

I'm not exactly knowledgeable of this but what sorts of things came out of the Rodney King riots?


I'm hazarding a guess that most of the people being dismissive of riots never been in a proper one.
I wasn't involved in the Russian Revolution, either, but that doesn't stop me from being able to have an opinion about the events that occurred.

[The Feral Underclass]

no it isnt

Then you seen no benefit in engaging the class where they are and therefore you're utterly useless.


like ive said numerous times, and others like giant monkey man have clearly understood, i am not wagging my finger at protesters who are rioting.

Except you think it's counter-productive and in not way beneficial to organising, so if you're not wagging your finger, what are you doing?


im saying that supporting riots and going to ferguson to start black blocs and wanking over riot porn isnt a consistent revolutionary leftist position.

Why do you think that's a significant statement to make? Who cares whether you think it's a consistent revolutionary position? You try and craft this image as being some kind of sensible revolutionary with the virtue of understanding class struggle, yet you've provided nothing of use to this discussion other that to make entirely redundant statements.

I mean, is your position on this subject really that people who "wank over riot porn" aren't useful...Is that really the sum of your intervention here...


and pointing that out doesnt isolate you from the protestors. on the contrary, because surely most people on the streets of ferguson and accross america dont even support rioting because this isnt an actual organized mass insurrection, despite what you want it to be.

Well, first of all I didn't say it was an organised mass insurrection, did I? Secondly, people don't support rioting because of idiots like you who are more willing to criticise them (as much as you want to pretend you're not) and reinforcing bourgeois prejudices about them. Instead of challenging the bourgeois hegemonic views on rioting and offering an analysis that seeks to utilise them and build class unity and solidarity, you simply create a conflict within the left with your reductive arguments about riot porn -- it's pathetic.

And I'd like to point out to you that you've not actually addressed the substance of my post, which was challenging what it is exactly you want as an alternative. Considering the mass response to the situation in Ferguson is rioting, how do you imagine people like you are going to relate to those people if you're on the sidelines telling them how their rioting is counter-productive and not benefiting anything? Do you really think that's a useful, relatable position to take at a moment like this?

[The Feral Underclass]

Why? Because he's calling for the black workers in Ferguson to organise in other ways to challenge the state?

So Rosendick's suggestion is that the people rioting in Ferguson should just stop doing that and do something else? Like what? How is refusing to participate in the activity of the class and therefore refusing to organise within that useful to achieving any objective of organisation and escalation? Momentum is a huge thing in situations like this and if you break up that momentum by telling everyone to stop and do something else, it is really difficult to get it back.

They don't need different ways to challenge the state -- They're already doing it! What they need is to bring coherency to that challenge.


How is that, in any way, the same as liberal propaganda? How does having a discussion about rioting, in the context of a revolutionary forum, and suggesting it's not a path the working class should take if it wants to dismantle capitalism show 'aid' for the state? :confused:

What are you talking about? None of what you're saying relates to anything I said.

What I said: "Who benefits from claiming the riots are counter-productive? Who benefits from an intervention from the left that seeks the rioting to stop? Rosenpenis isn't for the state, but his language certainly aids the states agenda."

Rosendick said the riots are counter-productive. He has said they are useless and he has regurgitated bourgeois propaganda about how people are "against riots", and therefore they shouldn't happen. My question is: Who does that benefit? Does it benefit the working class people who are rioting?


Why do you have to have been involved in the riot to have a say? Doesn't that exclude, for example, disabled people or parents with kids to look after who couldn't get involved in the riot but nonetheless have a vested interest in the organisation of their community? 'You weren't there, man!' isn't a valid reason to exclude members of the community (or people outside the community trying to show solidarity) from trying to help.

I've seen parents with kids and disabled people involved in riots, so let's cut that bullshit right out. But if you're point is that riots aren't inclusive then the point is to make them inclusive. That's where the organisation comes in. Riot situations escalate and things need to be organsied for: family support for those arrested, prisoner solidarity, defence committees to protect communities from state reprisals, propaganda campaigns, organising rioting targets, planning and building for occupations, resource appropriation and organisation, outreach to build links with others communities and workplaces etcetera. This is the work that can be done just from people rioting. You escalate and you organise.

You can't do any of that shit if you're telling everyone to stop because their riot is counter-productive to your particular view of politics. That's just bullshit.

[Sasha]

even the liberals over at the Stranger get it more than some folk here;


White Americans Care More About Property Damage Than Dead People (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/11/25/white-americans-care-more-about-property-damage-than-dead-people)

Posted by Paul Constant (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/paul-constant/Author?oid=17693) on Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM

http://www.thestranger.com/binary/67a3/1416941649-1416932827-p-20.jpg (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/11/25/20-photos-from-seattles-protest-of-the-ferguson-grand-jury-decision)

Sometimes, following Yes You're Racist on Twitter (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist) can be very uncomfortable. (If you're not familiar with the conceit, it's a Twitter feed that retweets the unbelievably racist things white people say on Twitter, which are frequently led with the phrase "I'm not racist but...") Last night, the feed was incredibly uncomfortable and absolutely revelatory. Whoever runs @YesYoureRacist retweeted dozens of unrepentant racists responding to Ferguson with absolutely no empathy at all. White people were angry at black people for being angry. White people were especially angry because protesters in Ferguson were attacking stores and used car lots. Defenseless places of commerce!
You know why angry protesters target stores and banks? You know why protesters in Seattle (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/11/25/the-morning-news-seattle-protesters-marched-briefly-shut-down-i-5-in-response-to-ferguson-grand-jury-decision) and New York shut down major roadways (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/nyc-ferguson-protests_n_6216528.html) last night? Because white America does not care if a police officer murders a young man in broad daylight, but white America howls with outrage if you interfere with the lifeblood of commerce. It's the only way to get a response out of the mainstream media, and it's the only way to get the suburbs to even notice that something is wrong. (Notice the media in Seattle really only started paying serious attention when Macklemore, the most commercial artist this city has produced in a couple decades, showed up at the protests (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/11/25/the-morning-news-seattle-protesters-marched-briefly-shut-down-i-5-in-response-to-ferguson-grand-jury-decision). Same idea.) When you're hurt, you want someone to notice, to help. Experience tells protesters that candlelight vigils disappear into the void. Speeches go unheard. But if you break the windows of a convenience store? Those TV news vans will show up in a split-second, their enormous antennas flying high in the sky. People—powerful people, rich people—will pay attention.
In fact, it's the only way the people of Ferguson can apparently earn that attention. For decades, the people of Ferguson sat down and shut up and behaved the way racist white people on Twitter claim to want them to behave. They were "rewarded" for their silence with a city government that did not represent them, that seemed to actively hate and target them. In an August editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/opinion/racial-history-behind-the-ferguson-protests.html?_r=0), the New York Times editorial board pointed out that "only three of 53 [Ferguson police] officers are black." Further, "Blacks account for 86 percent of the traffic stops in the city, and 93 percent of the arrests after those stops." Behaving didn't help those problems. In fact, it got a young man killed.

[Illegalitarian]

I don't know what's better ITT:

"but what about Marxist democratic organization!?!?!"

or


"Fuck Brown"

[Os Cangaceiros]

A riot is a catharsic and empowering experience, it challenges authority and the status quo (and lets not forget its an excellent moment for some hands on redistribution of wealth) and in itself a political act already, its not revolution but its not non-revolutiony either.
I'm hazarding a guess that most of the people being dismissive of riots never been in a proper one.

Yeah I pretty much agree with that analysis. I also don't really think that the circumstances of the actual shooting are all that interesting, although they're obviously relevant. But obviously it's about a lot more than that, the vast vast majority of people did not know Michael Brown so there's obviously some element there that resonated with a lot of people.

[Zoroaster]

It's ridiculous how people are more worried about their precious property than institutionalized racism. Then again, what should one expect from liberals and conservatives.

[John Nada]

I don't know what's better ITT:

"but what about Marxist democratic organization!?!?!"

or


"Fuck Brown"To be fair, I am kind of an asshole.;)(I need a name change).

The (original)Black Panthers were alright. They had some good ideas.


even the liberals over at the Stranger get it more than some folk hereWhat struck me on the news coverage on the riot is how the reporters were more concerned about the property damage and businesses than the actual people. It reminded me of that movie Do the Right Thing. A White person's property is valued over a Black person's life.:(

I've read the autopsy report. It didn't exonerate Wilson like the "experts" in the news claimed. Fucking prosecutor "might have" intentionally sunk the case.

I think the people of Ferguson's actions were 100% right. Not one tear for the bourgeoisies property, too many for POC murdered by their pigs.

[Bala Perdida]

It's an odd and vaguely contradictory position to take, calling riots unproductive and calling yourself a revolutionary. I used to like the idea of a non-violent revolution, but taking a good look at things I found that that is not how revolutions happen. At most, nonviolence will get you a reform. You need at least the threat of violence to get more. Riots are basically the base of a revolution if directed properly. By themselves, their is nothing revolutionary about them. Alone, riots are a response to the violence of authority. They don't plan on disposing the authority or really changing anything, they are simply a response. However, they also show the potential of a mass of people to respond aggressivly against authority/the state/the bourgeoisie whatever. Although I don't see it happening here, this is how revolutions start. Revolutions are violent actions in which a system or authority is disposed, discarded, or destroyed. When a revolution comes, this is how it's going to look like in the beginning. At this stage is is still considered relatively peaceful. So saying it is unproductive, is a general misunderstanding about how revolutions work.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yeah I pretty much agree with that analysis. I also don't really think that the circumstances of the actual shooting are all that interesting, although they're obviously relevant. But obviously it's about a lot more than that, the vast vast majority of people did not know Michael Brown so there's obviously some element there that resonated with a lot of people.

So what would you say about

https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

just out of curiosity?

Is a riot over the Vancouver Canucks not winning the Stanley Cup counter-productive in a way which riots following this Michael Brown case are not?

A friend shared this, and while perhaps taking those riots at face-value as 'caused' by a sports outcome rather than that being a catalyst for the release of defiant anger about something else entirely may not be entirely accurate. Still, it's interesting to consider these different rioters' priorities.

[Illegalitarian]

The persecutor said that had he not lost a leg as a child he would have definitely became a cop, since his father was a cop (who was killed in the line of duty by a young black man).

This persecutor also has a history of never going against the interests of the Ferguson PD and there were many pleas and a petition with 23K+ signatures to get him replaced on this case.

[Palmares]

Well I think it's a pretty obvious fact that riots, in of themselves, are not necessarily productive, or worthy of our support. Of course in this case, it undoubtedly is. But as Brad has eluded to, some riots are undertaken for reasons which we may disagree with.

In Australia for example, riots are rare, some of them related to sport, but also many related to racial conflict. Out of three I remember, two I support: one was a Indigenous riot against the death of a Aboriginal child who was chased by police; the second was some other Indigenous folk burning down a police station and kicking the (all white) cops from their Island in response to police brutality; and finally, the third was a white supremacist riot (the "Cronulla riots") where they attacked any non-white person they encountered.

So I know who I support. And I won't moralise to them, or their supporters, as if they are naughty children who won't obey they're parents. We should be in solidarity with the oppressed, not enabling division.

We are ungovernable.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So what would you say about

https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

just out of curiosity?

Is a riot over the Vancouver Canucks not winning the Stanley Cup counter-productive in a way which riots following this Michael Brown case are not?

A friend shared this, and while perhaps taking those riots at face-value as 'caused' by a sports outcome rather than that being a catalyst for the release of defiant anger about something else entirely may not be entirely accurate. Still, it's interesting to consider these different rioters' priorities.

I don't condemn "stupid riots" just because I realize how insufferably boring day to day life is and a nice round of drunken cop-pelting and property destruction can be fun. There is nothing particularly revolutionary about riots in-and-of-themselves, after all people riot for a variety of reasons including reactionary ones like the Moscow anti immigrant subway riots not long ago,, but in a wider social or political context they cab be empowering.

[RedSonRising]

Protests (and rioting) have erupted once again in Fergeson. Al Jazeera and other sources have live streams.

"Protesters Shut Down Three New York City Bridges In Reaction To Ferguson Decision"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/nyc-ferguson-protests_n_6216528.htmla

A useful reading:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

I think this is a marked moment in the raising of public consciousness with regards to issues of police brutality, racial discrimination, poverty, and class.

[Bala Perdida]

Come join us in the other thread homie.

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

We had a demo in Atlanta tonight. Fully militarized pigs were everywhere, which wasn't surprising. It's still fucked to see rows and rows of these asshats with automatic weapons staring you down as they bark orders to"Get out of the street or I'll fucking arrest you". :glare:

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Anyone had a chance to read Darren Wilson's testimony yet?

It's weird how this 6'2'' 250+ Ibs. trained police officer with a truncheon, a tazer and a firearm seemed to feel sooooooo defenseless against Michael Brown, like he was (and I quote) "....a 5 year old and he was Hulk Hogan".

And oh, that part about how Brown was making grunting noises and 'demon' faces while you were shooting him?

Well, maybe he was making grunting noises and looked angry BECAUSE YOU WERE FUCKING SHOOTING HIM!!!!

Goddamit, but this pig's bullshit is so fucking obvious and so fucking transparent, is it any wonder that people widely believe that the prosecutor threw the case? Is it any wonder that the fucking American Bar Association is now having inquiries about whether or not the bastard took a dive?!

[Jimmie Higgins]

The persecutor said that had he not lost a leg as a child he would have definitely became a cop, since his father was a cop (who was killed in the line of duty by a young black man).

This persecutor also has a history of never going against the interests of the Ferguson PD and there were many pleas and a petition with 23K+ signatures to get him replaced on this case.
Yeah, What interest would a prosecutor have for stabbing a highly petty vindictive organization (of people they schmooze with daily and rely on for building their career) in the back? How would he get cops to help testify and win his cases (since a cop's testimony trumps any hard evidence in court) if they see him as crossing them?

Beyond that larger systemic rigging, this case was rigged from the beginning and the prosecutor did not try this like a grand jury trial, he took a "neutral approach" and brought evidence from "both sides" even though "innocent until proven" doesn't apply to grand juries.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I have heard so much racist shit in the last 28 hours or so it makes me want to puke

I mean, I hear a lot of racist comments being white and in the south because I guess other white people want me to validate their bs opinions or something, but holy shit. I'm going to avoid my neighborhood dive for a few days.

solidarity with the protesters and condolences to michael brown's family

[BIXX]

Why the fuck is there no real demos where I live. No riots in "progressive" Portland. I guess the white folks here really dont give a fuck.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Why the fuck is there no real demos where I live. No riots in "progressive" Portland. I guess the white folks here really dont give a fuck.
it was getting pretty real here in Atlanta earlier. Protesters apparently got on the highway and had stopped traffic. I haven't heard any updates in a while, though.

[Atsumari]

lol here is some of the shit I have been seeing on my Facebook feed
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/10421144_10152606065137730_5965063444425379739_n.j pg?oh=e559bf6cfc8b5dced1c494fca0ce0bd5&oe=550F9D61

http://conservativetribune.com/new-autopsy-michael-brown/

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

Someone here should help create a drinking game from the shit that has been being spewed.

[slum]

we also fucked up traffic in boston, almost got down onto 93 proper

over 1000 people, easy

[Bala Perdida]

Why the fuck is there no real demos where I live. No riots in "progressive" Portland. I guess the white folks here really dont give a fuck.
For the 3rd largest city in the 3rd largest state, surprisingly nothing happens in San Jose. We got stuff up in Oakland, but I can't make the trip up there.

[Creative Destruction]

Why the fuck is there no real demos where I live. No riots in "progressive" Portland. I guess the white folks here really dont give a fuck.

yeah, it was pretty anemic. though, i did hear that they shut down I-5 for a bit, so that was pretty cool.

[BIXX]

yeah, it was pretty anemic. though, i did hear that they shut down I-5 for a bit, so that was pretty cool.
A friend called me and updated me about it, apparently I didn't hear about shit cause of work. Apparently there were rubber bullets and possibly a police van got kinda fucked up but I'm not positive.

[Creative Destruction]

A friend called me and updated me about it, apparently I didn't hear about shit cause of work. Apparently there were rubber bullets and possibly a police van got kinda fucked up but I'm not positive.

lol. i just saw a guy tweet "I'm so proud of my city tonight. Hundreds protested peacefully in the face of police intimidation, and we won."

i'm not exactly sure what you won, buddy. you posed no threat to the police and they went away... because you were peaceful. but yeah, then i heard that some shit went down in a couple of places.

the liberals up here are dumb as hell.

[BIXX]

lol. i just saw a guy tweet "I'm so proud of my city tonight. Hundreds protested peacefully in the face of police intimidation, and we won."

i'm not exactly sure what you won, buddy. you posed no threat to the police and they went away... because you were peaceful. but yeah, then i heard that some shit went down in a couple of places.

the liberals up here are dumb as hell.
It really makes me sad to be here sometimes. Like, its one of the bigger things that makes me want to leave.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

lol here is some of the shit I have been seeing on my Facebook feed
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/10421144_10152606065137730_5965063444425379739_n.j pg?oh=e559bf6cfc8b5dced1c494fca0ce0bd5&oe=550F9D61

http://conservativetribune.com/new-autopsy-michael-brown/

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

Someone here should help create a drinking game from the shit that has been being spewed.
Are you trying to fucking give me alcohol poisoning?

Yeah, I keep seeing those being posted, too. Ugh.

[Creative Destruction]

yeah, my wife and i are regretting no settling in Eugene or Seattle. i'll be transferring to UoW once i'm done with community college here.

eta. x-post

[BIXX]

yeah, my wife and i are regretting no settling in Eugene or Seattle. i'll be transferring to UoW once i'm done with community college here.

eta. x-post
I was thinking about going elsewhere but I'm not sure where (other than eventually I actually have to move to north Carolina).

[BIXX]

Now I'm off topic so I just wanna mention how I wish there were some god damn riots here.

[Creative Destruction]

I was thinking about going elsewhere but I'm not sure where (other than eventually I actually have to move to north Carolina).

North Carolina isn't that bad, depending where you go. Asheville is a small-ish hippy/college city... it reminded me of what Austin used to be.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

There are a couple of other members from here in Atlanta so hopefully they post with some new info and/or I hear something new about the demonstrations here (and will subsequently post).


I was thinking about going elsewhere but I'm not sure where (other than eventually I actually have to move to north Carolina).
we have good food here in the south, like cracklins, so ....

[edit]
cracklins are different from pork rinds / chicharrones and are served freshly cooked, not in sealed chip bags

[PhoenixAsh]

Has anyone here actually looked over the evidence, especially the autoposy results, except for me? The whole "Brown was holding his hands in the air when he was killed" tale has been debunked by the evidence.






I wouldn't indict Wilson either. All the evidence corroborates his account of the events.

Personally, I think Brown deserves a Darwin Award. What happened was basically suicide by cop. Trying to wrestle a gun from a cop is dumb enough, but then trying to tackle the same armed cop is very Darwin Award worthy.

By the way, remember the store owner who was robbed and assaulted by Brown minutes before Brown earned his Darwin Award?
http://i.imgur.com/D3fgDIB.jpg


His store got looted a second time yesterday


http://i.imgur.com/eXaWAMN.png

Now there's your fucking victim. Fuck Brown. I've got no sympathy for him.



What the actual fuck?

So here is what your argument boils down to:

* Protection of the petit-bourgeois.

* Apparently it is completely normal for an organisation to use lethal force against people within the scope of the law in lieu of trying to apprehend somebody...you know...like alive...

* Cops are just doing their jobs

* There is no context of racial reality that directly impacts the situation and the approach and measures taken by the cops against black people.

* Justice is served by executing a black person...apparently


What the fuck are you doing here?

[bcbm]

Now I'm off topic so I just wanna mention how I wish there were some god damn riots here.

meh riots are fun but it aint that much to look forward to

[Sabot Cat]

Folks are like, 'the only way real change is gonna happen is through Peaceful Protest™.'

But people did peacefully protest Trayvon Martin's murder.

People did peacefully protest the deaths of Brian Claunch, Robert Saylor and Stephon Watts.

And that did fuck all to keep the cops from shooting black people and/or disabled people to death for no fucking reason again and again.

Maybe if the cops learn that you can't just murder people with no consequences will they stop. If burning down buildings and smashing cars is the only way to get that across, that's fine with me.

[bcbm]

Maybe if the cops learn that you can't just murder people with no consequences will they stop. If burning down buildings and smashing cars is the only way to get that across, that's fine with me.

during the watts, detroit, etc riots there were actual snipers trying to take out police officers, huge swaths of destruction and so on.

that was almost fifty years ago.

i think periodic cathartic violence is an expected side effect of a system that is murdering people, especially people of color, at an exponential rate, not a deterrent for such.

[Sasha]

Time to post this one again: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

[PhoenixAsh]

Even the ACLU gets the shit that is happening:

http://www.aclu-mo.org/newsviews/2014/11/24/aclu-comments-officer-darren-wilson-grand-jury-decision


ACLU Comments on Officer Darren Wilson Grand Jury Decision
November 24, 2014

The grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson on charges in the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown. The following is reaction from Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri:

“The grand jury’s decision does not negate the fact that Michael Brown’s tragic death is part of an alarming national trend of officers using excessive force against people of color, often during routine encounters. Yet in most cases, the officers and police departments are not held accountable,” said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri. "While many officers carry out their jobs with respect for the communities they serve, we must confront the profound disconnect and disrespect that many communities of color experience with their local law enforcement.

“The ACLU will continue to fight for racial justice. We must end the prevailing policing paradigm where police departments are more like occupying forces, imposing their will to control communities. This ‘us’ versus ‘them’ policing antagonizes communities by casting a blanket of suspicion over entire neighborhoods, often under the guise of preventing crime.

“To build trust, we need a democratic system of policing where our communities have an equal say in the way their neighborhoods are policed. Collaboration, transparency and communication between police and communities around the shared goals of equality, fairness and public safety is the path forward.”

How the hell can't supposed revolutionaries not get it???

[Palmares]

Time to post this one again: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

Don't you remember that Lantz ripped this to shreds? :lol:

[BIXX]

Don't you remember that Lantz ripped this to shreds? :lol:
Oh my god. Don't remind me. Dark days, we live in, where the likes of Lantz show that maybe 870 isn't as annoying as it gets.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Exexe or whatever his name is was way worse. I've never met a person who could read something and then somehow walk away from it being less informed than he was to start with.

[BIXX]

Exexe or whatever his name is was way worse. I've never met a person who could read something and then somehow walk away from it being less informed than he was to start with.
No, we don't talk about that. We agreed.

[Counterculturalist]

I wouldn't indict Wilson either. All the evidence corroborates his account of the events.

Personally, I think Brown deserves a Darwin Award.

Fuck Brown. I've got no sympathy for him.


Woah.

Even if we accept the extremely dubious premise that Wilson's version of the story is correct, who cares?

Since when do we endorse the use of deadly force by the state?

Under absolutely no condition is it acceptable for a cop to kill an unarmed civilian.

Especially since cops are playing the role of an occupying, hostile army in black neighbourhoods.

Fuck Wilson, and fuck anybody who thinks walking in the middle of the street is justification for being confronted by an angry racist with a gun and a license to kill.

[Zoroaster]

Bropasaran was pretty bad as well.

[Red Commissar]

Protestors in Dallas (I'd say no more than 200) marched on Dallas PD last night, but a group of them turned up and blocked the stretch of I-35 that runs near the city. I can't tell how many were in this group, but it was enough to block one end of the highway. The police response was very over the top, there were at least 20 cop cars that ended up deploying around them on the highway and ended up blocking the other end of the highway. I haven't seen that many cop cars in one place as far as I can remember at least.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Then you seen no benefit in engaging the class where they are and therefore you're utterly useless.

on the contrary
i think that the left can only be relevant in this moment by supporting the protests, the affected communities, aiding the victims of police violence and especially helping people to organize in effective and consistent ways, rather than encouraging inconsequential impulsive acts of rioting that are incapable of gaining real momentum for the movement and much less mobilizing the masses. movements like this need organization and not raw anger expressed thru riots. there's nothing wrong with the latter unless it's your only tactic, but it's not what leftists should be encouraging when we can offer much more, i would like to believe.


Considering the mass response to the situation in Ferguson is rioting, how do you imagine people like you are going to relate to those people if you're on the sidelines telling them how their rioting is counter-productive and not benefiting anything? Do you really think that's a useful, relatable position to take at a moment like this?

i dont believe that rioting is the "mass response". im not dialoguing with the protestors in this thread, clearly. im confronting a part of the left that seems to have nothing to contribute to a potential mass movement other than encouraging isolated and useless acts of rioting.

im not calling on the left to try to stop riots. work on your reading comprehension

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You sound as detached from this reality as the strawman you're attempting to construct and fight in front of us. The 'left' in the us offers the chance to be lectured at by white university students who don't know what the fuck they're talking about and who have to rely on century old political pamphlets for guidance. It doesn't exist, its dead, stop talking about it. In fact stop talking at all. Anyone still bent out of shape over riots, rioters and their fans 24 fucking hours later is either a cop or is into some fucked up volunteer work. Close this thread

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

[O]n the contrary, I think that the left can only be relevant in [. . .] helping people to organize in effective and consistent ways, rather than encouraging inconsequential impulsive acts of rioting that are incapable of gaining real momentum for the movement and much less mobilizing the masses.

It seems to me that this suggestion is based on a false dichotomy - that collective violence is somehow inimical to political organization. I'd say, with some degree of practical experience, as well as some accounts from Ferguson itself, that this is not that case. Riots, for one, are rarely "inconsequential [or] impulsive" - and such an assertion is problematic. It often tends to rest on the idea that particularly black and brown "rioters" lack appropriately "political" consciousness, and that their activity is driven by "impulse". The immediate similarity to various racist tropes should be immediately obvious.


im not calling on the left to try to stop riots. work on your reading comprehension

And yet, you're holding rioting up against political organizing, rather than seeing it as part and parcel of that process. I think that this false distinction needs to be thrown out.

[Lily Briscoe]

In fact stop talking at all. Anyone still bent out of shape over riots, rioters and their fans 24 fucking hours later is either a cop or is into some fucked up volunteer work. Close this thread

I don't agree with Dr. Rosenpenis at all (although I think this thread is by and large a really boring echo chamber), but there is a difference between criticizing people rioting in Ferguson and criticizing leftists romanticizing and jacking off to it. It's also pretty shitty to insinuate that people are undercover cops over something so stupid.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Im not saying he's undercover, that would imply he's getting some kind of compensation for it. I don't care about rioting, im done talking about rioting. The pigs who murdered this dude want you to concentrate on the riots, fuck that.

[Lily Briscoe]

Lol wow

[Creative Destruction]

I don't agree with Dr. Rosenpenis at all (although I think this thread is by and large a really boring echo chamber), but there is a difference between criticizing people rioting in Ferguson and criticizing leftists romanticizing and jacking off to it. It's also pretty shitty to insinuate that people are undercover cops over something so stupid.

who is doing this?

[Lily Briscoe]

I don't have the time or interest to dig up quotes for you. You are welcome to scroll through the thread yourself; there are plenty of "rah rah burn it all to the ground" comments. That wasn't even my point, though. The point was that you can criticize the way some leftists view rioting without that automatically translating into condemning people who are rioting; they aren't the same thing at all.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And yet, you're holding rioting up against political organizing, rather than seeing it as part and parcel of that process. I think that this false distinction needs to be thrown out.


could you expound on this?

in what way is the rioting in ferguson and other cities part of a process of political organizing? from personal experience and what ive read rioters place themselves at the forefront of protest movements, disconected from the politicized and organized forces involved in an almost authoritarian way, countrary to the principles of mass, democratic mobilization

[BIXX]

I think the problem here isn't that folks fetishize riots but that other folks are unwilling to take joy in the simple fact of people expressing their rage and negating capital along with negating normalized resistance to the social order that by virtue of its normalization cannot damage the social order.

[Lily Briscoe]

I think the problem here isn't that folks fetishize riots but that other folks are unwilling to take joy in the simple fact of people expressing their rage and negating capital along with negating normalized resistance to the social order that by virtue of its normalization cannot damage the social order.That's hardly surprising since you are one of those "folks".

[Just as a side note, the juxtaposition between the 'down-home country feel' of the word "folks" and the pretentious academic jargon creates an aesthetic that is weirdly similar to the sensation of puking through your nostrils.]

Anyway no, I don't see any "joy" in any of this; I think the whole situation is absolute shit. Of course it would have been even more depressing if people had just taken it laying down, but it's all still pretty depressing, particularly considering that the working class in this country is so abysmally weak that there's virtually no prospect for any kind of organized, collective class response that can actually pose a real threat to "capital" at the current time.

And I hate to break this to you, but the rioting in Ferguson didn't "damage the social order". Actually, for all the celebrating of "cathartic violence" in this thread, I think this sort of stuff can sometimes serve as a kind of pressure valve, where angry working class people burn stuff and loot things and basically just let off steam and get it out of their system, and then return to their shitty jobs, the police return to brutalizing poor and working class minorities, and everything continues exactly as before. Which is, unfortunately, exactly what I think the situation will be in the case of Ferguson.

So yeah, I think these kinds of riots are spontaneous expressions of working class anger and are completely 'justified', and I have nothing but contempt for people lining up alongside the state in condemning them. But the fact that the long-distance riot-cheerleading in place of actual analysis* is less problematic by comparison doesn't make it immune from criticism, and in the context of this thread, it is by far the more common perspective.

*also, I don't really consider the whole "it empowers people (which you'd know if you'd ever actually been in a real riot, pussy!)" argument to be very persuasive. I mean, are e.g. working class people in London more "empowered" now than they were before the 2011 riots?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

could you expound on this?

in what way is the rioting in ferguson and other cities part of a process of political organizing? from personal experience and what ive read rioters place themselves at the forefront of protest movements, disconected from the politicized and organized forces involved in an almost authoritarian way, contrary to the principles of mass, democratic mobilization

It's funny that our experiences are so at odds.
Often, it's organizers - and those in the immediate circles of organizers - who are willing to take the risks associated with direct confrontation, along with proletarians who are outside official/institutional political milieus (and are thus unfamiliar with or dismissive of hegemonic left ideas on 'protest').

In any case, in riots, people confront property and the state in a direct way. They learn to coordinate the practical activity necessary to carry out expropriation and to tactically overcome police repression (look at the presence of masks, molotovs, and guns in Ferguson this time as opposed to last time). They learn to "call the question" - to force people to definitively take sides. None of this applies exclusively to those who are actively rioting - whole infrastructures of support and complicity accompany riots.

All of this pushes organizing forward: It opens up space for organizers to clarify contradictions, to say, "We support all forms of resistance against this racist system," in a way that isn't simply abstract. It allows organizers to identify different elements and struggles and communities: Who are the backward elements calling for collaboration with the state? Who are ready to come together and demand the release of arrestees (or raise funds)? Etc.

That's not to say that all riots are politically useful, or that all elements in a given riot are progressive. Yeah, people pick targets poorly, opportunists exist, etc. Ferguson, however, seems to be a case of black proletarians targeting bourgeois property and the police in the context of an organized on ongoing struggle.

[JTC]

I don't think (the looting in particular) is redistributing wealth or negating capital, or anything to do with actual realization of domination by the capitalist class. I think it is far more consumerist in nature, i agree with Slavoj Zizek on that matter. As for the riots in general i agree with their frustrations and have no problem with them happening as a riot would be a reasonable form of expression to have at the moment. But I agree with other posters that there should also be more effective and progressive ways of organizing a self-conscious political movement during the lulls.

[JTC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmy39crFrPQ

[Illegalitarian]

Uh ho here comes more paternalism about so-called riot fetishism and rejecting everything but some abstract notion of revolutionary violence overthrowing the system :rolleyes:

We're not allowed to be a bit hopeful at the sight of seeing working class people rising up and taking just a little bit of power into their own hands for a brief moment and wielding it against commerce without giving it a "class analysis" (which we all know is the best form of direct action). Go on, disperse, people. Go back to being misanthropic dialecticians until the revolution comes.

[Atsumari]

I am curious what the black radical version of GMiL, Aaron McGruder will make out of this incident.

[BIXX]

That's hardly surprising since you are one of those "folks".

I won't deny that I masturbate to riots. Damn you for sharing my desire! (Its kinda sad that everyone takes everything so seriously here that I actually feel like I have to clarify that this is a joke).


[Just as a side note, the juxtaposition between the 'down-home country feel' of the word "folks" and the pretentious academic jargon creates an aesthetic that is weirdly similar to the sensation of puking through your nostrils.]

I never really associated "folks" with a 'down hone country feel', possibly because I was raised saying it though. Also, I don't really give a shit if you think that what I said is pretentious academic jargon, as when it comes to real life it doesn't alienate the poor as you seem to be trying to imply it will. In fact they tend to understand what I'm saying better than most college students who I've talked to.


Anyway no, I don't see any "joy" in any of this; I think the whole situation is absolute shit. Of course it would have been even more depressing if people had just taken it laying down, but it's all still pretty depressing, particularly considering that the working class in this country is so abysmally weak that there's virtually no prospect for any kind of organized, collective class response that can actually pose a real threat to "capital" at the current time.
I don't give a fuck about the working class, for one. Not interested.

For two, leftist organizing has generally (though not always) kept people from posing any sort of threat to capital, whether its a serious or minor threat.


And I hate to break this to you, but the rioting in Ferguson didn't "damage the social order".
I don't pretend that they have- yet. What I'm saying is that the riots are opening a rupture that has the potential to harm the social order. We will see though if this actually happens. If not, then at least some folks got a taste of rebellion or a new TV or whatever.


Actually, for all the celebrating of "cathartic violence" in this thread, I think this sort of stuff can sometimes serve as a kind of pressure valve, where angry working class people burn stuff and loot things and basically just let off steam and get it out of their system, and then return to their shitty jobs, the police return to brutalizing poor and working class minorities, and everything continues exactly as before. Which is, unfortunately, exactly what I think the situation will be in the case of Ferguson.
This, in my opinion, is where radicals belong. To add to the tension created by riots and protests and whatnot, to bring it further and further until it snaps. As of yet we haven't seen this happen, but I think that probably my is a failure of radicals, not riots in of themselves.


So yeah, I think these kinds of riots are spontaneous expressions of working class anger and are completely 'justified', and I have nothing but contempt for people lining up alongside the state in condemning them. But the fact that the long-distance riot-cheerleading in place of actual analysis* is less problematic by comparison doesn't make it immune from criticism, and in the context of this thread, it is by far the more common perspective.
I don't think it should be immune from criticism. Nothing should.


*also, I don't really consider the whole "it empowers people (which you'd know if you'd ever actually been in a real riot, pussy!)" argument to be very persuasive. I mean, are e.g. working class people in London more "empowered" now than they were before the 2011 riots?

I think you're missing the point of the argument, even though I think in your failure to comprehend the original argument you managed to find something that I find to be kinda intriguing and correct: I don't think riots should be necessarily considered empowering, but rather they force those who engage in them to come to terms with their own weakness, or strength, and it allows them to push that to the limit. Which I think is pretty cool.

The original argument had less to do with class and everything to do with individuals who riot though. And in that sense you missed the point.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't give a fuck about the working class, for one. Not interested.

For two, leftist organizing has generally (though not always) kept people from posing any sort of threat to capital, whether its a serious or minor threat.
Firstly, 'not giving a fuck about the working class' sums up everything about your shitty politics. Secondly, the state's always shown that they consider the organised left a greater threat just through the actions they take to suppress organisations like the IWW, the Black Panthers, Deb's Socialist Party etc. Blacklisting, imprisonment and assassinations were just the obvious surface response, the Panthers saw a concerted effort to introduce drugs and illegal weaponry into their neighbourhoods etc. It's pretty obvious that the organised left has offered more for the working class in terms of opportunities to defeat capital than any riot porn individualist bullshit... but, of course, you don't actually care about the working class so what does it matter what I point out. :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

It's pretty obvious that the organised left has offered more for the working class in terms of opportunities to defeat capital than any riot porn individualist bullshit

By "organised left" what do you mean?

[PhoenixAsh]

Almost all revolutions find their origins in spontaneous or organized riots against the established order.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

By "organised left" what do you mean?

To be fair, they do list:


[O]ganisations like the IWW, the Black Panthers, Deb's Socialist Party etc.

That said, it seems a little disingenuous to use those examples in this context, other than maybe the SPUSA.

Like, the state isn't murdering CWI members, SEIU leaders, Organization for Black Struggle members, etc. The current left is . . . well, not the left 50, let alone 100, years ago.

[The Feral Underclass]

To be fair, they do list:



That said, it seems a little disingenuous to use those examples in this context, other than maybe the SPUSA.

I see. So do they mean that these organisations have delivered more to the working class than rioting?

[The Idler]

By "organised left" what do you mean?Organising into mass political parties to contest political power where the ruling class rule would be a good starter strategy.

[Hit The North]

Organising into mass political parties to contest political power where the ruling class rule would be a good starter strategy.

Is this the SPGB strategy?

[Illegalitarian]

I do think organization is important as a method for the masses to direct their violence in the right direction, as proven by uprisings of this sort. For example, it would be nice to see some sort of insurrectionist affinity group to come to fruition here and start attacking police departments, court houses, jails etc, or moving into more gentrified areas and destroying those. Shitting where you eat will only take you so far in a situation like this.

[Lily Briscoe]

While definitely not sharing the enthusiasm for these events that some people here feel, I do think it's pretty ridiculous that anyone would counterpose the absolute joke that is 'The Organized Left' in the US as an example of 'what to do instead'...

--

Anyway. I don't really see much need to respond to dirty doxxer's post.. I think it pretty much speaks for itself.

[TC]

Almost all revolutions find their origins in spontaneous or organized riots against the established order.

Err, this is clearly not true. Riots maybe happen in the course or leading up to revolutions a lot, but the kind of governments that incite revolutions also incite riots (and riots are a common phenomena) - the riots themselves however didn not play a significant part in many revolutions...it is really only among the recent European and Middle eastern not especially leftist revolutions that I think the statement holds most true.

[Comrade #138672]

"Nothing on Ferguson"...

...And yet, this thread has already got 8 pages.

[Q]

This podcast is having a whole episode about it (http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/72492/why-ferguson-burns-unfilter-124/) (among other coverage, but this is the most recent one). Certainly worth a watch.

[PhoenixAsh]

Err, this is clearly not true. Riots maybe happen in the course or leading up to revolutions a lot, but the kind of governments that incite revolutions also incite riots (and riots are a common phenomena) - the riots themselves however didn not play a significant part in many revolutions...it is really only among the recent European and Middle eastern not especially leftist revolutions that I think the statement holds most true.

I don't think we much disagree.

There are two distinctions. I never said the revolutions needed to be leftist and I never said they played a significant part in the revolution.

What I said was that revolutions developed from riots.

The precursor for a mass movement directed at a revolution in society is that it develops only from massive civil unrest and in almost all cases that civil unrest takes the form of riots.

There has only very, very rarely been a revolution that did not have riots preceeding them.

This goes for example for all major revolutions throughout history.

Whether they were religious, bourgeois, reactionary, fascist, or leftist in nature. Notable examples to mention a few were the Dutch uprising against the Spanish, the American Revolution, French revolution, Russian Revolution...etc.

[Comrade #138672]

A fascist dictatorship is certainly not a revolution. A revolution is necessarily progressive. If it is reactionary, then it is a counter-revolution, not a revolution.

[PhoenixAsh]

That is not what revolution actually means Comrade #138672

Revolution is a radical change in structure. The term revolution says nothing about the political direction of that radical change. All revolutions are seen as progressive by the ones having it. Progressive is a subjective term depending on the position from which something is judged.

[Ravn]

That is not what revolution actually means Comrade #138672

Revolution is a radical change in structure. The term revolution says nothing about the political direction of that radical change. All revolutions are seen as progressive by the ones having it. Progressive is a subjective term depending on the position from which something is judged.

Revolution is overthrowing the established order to replace it with another that is diametrically opposite to what had been established previously.

[Comrade #138672]

That is not what revolution actually means Comrade #138672

Revolution is a radical change in structure. The term revolution says nothing about the political direction of that radical change. All revolutions are seen as progressive by the ones having it. Progressive is a subjective term depending on the position from which something is judged.So, you deny the objectivity of progressiveness? This is contrary to the theory of historical materialism, which does assign objectivity to the historical forces at play. It is not at all subjective.

Furthermore, we can ask ourselves what "radical change" actually means. Is a fascist dictatorship "radical"? I would say that it is not, since, as we know, fascism is "capitalism in decay". It is a reaction of the bourgeoisie to the coming collapse of capitalism. The understanding of the necessary collapse of capitalism has been given to us by Karl Marx, in his theories of crises, and others. Fascism is meant to preserve capitalism, not change it. Therefore, it is neither radical or progressive.

To deny the objectivity of progression, is to deny the objective role of the proletariat in its emancipatory struggle against capital. It is precisely the objectivity of the need to overthrow capitalism, that gives the proletariat its objective strength.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes. I do deny that. As your post beautifully illustrates by linking progressive to the interests of the working class and argue "progressive" as a means of measurement how developments link to these working class interests.

Nor has Historic Materialism anything to do with working class interests. It is a scientific method of historical analysis.

According to Marxist principles the progression you advocate as being intergral part of Revolution was not really progress...for the working class...as you can read in the Communist Manifest and conclude from the concept of alienation.

Now...how again was that increased aliantion a form of progress for the working class in your opion? Or are we at a point that you are actually arguing that there has never been an actual revolution?

The term Revolution in itself, namely, has very little to do with the best interests of the working class. Much less with an objective progressiveness. The French revolution was a liberal and bourgeois revolution developing out of conflicting interests:

Here is Marx on the subject



The revolution of 1789 (at least in Europe) had as its prototype only the [English] revolution of 1648; the revolution of 1648 only the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain. Both revolutions were a century in advance of their prototypes not only in time but also in content.

In both revolutions the bourgeoisie was the class that really headed the movement. The proletariat and the non-bourgeois strata of the middle class had either not yet any interests separate from those of the bourgeoisie or they did not constitute independent classes or class sub-divisions. Therefore, where they opposed the bourgeoisie, as they did in France in 1793 and 1794, they fought only for the attainment of the aims of the bourgeoisie, even if not in the manner of the bourgeoisie. All French terrorism was nothing but a plebeian way of dealing with the enemies of the bourgeoisie, absolutism, feudalism and philistinism.

The revolutions of 1648 and 1789 were not English and French revolutions, they were revolutions of a European type. They did not represent the victory of a particular class of society over the old political order; they proclaimed the political order of the new European society. The bourgeoisie was victorious in these revolutions, but the victory of the bourgeoisie was at the same time the victory of a new social order, the victory of bourgeois ownership over feudal ownership, of nationality over provincialism, of competition over the guild, of the division of land over primogeniture, of the rule of the landowner over the domination of the owner by the land, of enlightenment over superstition, of the family over the family name, of industry over heroic idleness, of bourgeois law over medieval privileges. [3]

So clearly Marx doesn't link revolution with the interests of the working class. Marx clearly distinguishes between bourgeois and proletarian revolutions here.

Kind of completely contradicting what you just wrote.

[PhoenixAsh]

Revolution is overthrowing the established order to replace it with another that is diametrically opposite to what had been established previously.

Well...I don't agree with the term "diametrically opposed" in this context. Essentially that is not something that would hold up at all. But I do get your sentiment...and I will write it off as a semantic difference of opinion.

[The Idler]

Is this the SPGB strategy?
What do you think?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

While definitely not sharing the enthusiasm for these events that some people here feel, I do think it's pretty ridiculous that anyone would counterpose the absolute joke that is 'The Organized Left' in the US as an example of 'what to do instead'...
In it's current state, the left in the US and across the world, excepting a few places, is weak, there's no denying that. But that's why I feel people should be organising to build something that would have enough weight, numbers and a decent enough perspective to actually pose such a threat. I'm not bothered enough to care what that perspective exactly is (I do have my opinions from experience but I know that conditions, opportunities and requirement are different everywhere) but I do know that that sort of dismissal of the working class in favour of hipster individualism offers about as much for the anti-capitalist movement as Maoist Third Worldism. The adage should to be 'educate, agitate, organise' not 'agitate, agitate, agitate'.

Saying 'organise' for organisations sake is pretty arbitrary, however. I did ask earlier in the thread, but didn't get a response presumably because it got buried, about what emerged from the Rodney King riots? Where there any working class networks or organisations that developed out of those riots and what could we potentially expect to see after these?

[The Feral Underclass]

So do you mean that these organisations have delivered more to the working class than rioting?

GiantMonkeyMan, I still don't have an answer to this question...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

GiantMonkeyMan, I still don't have an answer to this question...
Which ones, the IWW, SPofA and the Black Panthers?

[The Feral Underclass]

Which ones, the IWW, SPofA and the Black Panthers?

I dunno, you're said "the organised left"...I'm trying to work out what you mean by that...

[Ravn]

Well...I don't agree with the term "diametrically opposed" in this context. Essentially that is not something that would hold up at all. But I do get your sentiment...and I will write it off as a semantic difference of opinion.


I said "diametrically opposite". (But same meaning, though "opposed" arguably has the clearer meaning.(So, why fret?))How can you call something a revolution if the opposition to the established order** is not contrary to it? Otherwise it's just a coup d'etat. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

On what real grounds can you object to the term diametric opposition in reference to revolution?


**in form & content

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I dunno, you're said "the organised left"...I'm trying to work out what you mean by that...
Socialists should organise in groups for perpetual, ongoing struggles against capital, to defend workers from the attacks of the capitalists and strive for better lives using a variety of tactics, whether violent or non-violent, and not just wait for periodic spontaneous eruptions and pretend that they're representative of some epic realisation of anti-capitalism...... but really you don't care about the answer because you've already made up your mind about what I'm saying.

[The Feral Underclass]

Socialists should organise in groups for perpetual, ongoing struggles against capital, to defend workers from the attacks of the capitalists and strive for better lives using a variety of tactics, whether violent or non-violent, and not just wait for periodic spontaneous eruptions and pretend that they're representative of some epic realisation of anti-capitalism.......

You said, "the organised left has offered more for the working class in terms of opportunities to defeat capital than any riot porn individualist bullshit." All I want is for you to tell me what this organised left is and what they have offered that rioting has not.


but really you don't care about the answer because you've already made up your mind about what I'm saying

I have no idea what you're saying, so I'm not sure how that's possible.

[Ravn]

Yes. I do deny that. As your post beautifully illustrates by linking progressive to the interests of the working class and argue "progressive" as a means of measurement how developments link to these working class interests.

Nor has Historic Materialism anything to do with working class interests. It is a scientific method of historical analysis...

A scientific method of historical analysis is in the best interest of the working class because without an objective understanding of history & material reality there's no way the working class can take power. "[Historical materialism] is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised. Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, along with the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity", (Wikipedia).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You said, "the organised left has offered more for the working class in terms of opportunities to defeat capital than any riot porn individualist bullshit." All I want is for you to tell me what this organised left is and what they have offered that rioting has not.
I told you what I conceive of as the 'organised left' in the previous post. It's the left-wing organising to defend the working class from the attacks of capital and to ultimately organise for capital's destruction.


I have no idea what you're saying, so I'm not sure how that's possible.
That's because you're being either stupid or intellectually dishonest and I know you're not stupid.

[The Feral Underclass]

I told you what I conceive of as the 'organised left' in the previous post. It's the left-wing organising to defend the working class from the attacks of capital and to ultimately organise for capital's destruction.

What is a riot if it is not the actual working class defending themselves from attacks by capital? And what has the "organised left" -- as you conceive it -- offered the working class that rioting has not?


That's because you're being either stupid or intellectually dishonest and I know you're not stupid.

You made a statement that is entirely unclear to me. As difficult a concept it is for you to understand, I'm not trying to trick you here, I just don't understand what you're talking about.

[PhoenixAsh]

A scientific method of historical analysis is in the best interest of the working class because without an objective understanding of history & material reality there's no way the working class can take power.

Now you are just reaching...as you have justsaid that to deny the objectivity of progessiveness is to deny historical materialism you obviously argued that the objectivity of progressiveness was an integral part of Historic Materialism...and it is not.

You did not say, nor mean or imply, that your statement meant that you classified that Hitsorical Materialism was in the best interest of the proletariat.

Nor do I agree with your assessment about the pivotal role (or even importnat role) in class consciousness or class emancipation of Historical Materialism.

And while we are at it...I am not a historical materialist nor do I think it is an infallible method....rather a usefull tool.




"[Historical materialism] is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised. Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, along with the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity", (Wikipedia).

Yes. How does the objectivity in progressiveness feature into this?


And do you have an answer to my comments regarding "progress" and the fact of continued aliantion in respect to your statement that progress is a reflection of the working class interests and an integral part of the concept of revolution?

Does revolution not exist beyond the scope of working class interests? And if it does...how can something that according to Marx alianated the proletariat be in any way seen as progress within the context of your arguments?

[TC]

A fascist dictatorship is certainly not a revolution. A revolution is necessarily progressive. If it is reactionary, then it is a counter-revolution, not a revolution.

You're making a merely semantic claim here - asserting, *without justification*, your preferred definition of the *word* "revolution" - but most people don't use the word that way.

That "revolutions [are] necessarily progressive" is not a claim about the world or society or morality that can be argued for according to social science or normative reasoning - it is a claim about the word, and when you make claims abotu words inconsistent with the popular usage of those words....they are funny kinds of claims (yet I see people do that all the time here).

So, why for example would you insist that the word revolution be used to describe only progressive overturning of the government and not reactionary ones - rather than say, having 'revolution' as the generic term for successful overturning of the established order, and allow 'progressive' or 'reactionary' to act as modifiers (such that you can make sense of what someone means why they describe a 'progressive revolution' or a 'reactionary revolution').

[BIXX]

I actually have never understood why people say there is a need to an objective understanding of history for the working class to take power. If we are true materialists (which I don't really consider myself to be) wouldn't the working class take power because the conditions are right, not because some intellectuals (or even the working class itself) have what they consider to be the most accurate understanding of history? Think nihcom.
I quote at length:


On consciousness

Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.*— 1984

Many pro-revolutionaries argue that revolution cannot happen without a revolutionary will propelling the revolutionary body forward. For them the revolutionary body must be conscious of its goal and of the connection between its actions and the goal, it must be aware of the consequences of what it is doing when it is engaging in revolutionary activity. For many pro-revolutionaries this means the revolutionary body must consciously embody both explicit revolutionary and post-revolutionary values. The question of consciousness is therefore absolutely central to the revolutionary project and to pro-revolutionary practice. But certain problems become apparent when consideration is paid to the specific formulations of consciousness and the means of its arrival or manifestation in the revolutionary body. The first of these is the relative but objective separation of pro-revolutionaries from the revolutionary body, there seems little in common between the political values of the pro-revolutionaries and the economic struggles of the revolutionary body. This separation is most clearly stated in class terms: all too few pro-revolutionaries are proletarians, this immediate distance calls for solutions to the problem of how to reach out to the workers, what language to use, which short terms goals may be pursued without compromising the revolutionary project, which revolutionary values are appropriate for expression in this situation, and so on. Most crucially there is the problem of reproducing class relations within the revolutionary movement: middle class intellectuals as leaders and workers as, well, workers. From our experience of the current pro-revolutionary milieu, we have found no serious theoretical address of this problem. Most pro-revolutionaries have no clear-cut definitions of what revolutionary consciousness is, or how it is to be transmitted by pro-revolutionaries to the revolutionary body without the contamination of class domination. We have found that pro-revolutionaries are simply not prepared to discuss why ft is that revolutionary consciousness has been steadily leaking out of the proletariat since 1945, and why after fifty years of pro-revolutionaries ‘speaking the workers language’ this drift has not been reversed. They have been busily dropping pebbles in the jar but the level of the water has not risen. Why has the pro-revolutionary movement had no success in conveying its message? Why has the working class not listened to its educators?

Consciousness is a political category. A world-wide or even national conscious proletarian identity would involve a high degree of*organisation, which is another word for consciousness. There is no objectively existing, separate sphere of revolutionary consciousness and certainly none that is owned by a particular section of humanity; the working class especially do not own consciousness, they do not own anything (except their playstations). So, if revolutionary consciousness does not exist objectively, that is, as an immediate determination of the material base, then organisations must bring it into the world. Organisation carries consciousness into the world; as consciousness is not present ‘naturally’ it must be transmitted by an organising agency, but which organisation?

It is the pro-revolutionaries themselves who contribute consciousness to the revolution, but unless we understand pro-revolutionaries as being an objective expression of the negation of capitalist society then we are bound to see both their antagonism to all aspects of the existing order (and not just to some political issues) and their role of transmitting to the working class values that transcend existing conditions, as being more than a little subjective and therefore fallible. Most pro-revolutionary groups view themselves as being objectively constituted by the need of society to overthrow capital and therefore they see themselves as qualified to prescribe values and strategies to the proletariat. We completely refute this assumption; all pro-revolutionary groups are subjective bodies, created by the subjective will of their participants, their perspective therefore never escapes their subjectivity (if this were not so, then there would not be many small pro-revolutionary groups competing against each other, but only one organisation. Of course, most pro-consciousness organisations have a tendency to see themselves as the one true faith, and on this basis launch their critiques of each other). Pro-revolutionary groups are not the historic party, they have not been thrown up by the economic bаsе, they are not an inescapable result of capitalism’s contradictions. In most cases pro-revolutionary groups are created in response to purely political events and have little connection to workers’ struggles. Those who argue for the transmission of revolutionary consciousness to the working class by pro-revolutionaries see their role, effectively, as one of leadership. It is interesting for us to observe how those who argue for the ‘transmission of consciousness’ model do not practically escape from the confines of their milieu and do not reach the working class, they seem content to exhort each other to be more realistic, speak in a language the workers will understand, etc etc. But nothing ever happens, if these activists were any good then they would surely be locally recruiting five or more new adherents every week. The fact that the message is not getting through is, for us, the final critique of the concept of ‘messages’. To set in advance what ideological requirements are to be met by the proletariat, despite all experience of the failure of this method, is putting the cart before the horse and is a good example of impatience, this is as true for ‘councilists’ as it is for vanguardists.

Because pro-revolutionaries have not learned how to wait, have not learned to engage at the level of their experience — they are always wanting to lead the way, wishing to push forward*their*hot-brained solutions — they are forever looking back and wondering why nobody is following them. Theories of consciousness and organisation are always attempts to impose past reflective forms onto living struggles — consciousness in these schemes becomes a stage, a precondition for the revolution. These pro-conscious/pro-revolutionaries think that no matter how intense a specific struggle might be, if it is not explicitly political then it is lacking in essence and therefore not wholly real — to the struggle they bring always the political dimension but never consider how the political dimension may, in reality, be lagging behind the economic struggle.

While their argument here is against consciousness, I think it could easily be turned to our "objective" histories. The revolution will not be brought by ideas or any of that, but material conditions.

Anyway, that doesn't have much to do with the topic but I am curious about these objective histories I hear so much about.

[Sasha]

lol, even someone over at fucking time magazine wrote a piece in defense of the rioting; http://time.com/3605606/ferguson-in-defense-of-rioting/

i was going to say "its a sad moment when Time has both a better political analysis and more spine than some at Revleft" but then i remembered this was always the case anyways...

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/27/nancy-grace-absolutely-obliterates-darren-wilson-and-prosecutor-robert-mcculloch-on-cnn-video/


http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

[Ravn]

Now you are just reaching...as you have justsaid that to deny the objectivity of progessiveness is to deny historical materialism you obviously argued that the objectivity of progressiveness was an integral part of Historic Materialism...and it is not.

I said no such thing at all. I'm saying without historical materialism, i.e. a scientific analysis of the historical conditions of social developments, the working class can not gain an objective view of reality. Without such, it lacks a critical means to gain power.



You did not say, nor mean or imply, that your statement meant that you classified that Hitsorical Materialism was in the best interest of the proletariat.

I said that historical materialism is in the best interest of the working class, specifically. Your issue with progressiveness is confused. I didn't even address it.



Nor do I agree with your assessment about the pivotal role (or even importnat role) in class consciousness or class emancipation of Historical Materialism.

I wouldn't put it that way. Class consciousness serves a pivotal role in class emancipation of the working class, & utilizing historical materialism & dialectics is a critical means to do that.



And while we are at it...I am not a historical materialist nor do I think it is an infallible method....rather a usefull tool.

And yet you don't apparently don't respect it as the essential tool it is. & if you object to a materialist outlook then you're going to be a little shaky on what objective reality is, to say the least.



Yes. How does the objectivity in progressiveness feature into this?

There is a revolutionary & a reactionary aspect to progressive politics. If you insist on a one-sided view of it, then you're going to miss the boat here.




And do you have an answer to my comments regarding "progress" and the fact of continued aliantion in respect to your statement that progress is a reflection of the working class interests and an integral part of the concept of revolution?

I wouldn't say that "progress" is necessarily a reflection of working class interests. I would say that progressive politics is a reflection of a mix of reformist & revolutionary tendencies with the reformist side predominating. Nevertheless to toss all progressive politics is counter-productive. It's at least a step in the right directions in part.



Does revolution not exist beyond the scope of working class interests? And if it does...how can something that according to Marx alianated the proletariat be in any way seen as progress within the context of your arguments?

The primary contradiction in this society is the one between the capitalist class & the working class. So, no, the revolution is not beyond the scope of the working class overthrowing the dictatorship of the capitalist class.

Your apparent choice is to either align your petty-bourgeois interests with the working class or continue to align them with the bourgeoisie & recognize them as such. That's up to you.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

What is a riot if it is not the actual working class defending themselves from attacks by capital? And what has the "organised left" -- as you conceive it -- offered the working class that rioting has not?
A sustained defence.

[Tim Cornelis]

*very deep sigh*
Sasha is suggesting that “RevLeft” (the minority camp apparently) has worse analysis than Time Magazine given that one writer has produced a piece defending the riots. There has unfortunately been a consistent misinterpretation of our position as somehow “anti-riot” by some users. Our, or at least my, position is not against the riots, nor was it ever. The riots are a reflexive and impulsive reaction against the structural marginalisation of African people. Whether Mike Brown attacked the officer is irrelevant, and likely he did. The police in those communities is perceived as an alien or foreign force, and is simultaneously behaving and perceived as a sort of occupation force (of course, as communists we wish that the entirety of the working class perceives it as the occupation force of the bourgeoisie). So a violent uprising against this racist occupation force is of course something we cannot object to.

What I object to is the uncritical specific fetishistic position communists take on these riots. What I argue is that these riots are not going far enough. My position is analogous to the one all communists should have on a general strike that paralyses an entire country for a definite period of time. We would, of course, not object to the general strike, but at the same time we need to recognise that it doesn't go far enough. Then if we see fetishistic positions of communists (who ought to know better) on the general strike, putting little emphasis on the task of revolutionaries in capitalism – being preoccupied with form and less with content – then indeed we would and should criticise that. The task of communists is essentially one of escalation, but escalation does not mean more violent. It means more effective action on top of more effective action. Not tailing any particular direction that happens to coincide with gut feelings of the masses.

Incidentally reoccurring apolitical riots are fragmented pieces of unarticulated resistance and therefore do not in any way contribute to the emancipation of the working classes, and the elimination of structural racial and sexual marginalisation. They are unable to build structural resistance to structural marginalisation and are therefore not the most productive activity available to structurally marginalised people. A reflexive riot (that is, apolitical in the sense that it does not advance any tangible political demands) is barely a tactic, and more importantly, it does not take place within a strategic framework. It is undirected, ineffective flailing against a by comparison almighty oppressor.

Apolitical riots being unable to challenge the root of the riots itself, we can only conclude that they are not doing enough, they are not going far enough. And farther does not mean more violent. Farther means putting in the foundation for the removal of the occupation force and its political and economic roots. And this requires permanent, well organised political organisation, whether we call this a party or not. More effective political action would presumably be non-violent, but this is by no means a capitulation to the principle of non-violence. It is a tactical and contingent operative application of non-violence, while watching against premature and therefore ineffective use of violence.

Revolutionary activity is both destructive and constructive, and communists, but specifically Marxists, have recognised the constructive capacities of the working class, especially in comparison to the mere destructive capacities of the lumpen-proletariat. It's therefore no more than logical to take a critical position on these riots. Channelling anger rooted in oppression into something productive and constructive that can challenge oppression. I'm not sure why RevLeft (minus a few) find this so controversial. Unless I have misconstrued something, but it seems pretty clearly expressed that class analysis is to be disregarded in favour of emotional attachment (proclaimed by someone who misidentifies as revolutionary Marxist). This position seems pretty infantile to me. The need to analyse social events critically is dismissed, scoffed, and twisted into an opposition that does not actually exist. This is similar to the untenable Maoist counter-argument that “at least they are doing something, risking their lives”, an emotional deflection from the tenable arguments that people's war does not actually advance an organised force realistically capable of challenging capital.


I actually have never understood why people say there is a need to an objective understanding of history for the working class to take power. If we are true materialists (which I don't really consider myself to be) wouldn't the working class take power because the conditions are right, not because some intellectuals (or even the working class itself) have what they consider to be the most accurate understanding of history? Think nihcom.

Because we do not deny human agency entirely, this would be a vulgar deterministic position. Had Marxism not existed, socialism would still have. And at some point emancipation would still occur. Marxism is not valuable because it enables intellectuals or the working class to make revolution when they have the correct understanding of history – it would be idealistic to claim so. But since we do not deny human agency categorically, we acknowledge that the actions we take can influence the direction of mass political action. Marxism is valuable then, to understand that the working class and its capacity, as socialised labourers, to engage in collective action to overthrow the rule of capital. We understand that the proletariat and only the proletariat has the social power to do so – it is the revolutionary agent. This then allows us to build a party that accommodate this and potentially permit this party to assume a bilateral position of revolutionary leadership. It allows us to constitute the revolutionary working class into a potent political formation for emancipation and liberation, which is tied up with the faith of the proletariat – and not individuals, not the lumpen, the artisans, not the peasants, not the small shopkeepers. In other words, it shows us why “I don't give a fuck about the working class” is an asinine starting position for political action, a self-defeating and self-undermining one. “Anarchist doctrines are the expression of the following thesis: centralised power is evil; and they assume that the entire question of the liberation of the oppressed class can be resolved by getting rid of it. But for the anarchist, class is only an accessory concept. He wishes to liberate the individual, the person … The idea of freeing the individual, the person, and making him autonomous, boils down to the ridiculous formula of the subjective refractory individual, who shuts his eyes to society and its oppressive structure because he is convinced that he can't change it, or else he dreams about one day planting a bomb somewhere; the end result is contemporary existentialism which is unable to effect [sic!] Society in the slightest.” (Bordiga).

I obviously disagree with Ravn arguing that historical materialism is critical for the working class. It's sufficient that the working class acts in its interests and crucially that its long-term interests come to coincide with its (perceived) short-term interests. The working class doesn't have to be conscious of its historical role, and doesn't need any knowledge of Marxism per se. But it does help, for instance by guarding against economism and whatnot.

Ravn also says “The primary contradiction in this society is the one between the capitalist class & the working class.” That's simply inaccurate. The primary contradiction is capitalist appropriation and socialised production, which results in conflict (conflict is distinct from, but often conflated with, contradiction) between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

[PhoenixAsh]

I said "diametrically opposite". (But same meaning, though "opposed" arguably has the clearer meaning.(So, why fret?))How can you call something a revolution if the opposition to the established order** is not contrary to it? Otherwise it's just a coup d'etat. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

On what real grounds can you object to the term diametric opposition in reference to revolution?


**in form & content

In some cases it is exactly like meet the new boss same as old boss from the perspective of those ruled.

For example. The conditions of the working class after the French revolution did not change dramatically, although there were some benefits,in some cases their position worsened...and it was not for another 50 years before the working class reached the level of consciousness that inspired a working class revolution. It reached that class consciousness because of the fact that their position did not change.

[PhoenixAsh]

I said no such thing at all. I'm saying without historical materialism, i.e. a scientific analysis of the historical conditions of social developments, the working class can not gain an objective view of reality. Without such, it lacks a critical means to gain power.

I said that historical materialism is in the best interest of the working class, specifically. Your issue with progressiveness is confused. I didn't even address it.

Yes...I got you confused with Comrade and my reply was in line with that discussion. Sorry.


I wouldn't put it that way. Class consciousness serves a pivotal role in class emancipation of the working class,

Fair enough



& utilizing historical materialism & dialectics is a critical means to do that.

I don't agree. Neither are particularly important to class consciousness.


And yet you don't apparently don't respect it as the essential tool it is. & if you object to a materialist outlook then you're going to be a little shaky on what objective reality is, to say the least.

No I do not respect it as essential because it isn't and it isn't infallible. It is usefull but nothing beyond that.

Historic Materialism is a determinist scientific method based on the means of production and relationship to the means of production. It rejects other avenues of development, human influence on developemnt etc.

Luxemburg even criticised Historical Materialism as detrimental to class conscious...as does Landauer and do many others because of the deterministic nature that makes the development towards a socialist revolution inevitable and humans mere leafs in the winds of economic development with no real agency on historic development or any means to actually change society.




There is a revolutionary & a reactionary aspect to progressive politics. If you insist on a one-sided view of it, then you're going to miss the boat here.

I am not insisting on any view beyond the fact that "progress" is highly subjective and dependend on the point of reference.



I wouldn't say that "progress" is necessarily a reflection of working class interests. I would say that progressive politics is a reflection of a mix of reformist & revolutionary tendencies with the reformist side predominating. Nevertheless to toss all progressive politics is counter-productive. It's at least a step in the right directions in part.

You do realize that Bismarck was a political progressive, right?
I also reject the progressive part of "progressive politics" as nothing more than subjective mumbo-jumbo.

And progress is not necessarilly a part of the concept of revolution.

Which is the statement which brought us to this debate.




The primary contradiction in this society is the one between the capitalist class & the working class. So, no, the revolution is not beyond the scope of the working class overthrowing the dictatorship of the capitalist class.

Your apparent choice is to either align your petty-bourgeois interests with the working class or continue to align them with the bourgeoisie & recognize them as such. That's up to you.

:rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

A sustained defence.


You argue that it was the task of the left to organise a defence and you seem to acknowledge that riots are a defence, but yet you reject that riots are a place for the left to organise? I don't understand how this correlates.

Also, since I've asked you about four times without and answer, I can only infer that you don't know what the organise left has delivered for the working class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

“Anarchist doctrines are the expression of the following thesis: centralised power is evil; and they assume that the entire question of the liberation of the oppressed class can be resolved by getting rid of it. But for the anarchist, class is only an accessory concept. He wishes to liberate the individual, the person … The idea of freeing the individual, the person, and making him autonomous, boils down to the ridiculous formula of the subjective refractory individual, who shuts his eyes to society and its oppressive structure because he is convinced that he can't change it, or else he dreams about one day planting a bomb somewhere; the end result is contemporary existentialism which is unable to effect [sic!] Society in the slightest.” (Bordiga)

Are you posting this facile definition of anarchism to be provocative or because you think it's a fair representation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravn]

I obviously disagree ... that historical materialism is critical for the working class. It's sufficient that the working class acts in its interests.

& part of that interest is to have a through understanding of objective conditions past & present. Without that, how can the working class move forward in a realistic way?
An approach lacking historical materialism would be a fatal mistake.




The primary contradiction is capitalist appropriation and socialised production, which results in conflict (conflict is distinct from, but often conflated with, contradiction) between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

There's a dialectical contradiction between capitalist expropriation & socialized production. That's a reflection of the dialectical contradiction between expropriators & the expropriated, i.e, the capitalist class & the working class. Expropriation & socialized production involves real actors. They're not disembodied entities that happen to involve people.

[Comrade #138672]

Yes. I do deny that.Hm, interesting.


As your post beautifully illustrates by linking progressive to the interests of the working class and argue "progressive" as a means of measurement how developments link to these working class interests.

Nor has Historic Materialism anything to do with working class interests. It is a scientific method of historical analysis.

According to Marxist principles the progression you advocate as being intergral part of Revolution was not really progress...for the working class...as you can read in the Communist Manifest and conclude from the concept of alienation.

Now...how again was that increased aliantion a form of progress for the working class in your opion? Or are we at a point that you are actually arguing that there has never been an actual revolution?

The term Revolution in itself, namely, has very little to do with the best interests of the working class. Much less with an objective progressiveness. The French revolution was a liberal and bourgeois revolution developing out of conflicting interests:

Here is Marx on the subject



So clearly Marx doesn't link revolution with the interests of the working class. Marx clearly distinguishes between bourgeois and proletarian revolutions here.

Kind of completely contradicting what you just wrote.How is that quote from Karl Marx contradicting what I just wrote? Indeed, a bourgeois revolution is not the same as a proletarian revolution, but the bourgeois revolution was definitely progressive, because it got rid of the old social order, i.e., feudalism, and replaced it by a new social order. Yes, alienation increased, but it was objectively progressive, because only under the rule of the bourgeoisie, under the rule of capitalism, the proletariat was/is able to develop to the level of being able to seizing power for itself as a class, and, thereby, establishing communism. In fact, somewhere in his writings, Karl Marx explains this himself.

[Comrade #138672]

You're making a merely semantic claim here - asserting, *without justification*, your preferred definition of the *word* "revolution" - but most people don't use the word that way.Without justification? I disagree. Also, I do not care that most people use it in a different way. It could be said that they are using it wrongly, which is what I believe.


That "revolutions [are] necessarily progressive" is not a claim about the world or society or morality that can be argued for according to social science or normative reasoning - it is a claim about the word, and when you make claims abotu words inconsistent with the popular usage of those words....they are funny kinds of claims (yet I see people do that all the time here). It can be argued for from the perspective of historical materialism. I do not care what is "popular". Often what is "popular", is dead wrong. We should not sink down to the level of what is "popular". It is harmful to revolutionary theory.

Same thing goes for the "popular" usage of racism, as if it were something that happens "both ways equally". No, this renders the whole concept of racism, which presupposes an inequality, useless and meaningless.

Sometimes it is necessary to reclaim words, concepts and definitions from their popular usage. This is also a battle against the cultural hegemony of the ruling class.


So, why for example would you insist that the word revolution be used to describe only progressive overturning of the government and not reactionary ones - rather than say, having 'revolution' as the generic term for successful overturning of the established order, and allow 'progressive' or 'reactionary' to act as modifiers (such that you can make sense of what someone means why they describe a 'progressive revolution' or a 'reactionary revolution').Why do I insist on that? Because there are other words for reactionary "revolutions", like counter-revolutions. We want to be extremely clear about what a revolution means, because, if we are not careful, our enemies will use it to add to the confusion.

[Sasha]

*very deep sigh*
Sasha is suggesting that “RevLeft” (the minority camp apparently) has worse analysis than Time Magazine given that one writer has produced a piece defending the riots. There has unfortunately been a consistent misinterpretation of our position as somehow “anti-riot” by some users. Our, or at least my, position is not against the riots, nor was it ever. .


i wasnt talking about you Tim... i was talking about the "stupid blackies are destroying small business while they should be building a marxist vanguard party" crowd...

[Lily Briscoe]

Which is who? If you're going to insinuate that people are racists, you may as well be clear who you're referring to.

[Tim Cornelis]

& part of that interest is to have a through understanding of objective conditions past & present. Without that, how can the working class move forward in a realistic way?
An approach lacking historical materialism would be a fatal mistake.





There's a dialectical contradiction between capitalist expropriation & socialized production. That's a reflection of the dialectical contradiction between expropriators & the expropriated, i.e, the capitalist class & the working class. Expropriation & socialized production involves real actors. They're not disembodied entities that happen to involve people.

No.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11840

And it's capitalist appropriation, not expropriation. They don't expropriate since it was not appropriated by anyone before them.


i wasnt talking about you Tim... i was talking about the "stupid blackies are destroying small business while they should be building a marxist vanguard party" crowd...

I am part of that crowd, sort of. It's not really a crowd that exists. But there is a crowd that says there's more effective means of resistance that don't necessarily rely on aesthetic politics seemingly championed here by insurrectionist-leaning types. If they would stop rioting and build a mass democratic Marxist party, wow. That would be nothing short of amazing. Of course that will never happen. What we can do is criticise the communists whom fetishistically champion these riots for short sightedness. Our position should be that these riots are essentially a legitimate uprising against an occupation force, but legitimate does not equal most effective. So our task, as it is so often in a stage where we are impotent, involves clarification of our position and propagandising it.

[Invader Zim]

I don't know if these have been posted yet, but it seems quite obvious to me that the whole investigation and Grand Jury proceedings were rigged from the off to reach the decision not to indict:

'4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370672-grand-jury-volume-3.html)Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.
Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.”'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

AND:

'The prosecutor did not ask these grand jurors for an indictment. They were left to sift through the evidence on their own, with no prosecutorial guidance about what to charge. Indeed, the transcripts indicated that prosecutors asked Wilson gentle, leading questions designed to bolster his self-defense claim. For example, a prosecutor told Wilson, "You felt like your life was in jeopardy," followed by, "And use of deadly force was justified at that point, in your opinion?" But prosecutors rigorously challenged witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.'

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27699-prosecutor-manipulates-grand-jury-process-to-shield-officer

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i wasnt talking about you Tim... i was talking about the "stupid blackies are destroying small business while they should be building a marxist vanguard party" crowd...

honestly what the fuck? this is a disingenuous and ridiculous attempt to twist my words and equate my position to raquin's reactionary pro-police bullshit. i can only assume youre refering to me since i brought up radical class organization as opposed to riots but at no point did i attack the black people of ferguson or defend private property. ive made this quite clear, so you either didnt read my posts before making a quite serious acusation or youre seriously lacking in reading skills. i honestly dont know which right now. if you wanna accuse me of racism at least have the decency to make a proper argument instead of throwing around allegations and completely unfounded strawmen

[motion denied]

Some people don't get it what this thread is about: 20 pages of self-indulgent left masturbation to riot porn. Anything beyond that is reactionary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You're making a merely semantic claim here - asserting, *without justification*, your preferred definition of the *word* "revolution" - but most people don't use the word that way.

That "revolutions [are] necessarily progressive" is not a claim about the world or society or morality that can be argued for according to social science or normative reasoning - it is a claim about the word, and when you make claims abotu words inconsistent with the popular usage of those words....they are funny kinds of claims (yet I see people do that all the time here).

So, why for example would you insist that the word revolution be used to describe only progressive overturning of the government and not reactionary ones - rather than say, having 'revolution' as the generic term for successful overturning of the established order, and allow 'progressive' or 'reactionary' to act as modifiers (such that you can make sense of what someone means why they describe a 'progressive revolution' or a 'reactionary revolution').

the labeling of ractionary overturning of governments as "revolutions" is a way of using language and public discourse to whitewash and vindicate right-wing coups

[PhoenixAsh]

And labelling reactionary revolutions as coups is hugely misunderstanding what a coup is and incorrectly assuming that reactionaries are merely small groups of military or government infiltrators that aren't supported by large swats of the population...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

by that logic, every coup is a revolution

[PhoenixAsh]

by that logic, every coup is a revolution

Coups are when small sections of the state apparatus take over power from another faction usually with military aid.

[PhoenixAsh]

by that logic, every coup is a revolution

Coups are when small sections of the state apparatus take over power from another faction usually with military aid.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

and regardless of whether or not theyre supported by "large swathes of the population", theyre not revolutions. that's all i was sayin. but youre right in that not all reactionary overturning of governments are coups. to be clear, i didnt say otherwise

[The Feral Underclass]

Some people don't get it what this thread is about: 20 pages of self-indulgent left masturbation to riot porn. Anything beyond that is reactionary.

Conversely, it's 20 pages of smug, sanctimonious ignorance from tradleftists who just can't fathom how the working class could possibly do anything useful if it isn't confined to some traditional a-to-b organising method.

Characterising any suggestion that riots might actually provide a space for dialogue and organising as "masturbation to riot porn" does nothing except expose how completely incapable you are at contending with contrary analysis.

That's not something to be proud of.

[The Feral Underclass]

and regardless of whether or not theyre supported by "large swathes of the population", theyre not revolutions. that's all i was sayin. but youre right in that not all reactionary overturning of governments are coups. to be clear, i didnt say otherwise

So you reject the Bolshevik seizure of state institutions and the dissolution of the provisional government as a revolution then?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You argue that it was the task of the left to organise a defence and you seem to acknowledge that riots are a defence, but yet you reject that riots are a place for the left to organise? I don't understand how this correlates.
In my opinion, riots would be a pretty shoddy space for the left to organise. You can organise in preparation for a riot, you can organise in the aftermath of a riot but the kind of organising that would, I dunno, ensure that a worker got their back pay after being denied it by their employee? Ensure that people on benefits get the advice they need to combat sanctions? That would take a different tactic than just rioting. Maybe a riot could be a component aspect of a broad strategy but I believe that it needs to be a part of a wider movement, not just a flash in the pan, justified as it is.

The extent of my criticism of rioting has never been the riot itself, it's the shitty politics of those who would claim the riot as some great revolutionary act, wanking off as the cop cars burn, (although not everyone in the thread is acting that way) and how I consider the riot to be an isolated incident in reaction to a tragic murder and the pathetic attempt by the state to justify it instead of part of a larger struggle to abolish capital. I see it as a justified lashing out of an oppressed minority but what happens to the flames after the embers have burned out? I want leftists to put forward a position that could take some of that anger and channel it into a sustained movement.


Also, since I've asked you about four times without and answer, I can only infer that you don't know what the organise left has delivered for the working class.
I've asked questions that haven't been answered either, it's one of those horrible aspects of existence that will plague us forever until the final question....

Nah, jokes. Could you elaborate on what it is you exactly want? Do you want me to just give examples of what I feel the organised left has achieved in the past and could do if it built and developed out of this malaise the left has been in? Or what? I'll make a concerted effort to answer once you elaborate.

[Remus Bleys]

Some people don't get it what this thread is about: 20 pages of self-indulgent left masturbation to riot porn. Anything beyond that is reactionary.I only see 10
edit: make that 11

[Ravn]

No.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11840

And it's capitalist appropriation, not expropriation. They don't expropriate since it was not appropriated by anyone before them.

Within that appropriation there's expropriation going on since capitalists expropriate a surplus value from labor. The contradiction between capitalists & labor is a dialectical, not a logical contradiction. Unless you intend to deny that everything is a unity of opposites then the above is irrelevant to the point being made here.








**The "stupid blackies are destroying small businesses while they should be building a marxist vanguard party" crowd.

Being sort of that crowd that's not really a crowd that exists is still sort of being caught up in the same contradictions of that sort of non-existent crowd. How are you going to go about building a vanguard party with people you sort of have contempt for? Big surprise when small businesses get attacked by rioters even though all property are targets of opportunity to property-less rioters.



[QUOTE=Tim Cornelis;2804931
If they would stop rioting and build a mass democratic Marxist party, wow. That would be nothing short of amazing. Of course that will never happen.

Revolutionaries have to do the work of organizing within these communities, not stand aside indulging in counter-revolutionary head shaking. That's how you get more people to become revolutionaries. Isn't that the general idea? Insurrections happen for a reason & don't assume that people involved are not rational. Here you have people who are very aware of an intolerable set of circumstances that are not being addressed. They are ripe for rational revolutionary solutions.

[The Feral Underclass]

In my opinion, riots would be a pretty shoddy space for the left to organise. You can organise in preparation for a riot, you can organise in the aftermath of a riot but the kind of organising that would, I dunno, ensure that a worker got their back pay after being denied it by their employee? Ensure that people on benefits get the advice they need to combat sanctions? That would take a different tactic than just rioting. Maybe a riot could be a component aspect of a broad strategy but I believe that it needs to be a part of a wider movement, not just a flash in the pan, justified as it is.

"Insurrection -- an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government."

I don't really know what your objectives are in terms of practical organising, but as far as I am concerned, grouping together those workers who are most angry, frustrated and willing to take action is a good first step to building a wider movement. A riot is the accumulation of that anger, frustration and willingness to take action, it is an insurrectionary act without form and usually without politically coherency. That's where the left comes in -- to provide that form and coherency. A riot therefore provides the moment, the entry point in which to begin that dialogue. It is counter-intuitive, stubborn and arrogant to dismiss it, criticise it, ignore it and refuse to engage with it.


The extent of my criticism of rioting has never been the riot itself, it's the shitty politics of those who would claim the riot as some great revolutionary act, wanking off as the cop cars burn, (although not everyone in the thread is acting that way) and how I consider the riot to be an isolated incident in reaction to a tragic murder and the pathetic attempt by the state to justify it instead of part of a larger struggle to abolish capital.

I don't really understand what this obsession is with masturbation. I think y'all need to find a new metaphor because it's getting a bit weird.

Ultimately, when all is said and done, why are any of you wasting your time with such a reductive argument? For whose benefit are you highlighting such a basic point as "riots are not revolutionary." I'm genuinely interested to understand what you are getting out of making that argument?

Of course a riot isn't a revolutionary act, but reducing everything down to what amounts to school-yard semantic sniping just seems completely pointless. I don't see any use in participating in such a stupid discussion. There are far more relevant and pressing things to discuss around this issue. When people make this particular intervention it just strikes me as the posturing of those who don't really have a particularly nuanced analysis. It's as intellectually valuable as those who say it is revolutionary.

And you know, most of the people in this thread who are the ones advocating this pettiness, are the very same people who defend reformism as a tactic. So much for rejecting acts that aren't "revolutionary," right?


I see it as a justified lashing out of an oppressed minority but what happens to the flames after the embers have burned out? I want leftists to put forward a position that could take some of that anger and channel it into a sustained movement.

That's what we're arguing for. The difference is, that for us, the space that rioting creates is an important entry point in which to build that radical response. Refusing to engage with the rioting, or as some people here have done, criticise the rioting, does nothing but isolate you from those people who are evidently willing to take the most risks. If there were any people who you would want politicised and organised it is them, surely? So standing on the sidelines and refusing to engage is a ridiculous tactic, if your objective is to "build a sustained movement," because ultimately who is that movement going to comprise of if not the most angry and frustrated elements in society?

[Ravn]

No I do not respect it as essential because [historical materialism] isn't and it isn't infallible. It is usefull but nothing beyond that.

So since science isn't infallible it isn't essential. That's what your line amounts to. That's absurd.




You do realize that Bismarck was a political progressive, right?
... I also reject the progressive part of "progressive politics" as nothing more than subjective mumbo-jumbo.


Bismark was a political reactionary who in order to shore up the state did some progressive things to appease the working class in order to thwart socialism. Nevertheless you can't claim his social legislation didn't create better conditions for people albeit in a limited way. That's an objective fact. So how can you reduce these progressive outcomes as just mumbo-jumbo?

[PhoenixAsh]

So since science isn't infallible it isn't essential. That's what your line amounts to. That's absurd.

It isn't essential...

Notice the word: and


It isn't infallible...

Here you go for some light reading on the matter: https://libcom.org/library/history-revolution-revolutionary-critique-historical-materialism-cornelius-castoriadis



Bismark was a political reactionary who in order to shore up the state did some progressive things to appease the working class in order to thwart socialism. Nevertheless you can't claim his social legislation didn't create better conditions for people albeit in a limited way. That's an objective fact. So how can you reduce these progressive outcomes as just mumbo-jumbo?

Progressive politics does NOT have its basis in working class ideals but in bourgeois and petit-bourgeois consciousness....and it exactly developed in order to appease the working class within the confines of the current socio-economic-religious order.

So that is why it is mumbo-jumbo.

[Ravn]

It isn't essential...

Notice the word: and


It isn't infallible...

If understanding the historical past & its effects on the present isn't essential, then what are you basing your ideas about social developments on? Metaphysics? How infallible is that? & worst, what reality is it based on?



in order to appease the working class within the confines of the current socio-economic-religious order. [/I]
So that is why it is mumbo-jumbo.

Progressive politics is not ideal because it is reformist. That's a problem with its outlook, not its origins. Nevertheless, some good things can come from it.

[PhoenixAsh]

If understanding the historical past & its effects on the present isn't essential, then what are you basing your ideas about social developments on? Metaphysics? How infallible is that? & worst, what reality is it based on?


Well isn't that the straw man argument....

I said Historical Materialism is not essential for class consciousness nor is it essential for understanding history. In fact...if you read that link I posted...that is about the same idea as Marx had when he basically argued that historcal materialism is a means not an end.

It also is limited in its application in order to explain history. Again...I refer to the link as a quick primer as to why this is the case.


Progressive politics is not ideal because it is reformist. That's a problem with its outlook, not its origins. Nevertheless, some good things can come from it.

Actually it is exactly that origins that determine its outlook and the way it is used. No self respecting communist or anarchist would describe themselves as politically progressive. We are not progressives. We do not want social progress or social justice....we want to end class society by abolishing class.

Nor are we the only arbiters of what amounts to social justice and progress. Fascism for example was seen as a progressive movement. And main advocates of political progressivism were Conservatives, Catholics and Economic Liberals.

[synthesis]

I really don't understand how Raquin hasn't been banned yet. I feel like Sean Hannity skimmed through the Manifesto and figured out how to package his bullshit and market it to leftists. I've never seen him not side with the legal system.

[Ravn]

Well isn't that the straw man argument....

I said Historical Materialism is not essential for class consciousness nor is it essential for understanding history.


But history is a reflection of past material conditions. It's essential to know those conditions if you actually want to create new social situations.




Actually it is exactly that origins that determine its outlook


Your origins don't determine your outlook. Your consciousness can be raised by new information. Somebody mentioned Bismarck here. Bismarck learned to be a pragmatist in spite of his Junker origins & the views he inherited therein.

[PhoenixAsh]

But history is a reflection of past material conditions. It's essential to know those conditions if you actually want to create new social situations.

No, history is a reflection of human social interaction which is sometimes perhaps often guided by material conditions or class interests or conflict.

[quote]
Your origins don't determine your outlook. Your consciousness can be raised by new information. Somebody mentioned Bismarck here. Bismarck learned to be a pragmatist in spite of his Junker origins & the views he inherited therein.

I mentioned Bismarck and Bismarck did everything he could to advance Prussia and Junker sentiments. All of his policies were a result of keeping that class in position of power and maintaining the dominance of Prussia even in the changing nature of German politics.

That never changed. Make a not though that Bismarcks mother was not a Junker or a member of the aristocracy at all.

[DOOM]

K681JqUVNvg

Do I really want to watch this shit?

[Atsumari]

I really wonder what YouTube and Facebook would look like after the Mumia Abu Jamal case.

[TC]

the labeling of ractionary overturning of governments as "revolutions" is a way of using language and public discourse to whitewash and vindicate right-wing coups

That amounts to saying that revolutions are those government overthrows you like, coups are those government overthrows you don't like...

Okay...but thats consistent with my earlier observation, that its a semantic matter. Of course someone *in support* of a government overthrow is more likely to call it a 'revolution', someone against it is more likely to call it a coup or insurgency or some such other thing.

The fact that the word revolution has positive associations even to rightists - that undermines the earlier claim that 'revolutions' are 'by definition' specific to progressive rebellions - except in making a semantic claim out of nowhere.

[Red Commissar]

St. Louis police say they arrested two members (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/11/26/sources-plot-to-bomb-arch-kill-mcculloch/19565733/) of one the media's favorite bogeyman, the New Black Panthers Party, on suspicion of trying to carryout a plot that involved bombing the St. Louis arc and assassinating the Ferguson police chief.

Meanwhile Charles Barkley continues to be an ass (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/12/02/charles-barkley-says-ferguson-rioters-are-scumbags-backs-grand-jury-decision/) and joins the ranks of holier-than-thou figures criticizing the reaction to the grand jury decision. John Carlos (You'll remember him from this photo (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute.jpg)) ripped into Barkley (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/charles-barkley-ripped-olympic-icon-ferguson-comments-article-1.2031204) and others for this kind of posturing and missing the point.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That amounts to saying that revolutions are those government overthrows you like, coups are those government overthrows you don't like...

Okay...but thats consistent with my earlier observation, that its a semantic matter. Of course someone *in support* of a government overthrow is more likely to call it a 'revolution', someone against it is more likely to call it a coup or insurgency or some such other thing.

The fact that the word revolution has positive associations even to rightists - that undermines the earlier claim that 'revolutions' are 'by definition' specific to progressive rebellions - except in making a semantic claim out of nowhere.

i just made an observation... that we as leftists should be wary of false reactionary historical narratives and their misappropriations of the concept of revolution. i dont disagree with your point and i think thats already been clarified in an earlier post. i apologize if my post was completely off topic and out of context

[Ravn]

[QUOTE=Ravn;2805175]But history is a reflection of past material conditions. It's essential to know those conditions if you actually want to create new social situations.

No, history is a reflection of human social interaction which is sometimes perhaps often guided by material conditions or class interests or conflict.

Past material conditions includes human interactions creating conditions & being acted upon by conditions.




I mentioned Bismarck and Bismarck did everything he could to advance Prussia and Junker sentiments. All of his policies were a result of keeping that class in position of power and maintaining the dominance of Prussia even in the changing nature of German politics.

Bismark had to go beyond advancing Prussia & Junker sentiments in order to advance the rise of the German nation. To do that he had to do some progressive things. You're assuming his origins totally limited his actions. & do you object to workers benefiting from some social legislation just because of the intent of the legislators?

[Sewer Socialist]

St. Louis police say they arrested two members (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/11/26/sources-plot-to-bomb-arch-kill-mcculloch/19565733/) of one the media's favorite bogeyman, the New Black Panthers Party, on suspicion of trying to carryout a plot that involved bombing the St. Louis arc and assassinating the Ferguson police chief.

Meanwhile Charles Barkley continues to be an ass (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/12/02/charles-barkley-says-ferguson-rioters-are-scumbags-backs-grand-jury-decision/) and joins the ranks of holier-than-thou figures criticizing the reaction to the grand jury decision. John Carlos (You'll remember him from this photo (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute.jpg)) ripped into Barkley (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/charles-barkley-ripped-olympic-icon-ferguson-comments-article-1.2031204) and others for this kind of posturing and missing the point.



Carlos has been trying for years to get athletes to speak out, to act out, about social inequities. He has repeatedly praised Muhammad Ali while condemning Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and black rap stars for their lack of political gumption.


“Not just athletes,” Carlos said. “Puff Daddy, Snoop (Dogg), we haven’t heard much from those individuals or our black movie stars out there. They chose to take the back seat. How many millions of dollars do you have to have in your bank account before you speak your mind?”

Why are black celebrities so much more conservative these days? Or is it just easier to pick out radicals from history? I can't really think of a good explanation of the conservatism. Is it because they have more wealth, influence, prestige?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why are black celebrities so much more conservative these days? Or is it just easier to pick out radicals from history? I can't really think of a good explanation of the conservatism. Is it because they have more wealth, influence, prestige?

Well there's a long tradition of black middle class politics. But more specifically I don't think they are "more conservative" it's just that more radical black traditions (not unlike other tradditions in the u.s.) were more or less defeated, co-opted, and marginalized. For a generation, the "acceptable" black politics has been one of moral responcibility which co-opts parts of middle class black nationalism and tells pretty well with the demands of the neoliberal era. So there's less space for high profile celebrities to "step out of line" compared with the early 70s when some huge percentage of young black people considered themselves revolutionaries of some sort.

It's not just the middle class or elite, these ideas also have somewhat of a pull among workers too. In oakland you can talk to someone who says the most revolutionary seeming stuff one minute and then they turn around and say "but really the problem is that people don't take responcibility for themselves and black people don't want to find a job".

But I think the reason these politics have dominated has a lot to do with inequality within the U.S. black population. A tiny elite was able to benifit from past reforms but in return has been put in the position of overseeing the destruction of urban jobs and the dismantling of public reforms for housing and so on. Inequality among blacks is greater than among whites generally so it's a sharper division with most people being pushed down hard and a tiny few gaining at least economic parody with rich people in the us generally.

What has been most significant about these protests imo, is the emergence of cracks in the old politics. In furgeson people took over the stage and heckled preachers who were giving the middle class line about being responsible and not being violent etc. I hope new formations and challenges to the older politics begin to develop because it would be like pulling a thread that could have huge ramifications for us politics and class struggle.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wtf, how did Prussia become part of this discussion:lol:

Revleft friends, sometimes we are a parody of ourselves :laugh:

[Illegalitarian]

Political revolutions can be coups, or something akin to coups, going a bit deeper and replacing the entire governing system, replacing it with a new one, like the American Revolution for example.

I am not sure how that is relevant because this thread has gotten away from me.. I just wanted to chime in on that point

[RedSonRising]

Mass protests in NYC today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/icsIdk1mhw_I.jpg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-05/protests-spread-to-u-s-cities-as-thousands-take-to-nyc-streets.html

[brigadista]

Thought this thread was about Ferguson

[Blake's Baby]

For monkeys' sake, can't a mod split of the stuff about Prussia into a separate thread in History? It's gotten to the point of rather dominating this thread.

[brigadista]

For monkeys' sake, can't a mod split of the stuff about Prussia into a separate thread in History? It's gotten to the point of rather dominating this thread.

Please do this

[PhoenixAsh]

From post 81 onward there have been 5 or 6 posts about Ferguson...but only now you post three posts complaining how this thread is dominated by a 10 post debate about Prussia....which developed from the other 120 posts about riots, revolutions, historical materialism, class consciouness etc.


Very well...I will split off the Prussian posts so those 10 posts will no longer confuse the thread for you.

lol

[A Psychological Symphony]

I went out to Berkley last night and was rather disappointed with the turnout. There were almost as many pigs as there were protesters and we ended up basically just getting roughed up and herded around by the cops. Even without any aggression from us they stormed the protest lines multiple times swinging those fucking batons around at anyone unfortunate enough to be in range

What an effective way to remind us all that peaceful protests accomplish little to nothing.

[Blake's Baby]

Perhaps the best that's going to come out of the current protests is that people who are protesting about a specific incident begin to see the role the police play in general.

[brigadista]

From post 81 onward there have been 5 or 6 posts about Ferguson...but only now you post three posts complaining how this thread is dominated by a 10 post debate about Prussia....which developed from the other 120 posts about riots, revolutions, historical materialism, class consciouness etc.


Very well...I will split off the Prussian posts so those 10 posts will no longer confuse the thread for you.

lol

Those 10 posts are not confusing just the usual on here - I don't live in the U.S. and was hoping that there would be more discussion from those who do but then ...

[Sewer Socialist]

I have been seeing and hearing lots lately about criticism of white radicals in the Bay Area and their supposed co-opting of a "black movement" in their response to Eric Garner, including whites using the slogan "I can't breathe," as well as complaints and assertions that a group of white people smashed some windows (I am skeptical of the whiteness of this group). Suggestions that privilege be checked typically follows.

This seems so odd. A black man struggling to make a living is choked to death after shopkeepers call the cops to have them take him away. I mean, clearly race isn't the only factor here, but I feel like that's what this criticism of "white appropriation" is implying. I would never tell a petty-bourgeois black person they have no business protesting the death of a proletarian, you know? I don't feel offended, but this just seems so conservative, and hand-in-hand with respectability politics.

I did some shitty internet research, and couldn't find the origin of these complaints, but I wonder if these are coming from the Maoist RCP, which has some sizeable membership in the Bay Area, or if maybe those ideas sound like they are influenced by Harry Haywood. People are typically shocked to hear my criticism, since I am pretty actively anti-racist, and I never hear anyone I know agreeing with me. Am I nuts? :confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have been seeing and hearing lots lately about criticism of white radicals in the Bay Area and their supposed co-opting of a "black movement" in their response to Eric Garner, including whites using the slogan "I can't breathe," as well as complaints and assertions that a group of white people smashed some windows (I am skeptical of the whiteness of this group). Suggestions that privilege be checked typically follows.

This seems so odd. A black man struggling to make a living is choked to death after shopkeepers call the cops to have them take him away. I mean, clearly race isn't the only factor here, but I feel like that's what this criticism of "white appropriation" is implying. I would never tell a petty-bourgeois black person they have no business protesting the death of a proletarian, you know? I don't feel offended, but this just seems so conservative, and hand-in-hand with respectability politics.

I did some shitty internet research, and couldn't find the origin of these complaints, but I wonder if these are coming from the Maoist RCP, which has some sizeable membership in the Bay Area, or if maybe those ideas sound like they are influenced by Harry Haywood. People are typically shocked to hear my criticism, since I am pretty actively anti-racist, and I never hear anyone I know agreeing with me. Am I nuts? :confused:

Yeah well..http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/blackoutcollective.jpg?itok=6n6oAJ6X

I'm sure these criticisms are out there, but I haven't really heard it much at the protests themselves. The "outside agitator" line has come back in a big way and a lot of the media concern-trolling over this has been big in the Bay Area since the Oscar grant protests, the anti budgets cuts protests, then occupy, and now this. Occupy towards the end was really the only time I thought this opinion seemed to be larger than just pundits and armchair pundits.

The RCP did lead the initial protests and I have some issues with it because they kept the bullhorns and just led people in marches to try and find a freeway on ramp not blocked by cops. The actions themselves were good, but it is odd imo to have a bunch of people gathered and pissed off but then not to at least have a speak-out (or a general assembly, better yet) where all the black youth gathered could talk and maybe organize other things coming out of the downtown marches. But a lot of the anti-RCP stuff is really just red-baiting and trying to divide the protests... Marginalize the radicals, the black unorganized youth ("just trouble makers"), the white youth (they just like to protest) so you can dictate what kinds of protests are acceptable to the people who want the status quo anyway.

But I don't think it makes any sense to say that race is mearly "a factor" in these cases. Other people are targeted by cops too, many white males are killed by cops for doing fuck-all. But on the other hand, not many white professors are arrested on their front porch, not many white actors are watched (for theft) by store owners. Yes, the fundamental issue is class domination and control, but the specific and historicaly consistent way the u.s. Ruling class has done this is through segregating the population and controlling black people (and other groups, but always black people).

[Ravn]

I have been seeing and hearing lots lately about criticism of white radicals in the Bay Area and their supposed co-opting of a "black movement" in their response to Eric Garner, including whites using the slogan "I can't breathe," as well as complaints and assertions that a group of white people smashed some windows (I am skeptical of the whiteness of this group). Suggestions that privilege be checked typically follows.

Why would you be skeptical about the "whiteness" of some windows smashers? Plenty of evidence of that.
"Amanda Ream of San Francisco, 39, who helped lead a “White Bay Area Residents Civil Disobedience (http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=bayarea&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Civil+Disobedience%22)” blockade Wednesday in front of the Oakland federal building, said she and other white activists “have given a lot of thought” to the issue.
“The white people you see out there are driven by their conscience in this moment of great conscience,” Ream said. “But I absolutely think that black people, people of color, need to speak first. This is all unfolding. Anyone who shows up at a protest can grab a bullhorn, but white people need to step back at times and let people of color have their voices.”
The conflict has been most visible with clashes between predominantly young white vandals and black people who try to stop them. Several times in Oakland and Berkeley (http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=bayarea&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Oakland+and+Berkeley%22), African American residents have run out of their houses to yell at white vandals who split away from protests to burn and smash things in the street.
“I cannot stand the spoiled, white privileged kids in masks — and yes, that’s what most of them look like — trying to take over the message by destroying things,” said Moni Law, 54, a housing counselor who lives in Berkeley. She and other black demonstrators have blocked groups from breaking windows at several marches, as have white activists."


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/White-voices-dominate-Bay-Area-protests-of-racial-5953977.php



This seems so odd. A black man struggling to make a living is choked to death after shopkeepers call the cops to have them take him away. I mean, clearly race isn't the only factor here, but I feel like that's what this criticism of "white appropriation" is implying.

White supremacy would be a better term. It manifests itself in police brutality & in the white privilege of the protesters who end up dominating demonstrations, & also can get away with mindless vandalism without thinking about who they're targeting nor worrying about the legal consequences as much as anybody else would. But there's nothing stopping you from addressing class warfare & the ruthless economic pecking order that people are subjected to. It's all interconnected in the first place, isn't it?


OTOH, EVERYBODY should be in opposition to police brutality & social injustice in general, & expressing & acting on that, by whatever means necessary, including violence. But people need to analyze how they may have internalized what they're fighting against so that they don't end up just acting out or mirroring the the same thing.

[Ravn]

... it is odd imo to have a bunch of people gathered and pissed off but then not to at least have a speak-out (or a general assembly, better yet) where all the black youth gathered could talk and maybe organize other things coming out of the downtown marches.

What's stopping them? & why just youth? Outside agitators with bullhorns can't dictate those things unless you let them. (Not opposed to outside agitators, just how the agitation is done & on what grounds.) Why should black people be cowed by left-wing white supremacist opportunists? Because they come to save people from the right-wing white supremacists? All these goddamn people need be checked.

[consuming negativity]

I have been seeing and hearing lots lately about criticism of white radicals in the Bay Area and their supposed co-opting of a "black movement" in their response to Eric Garner, including whites using the slogan "I can't breathe," as well as complaints and assertions that a group of white people smashed some windows (I am skeptical of the whiteness of this group). Suggestions that privilege be checked typically follows.

This seems so odd. A black man struggling to make a living is choked to death after shopkeepers call the cops to have them take him away. I mean, clearly race isn't the only factor here, but I feel like that's what this criticism of "white appropriation" is implying. I would never tell a petty-bourgeois black person they have no business protesting the death of a proletarian, you know? I don't feel offended, but this just seems so conservative, and hand-in-hand with respectability politics.

I did some shitty internet research, and couldn't find the origin of these complaints, but I wonder if these are coming from the Maoist RCP, which has some sizeable membership in the Bay Area, or if maybe those ideas sound like they are influenced by Harry Haywood. People are typically shocked to hear my criticism, since I am pretty actively anti-racist, and I never hear anyone I know agreeing with me. Am I nuts? :confused:

it can seem conservative but only because the groups being created are done so by conservatives

race doesn't exist biologically, but when people create the concept of race in their minds and discriminate based on those arbitrary and not-always-coherent characteristics, it becomes a social fact and exists socially. you probably already know this but i say it to make sure we're on the same page just in case.

it is not the black people who are saying "woah, black people are so much better than white people, blah blah blah" - it's the white people who are making distinctions between people and thus forcing the black people to "stick together" and to recognize that they are black because the alternative is to deny the reality that they are being discriminated against and otherwise treated like garbage because of a system that recognizes them as "black" rather than "human"

and, if you talk to black people, invariably they almost always seem to have a way better understanding of racism and race "politics" than even i do, because race is a constant factor in their lives whereas for me it is a study that i do in my spare time that i live only when race comes up in my life.

i've been mistreated a lot by the police but i have never been choked to death over nothing. that doesn't happen to white people. there aren't black cops who go around killing white kids for no reason, or who refer to "those people" in "the city" as "thugs" when referring to people who are not black. it isn't active racism often-times, but it is passive racism and if white people don't even let black people have their voice in protest, when are they going to have it? because they damn sure don't have it anywhere else

e: quick edit, i am ridiculously drunk and so if this post is stupid please disregard it

[Sewer Socialist]

I guess I thought it would go without saying, but of course racism / white supremacy is a huge factor here! But this white people = outside agitator thing is suspicious.

I'm suspicious of exaggeration. Why is there no mention of black or latino militancy? I wonder about the abilities of these people to really determine what race a masked up kid is wearing, or if they've come to the conclusion before they've even looked. I saw another source, a Black Panther, saying it was not limited to white people engaging in violent activity. I'm not at all saying there aren't white people doing it, but looking at the SFGate's sources, it's mostly "community leaders," preachers, and politicians.

The Tumblr post (http://bendstowardjustice.tumblr.com/post/104742740875/dear-white-protestors) referenced by SFGate is probably where everyone is getting this, though. And I find it extremely ironic that so many white people are enthusiastically and unironically saying things like "white people, shut up".

Shouting "all lives matter" over "black lives matter" and drowning them out is pretty douchey; but with regards to Eric Garner, why shouldn't poor white people say "I can't breathe"? Should rich black people say it? And was the "black-organized protest" in Berkley which allegedly got taken over by white people on December 6th the RCP one?

[Ravn]

I guess I thought it would go without saying, but of course racism / white supremacy is a huge factor here! But this white people = outside agitator thing is suspicious.

Well, outside agitators can be *anybody* outside of a particular community.




... I find it extremely ironic that so many white people are enthusiastically and unironically saying things like "white people, shut up".


They're acknowledging the agenda of white supremacy. They should be opposed to that, & they obviously don't literally mean that white people should not speak at all. What they're saying is that black & brown people should be allowed to speak & not be shouted down.





Shouting "all lives matter" over "black lives matter" and drowning them out is pretty douchey; but with regards to Eric Garner, why shouldn't poor white people say "I can't breathe"? Should rich black people say it? And was the "black-organized protest" in Berkley which allegedly got taken over by white people on December 6th the RCP one?

The issue isn't really about non-black people saying "I can't breathe". The issue is about black lives mattering because the system insists otherwise. All lives don't matter under this particular system, but black & brown lives matter less under this system in comparison to others. So, why insist on signifying the general at the expense of the particular? Why should any white people object to saying "black & brown lives matter"? The worth of their lives is taken as a given even if that is an illusion.

I don't know what the RCP did or didn't do, but black people shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied by anybody. That doesn't mean they can't unite with outside agitators.

[Bala Perdida]

Berkeley is predominantly white if I remember correctly. I didn't think there was a black march.

[Bala Perdida]

Are the protests still going on in Oakland? I'm done with school for now, I could make the trip up on a day off. See how these protests are for myself.

[jullia]

I don't really follow the events, so i hope not saying stupid thing.
But in europe we have the picture of the USA policeman who are a cowboy. Maybe more than the race the problem come from the formation of the police who use their weapon instead of their brain.

[Q]

Amended topic title as this went from a "omg, Revleft is so awful by not talking about Ferguson" to having a massive thread on this very subject.

[BIXX]

The first cops in the US were created to capture escaped slaves, Julia. The problem is most definitely race.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why would you be skeptical about the "whiteness" of some windows smashers? Plenty of evidence of that.
"Amanda Ream of San Francisco, 39, who helped lead a “White Bay Area Residents Civil Disobedience (http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=bayarea&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Civil+Disobedience%22)” blockade Wednesday in front of the Oakland federal building, said she and other white activists “have given a lot of thought” to the issue.
“The white people you see out there are driven by their conscience in this moment of great conscience,” Ream said. “But I absolutely think that black people, people of color, need to speak first. This is all unfolding. Anyone who shows up at a protest can grab a bullhorn, but white people need to step back at times and let people of color have their voices.”
The conflict has been most visible with clashes between predominantly young white vandals and black people who try to stop them. Several times in Oakland and Berkeley (http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=bayarea&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Oakland+and+Berkeley%22), African American residents have run out of their houses to yell at white vandals who split away from protests to burn and smash things in the street.
“I cannot stand the spoiled, white privileged kids in masks — and yes, that’s what most of them look like — trying to take over the message by destroying things,” said Moni Law, 54, a housing counselor who lives in Berkeley. She and other black demonstrators have blocked groups from breaking windows at several marches, as have white activists."


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/White-voices-dominate-Bay-Area-protests-of-racial-5953977.php



White supremacy would be a better term. It manifests itself in police brutality & in the white privilege of the protesters who end up dominating demonstrations, & also can get away with mindless vandalism without thinking about who they're targeting nor worrying about the legal consequences as much as anybody else would. But there's nothing stopping you from addressing class warfare & the ruthless economic pecking order that people are subjected to. It's all interconnected in the first place, isn't it?


OTOH, EVERYBODY should be in opposition to police brutality & social injustice in general, & expressing & acting on that, by whatever means necessary, including violence. But people need to analyze how they may have internalized what they're fighting against so that they don't end up just acting out or mirroring the the same thing.

this is interesting and a really good illustration of my earlier point about how problematic it can be to glorify rioting. rioting was considered by many even among the left, to be not only a spontaneous reaction to violence but actual political action in the context of the protest movement, in detriment of mass democratic class organization. real radical political organization was overlooked. people took to rioting without engaging with the movement in more serious ways, in terms of organizing, strategizing, raising and awareness and so forth. some people, many of them outsiders who werent engaged with the community to begin with, effectively turned their back on radical mass mobilization in favor of isolated and individual acts of rioting. i hope that all leftists who egged on these rioters can learn something from this.

[Sewer Socialist]

Well, outside agitators can be *anybody* outside of a particular community.

Yes, but why should we be suspicious of some agitators, and why be only suspicious of racial outsiders, why limit discourse to race alone, and be uncritical of people who claim to speak for a "community", or even those who have managed to make themselves the voice of a community?


They're acknowledging the agenda of white supremacy. They should be opposed to that, & they obviously don't literally mean that white people should not speak at all. What they're saying is that black & brown people should be allowed to speak & not be shouted down.

I mean, I am hearing lots of white people saying there are too many white voices, and these white voices aren't talking about anything other than white people and what they supposedly did!


The issue isn't really about non-black people saying "I can't breathe". The issue is about black lives mattering because the system insists otherwise. All lives don't matter under this particular system, but black & brown lives matter less under this system in comparison to others. So, why insist on signifying the general at the expense of the particular? Why should any white people object to saying "black & brown lives matter"? The worth of their lives is taken as a given even if that is an illusion.

So, the issue is that anyone is saying "I can't breathe" instead of everyone saying "black lives matter?" I don't see why there isn't room for two brief slogans, and as far as I know, these did both originate with black activists.


I don't know what the RCP did or didn't do, but black people shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied by anybody. That doesn't mean they can't unite with outside agitators.

Who is being bullied, other than black people by cops?

[Ravn]

Yes, but why should we be suspicious of some agitators, and why be only suspicious of racial outsiders, why limit discourse to race alone, and be uncritical of people who claim to speak for a "community", or even those who have managed to make themselves the voice of a community?

"Anybody" doesn't equal "racial outsiders". If a community is predominately one ethnic group, it doesn't follow from that that there are no other ethnic groups within that community, right? Look, people within the community expressing their concerns about vandalism is a legitimate gripe. (But, there is no short supply of criticism directed at black people in the US, so don't worry about that.) That doesn't mean that there are no legitimate targets for vandalism. Some people on here just don't get it. They believe that any criticism directed at the demonstrators is bad. That's two dimensional thinking.




I mean, I am hearing lots of white people saying there are too many white voices, and these white voices aren't talking about anything other than white people and what they supposedly did!

So, lots of white people are exercising their white privilege to say whatever & do whatever they want. What else is new? But some white people recognize that they do have that privilege but others do not, & they object to that. That's a good thing.




So, the issue is that anyone is saying "I can't breathe" instead of everyone saying "black lives matter?" I don't see why there isn't room for two brief slogans, and as far as I know, these did both originate with black activists.

Nobody can actually stop anybody else from using these slogans. What's the real problem?




Who is being bullied, other than black people by cops?

This whole system of relations that black people live under bullies them. Why should any group of people allow themselves to be subjugated by the social chauvinism of others? You see expressions of that on the right & the left. This is nothing new. Ethnic nationalities all over the world get jerked around by whatever predominant group & their cultural hegemony they have to put up with by dint of the force those forces can apply, even if they are actually the majority. Look at South Africa. So, it's no surprise that white revolutionaries can reflect this tendency.

[Ele'ill]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/us/ferguson-protests/

2 cops just got shot

[Futility Personified]

"These police officers were just standing there and were just shot. Because they were police officers"

Might have something to do with all the racism and treating people like shit?

[BIXX]

Oh my god fuck that community leader.

Yammering on about nonviolence and how "we don't support that".

Fuck you, community organizer.

[cyu]

When the lord's minions kill the serfs, it's not news because it happens all the time, and that's how the system is supposed to function. Otherwise it wouldn't be called oppression.

When the serfs kill the lord's minions, the aristocracy makes a big deal out of it. That's how you ensure "order" - after all, these minions put their lives on the line to protect the aristocracy. So the lord shows up, says a few words about how he admires these heroes, cries a few crocodile tears, and tosses a bit of gold to the widow's children.

When someone kills the lord, then all the other lords run around in a panic like chickens with their heads chopped off.

[Ele'ill]

Year 3085: "yeah we don't support that at all we're trying to rebuild our communities and it just takes baby steps to do that and then we have someone here who shot cops..*gets more angry at person who shot cops than at cops killing people all day every day for all time*"

[The Feral Underclass]

3085?...Mari3L, the eternal optimist :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ele'ill]

I'm going to bump this thread because I did not see another more current thread.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/ferguson-protests/index.html


Ferguson, Missouri (CNN)A day of peaceful vigils to mark the one-year anniversary of Michael Brown's shooting death turned ugly late Sunday when protesters threw rocks and bottles at officers, and police critically injured a man who they say fired at them.

The unidentified man in his 20s was undergoing surgery early Monday.

He unleashed a "remarkable amount of gunfire" against the officers using a stolen handgun, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said.

"We cannot continue, we cannot talk about the good things that we have been talking about, if we are prevented from moving forward with this kind of violence," he said.

Belmar said those resorting to violence are not protesters.

"Protesters are people who are out there to effect change," he said. There were "several people shooting, several rounds shot."

According to the CNN timeline after the shooting:


Several objects were thrown at police and some businesses damaged, the St. Louis County Police Department said. A journalist was attacked and robbed in a parking lot. Three St. Louis County police officers were injured: One was struck in the face by a brick, while two others were pepper-sprayed.

"We're ready for what? We're ready for war," some in the crowd chanted.