Log in

View Full Version : Shoplifting



lovebombanarchy
26th April 2006, 03:10
Your thoughts on corporate shoplifting as a political tactic? In my opinion, shoplifting is perhaps the most effective means of organically redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, and if it is done conscientiously for altruistic purposes, it has the potential to develop into a massive, revolutionary egalitarian movement. Shoplifting is both an easy way of punishing corporations that deliberately destroy the environment, exploit and abuse laborers, and destroy community and local culture, and an effective way of acquiring resources to give to the impoverished victims of capitalist oppression.

anyway, here's some stuff on it:

http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/libdays.html
Why I Love Shoplifting
from big corporations

Nothing compares to the feeling of elation, of burdens being lifted and constraints escaped, that I feel when I walk out of a store with their products in my pockets. In a world where everything already belongs to someone else, where I am expected to sell away my life at work in order to get the money to pay for the minimum I need to survive, where I am surrounded by forces beyond my control or comprehension that obviously are not concerned about my needs or welfare, it is a way to carve out a little piece of the world for myself—to act back upon a world that acts so much upon me. It is an entirely different sensation than the one I feel when I buy something. When I pay for something, I'm making a trade; I'm offering the money that I bought with my labor, my time, and my creativity for a product or service that the corporation wouldn't share with me under any other circumstances. In a sense, we have a relationship based on violence: we negotiate an exchange not according to our respect or concern for each other, but according to the forces that we can bring to bear on each other. Supermarkets know they can charge me a dollar for bread because I will starve if I do not buy it from them; they know they can't charge me four dollars, because I will go somewhere else. So our interaction revolves around unspoken threats, rather than love, and I am forced to give up something of my own to get anything from them . Everything changes when I shoplift. I'm no longer negotiating with faceless, inhuman entities that have no concern for my welfare; instead, I'm taking what I need without giving anything up. I no longer feel like I am being forced into an exchange, and I no longer feel as if I have no control over the way the world around me dictates my life. I no longer have to worry about whether the pleasure I receive from the book I purchased was equal to the two hours of labor it cost me to be able to afford it. In these and a thousand other ways, shoplifting makes me feel liberated and empowered. Let's examine what shoplifting has to offer as an alternative way of life.

The shoplifter wins her prize by taking risks, not by exchanging a piece of her life for it. Life for her is not something that must be sold away for seven or eight dollars an hour in return for survival; it is something that is hers because she takes it for herself, because she lays claim to it. In stark contrast to the law-abiding consumer, the means by which she acquires goods is as exciting as the goods themselves; and this means is also, in many ways, more praiseworthy. Shoplifting is a refusal of the exchange economy. It is a denial that people deserve to eat, live, and die based on how effectively they are able to exchange their labor and capital with others. It is a denial that a monetary value can be ascribed to everything, that having a piece of delicious chocolate in your mouth is worth exactly fifty cents or that an hour of one person's life can really be worth ten dollars more than that of another person. It is a refusal to accept the capitalist system, in which workers have to buy back the products of their own labor at a profit to the owners of capital, who thus get them coming and going. Shoplifting says NO to all the objectionable features that have come to characterize the modern corporation. It is an expression of discontent with the low wages and lack of benefits that so many exploiting corporations force their employees to suffer in the name of company profits. It is a refusal to pay for low quality products that have been designed to break or wear out soon in order to force consumers to buy more. It is a refusal to fund the environmental damage that so many corporations perpetrate heartlessly in the course of manufacturing their products and building new stores, a refusal to support the corporations that run private, local businesses into bankruptcy, a refusal to accept the murder of animals in the meat and dairy industries and the exploitation of migrant labor in the fruit and vegetable industries. Shoplifting makes a statement against the alienation of the modern consumer. "If we are not able to find or afford any products other than these, that were made a thousand miles from us and about which we can know nothing," it asserts, "then we refuse to pay for these." The shoplifter attacks the cynical mind control tactics of modern advertising. Today's commercials, billboards, even the floor—layouts and product displays in stores are designed by psychologists to manipulate potential consumers into purchasing products. Corporations carry out extensive advertising campaigns to insinuate their exhortations to consumption into every mind, and even work to make their products into status symbols that people from some walks of society eventually must own in order to be accorded respect. Faced with this kind of manipulation, the law-abiding consumer has two choices: either to come up with the money to purchase these products by selling his life away as a wage laborer, or to go without and possibly invite public ridicule as well as private frustration. The shoplifter creates a third choice of her own: she takes the products she has been conditioned to desire without paying for them, so the corporations themselves must pay for all of their propagandizing and mind control tactics. Shoplifting is the most effective protest against all these objectionable attributes of modern corporations because it is not merely theoretical—it is practical, it involves action. Verbal protests can be raised to irresponsible business practices without ever having any solid effect, but shoplifting is intrinsically damaging these corporations at the same time as it (however covertly) demonstrates dissatisfaction. It is better than a boycott, because not only does it cost the corporation money rather than just denying it profit, it also means that the shoplifter is still able to obtain the products, which she may need to survive. And in these days when so many corporations are interconnected, and so many multinationals are involved in unacceptable activity, shoplifting is a generalized protest: it is a refusal to put any cash into the economy at all, so that the shoplifter can be sure that none of her cash will ever end up in the hands of the corporations she disapproves of. In addition to that, she will have to work less for them, as well! But what about the people in the corporations? What about their welfare? First of all, corporations are distinct from traditional private businesses in that they exist as separate financial entities from their owners. So the shoplifter is stealing from a non-human entity, not directly from the pocket of a human being. Second, since so many workers are paid set wages (minimum wage, for example) that depend more on how little the corporation can get away with paying rather than on how much profit it is making, the shoplifter is not really hurting most of the workforce at any given company either. The stockholders, who are almost always far richer than your average thief, are the ones who stand to lose a little if the company suffers significant losses; but realistically, no campaign of shoplifting could be intense enough to force any of the wealthy individuals who actually profit from these companies into poverty. Besides, modern corporations have money set aside for shoplifting losses, because they anticipate them. That's correct—these corporations are aware that there is enough dissatisfaction with them and their capitalist economy that people are going to steal from them remorselessly. In that sense, shoplifters are just playing their role in society, just like C.E.O.s. More significantly, these corporations are cynical enough to go about their business as usual, even though they know this leaves many of their customers (and employees!) ready to steal anything from them that they can. If they are willing to continue doing business in this way even when they are aware how many people it alienates, they should not be surprised that people continue stealing from them.

Shoplifting is more than a way to survive in the cutthroat competition of the "free market" and protest corporate injustices. It is also a different kind of orientation to the world and to life. The shoplifter makes do with an environment that has been conquered by capitalism and industry, where there is no longer a natural world from which to gather resources and everything has become private property, without accepting it or the absurd way of life it entails. She takes her life into her own hands by applying an ancient method to the problem of modern survival: she lives by urban hunting and gathering. In this way she is able to live much as her distant ancestors did before the world was subjugated by technology, imperialism, and the irrational demands of the "free" market; and she can find the same challenges and rewards in her work, rewards that are lost to the rest of us today. For her, the world is as dangerous and as exciting as it was to prehistoric humanity: every day she is in new situations, confronting new risks, living by her wits in a constantly changing environment. For the law-abiding consumer, it is likely that every day at work is similar to the last one and danger is as sorely lacking in life as meaning and purpose are.

To shoplift is to affirm immediate, bodily desires (such as hunger) over abstract "ethics" and other such ethereal constructs, most of which are left over from a deceased Christianity anyway. Shoplifting divests commodities (and the marketplace in general) of the mythical power they seem to have to control the lives of consumers... when they are seized by force, they show themselves for what they are: merely resources that have been held by force by these corporations at the expense of everyone else. Shoplifting places us back in the physical world, where things are real, where things are nothing more than their physical characteristics (weight, taste, ease of acquisition) and are not invested with superstitious qualities such as "market value" and "profit margin." It forces us to take risks and experience life firsthand again. Perhaps shoplifting alone will not be able to overthrow industrial society or the capitalist system... but in the meantime it is one of the best forms of protest and self-empowerment, and one of the most practical, too!

Shoplifters of the world, unite!

-------


some good ideas to try: from wikipedia


Common Shoplifting Scams
[edit]
Baby Stroller Boxes
This scam involves the use of baby stroller boxes, which tend to be quite large in size. A would be shoplifter removes the stroller from the box and proceeds to conceal a large amount of merchandise inside. The would be shoplifter then reseals the box and takes it a cashier stand, where they pay the purchse price for the stroller. If the scam is successful the would be shoplifter walks out of the retailer with concealed merchandise still inside the stroller box.

[edit]
Bag Switching
Bag switching methods are generally attempted by a group of two shoplifters. Typically the first shoplifter will have a large bag and gather a large amount of merchandise quickly to get the attention of a Loss Prevention Investigator. Once the first shoplifter knows that they are being followed they will conceal the merchandise into the bag. The first shoplifter will then switch their bag with the second shoplifter, who usually has a matching bag that is already filled with items that don’t belong to the retailer. Often the Loss Prevention Investigator will miss the switch and arrest the first shoplifter. Subsequently, the first shoplifter may claim false arrest and receive a gift card from the retailer.

[edit]
Booster Boxes
A booster box is a device that allows a would be shoplifter to conceal a large quantity of merchandise on their person. Typically professional shoplifters of large girth most commonly attempt this scam. The use of booster boxes is most prevalent at clothing retailers due to the fact that clothing merchandise can easily be molded to fit better inside the box. Some professional shoplifters have been known in the past to attempt to use booster boxes to conceal electronics and DVDs.

[edit]
Cash Drawer Theft
Cash drawer theft is usually attempted by a shoplifter purchasing a low dollar item and giving the cashier a large bill or by asking a cashier to change a large bill. As the cashier is counting change the item the shoplifter will attempt to create a distraction. One such is telling the cashier that the cashier is giving the shoplifter the wrong amount of change. Once the cashier looks down to recount the change the shoplifter will reach into the cash drawer and grab what they can. The cashier then hands the shoplifter back the change and shoplifter leaves the store. Usually cash drawer theft is not detected until audits of the register are completed and show a shortage. To combat cash drawer theft many retailers will not accept bills larger than twenty dollars or will not give out change at the register.

[edit]
Counterfeit Bill Passing
Although the act of counterfeiting currency is a far more serious crime than the act of shoplifting, counterfeiters often use retail outlets to launder their fake bills and in effect are stealing merchandise at the same time. Typically, a counterfeiter will use a large denomination bill, like a fifty or a hundred, to purchase a low priced item. If the currency is accepted, the counterfeiter successfully launders the fake bill and leaves with the merchandise and legal currency as change. Most retailers require their cashiers to verify large bills with a counterfeit detection pen. However, due to poor training or when faced with long lines of customers this procedure is often disregarded.

[edit]
Fake Returns
Sometimes shoplifters will actually gather an item from the selling floor and try to receive money for it without a receipt at the return station. Although this method is not as fool proof as the receipt matching method, it is very effective particularly when done to an inexperienced cashier. Usually the shoplifter will start complaining to the cashier about their inability to return the merchandise. Typically the shoplifter will state that they lost their receipt or threaten the cashier by stating that they want to talk to their supervisor. To avoid confrontation the cashier will ring up the return and give the shoplifter dollar value of the merchandise.

[edit]
Fitting Room Bagging
Typically this scam is seen most often in large clothing retailers. This scam generally preys upon the common Loss Prevention policy prohibiting apprehension of shoplifters when concealment is not actually seen by an investigator. A would be shoplifter enters a retail establishment with a large bag. The would be shoplifter then selects a large amount of merchandise and takes it to a fitting room. Inside the would be shoplifter conceals the merchandise into the bag out of sight of store employees and store investigators.

[edit]
Gift Card Cloning
In this scam, a normal store gift card with no value attached is stolen from a store. The shoplifter then clones the magnetic strip on the back of the gift card and makes a copy or copies of it. The original gift card is then returned the store by the shoplifter. The gift card is activated once purchased by another customer, and the dollar amount applied to the legitimate gift card is passed to all the cloned gift cards.

[edit]
Grab and Run
A common shoplifting techinique is known by the Loss Prevention community as a "grab and run." Simply put, a shoplifter enters a retail establishment usually with prior knowledge of what they are looking for. The shoplifter moves very quickly toward the merchadise they wish to steal. Once the shoplifter has found the merchandise they proceed to the nearest store exit, usually running. Due to the short time that shoplifter is inside the store persons who attempt this scam are rarely caught, or in some cases even detected.

Less common is for a group of people to rush a store and grab as much merchandise as possible and then rush out. The speed with which this happens and the large numbers of people involved make it difficult to stop.

[edit]
The Milkshake Subterfuge
A less common shoplifting technique used for smaller high-dollar items is the milkshake subterfuge. A milkshake is purchased by the shoplifter and taken into the store. The shoplifter proceeds to drop small heavy items like jewellery into the milkshake. On leaving the store their milkshake is unlikely to be searched. Shoplifters using this method must be wary of drinking too much of their milkshake or the items will be revealed in the bottom of their cup.

[edit]
Metal-lined Clothing or Containers
Metal-lined sacks, containers, or clothing (such as aluminum foil-lined undergarments) allow a would-be shoplifter to shield the RFID tags attached to merchandise concealed on their person from the scanners at the door of a store. 2001 Colorado House Bill 01-1221 made it a misdemeanor to possess, use, or know about and fail to report others who possess RFID shielding devices with intent to foil anti-shoplifting devices.

[edit]
Other Return Tricks
Sometimes would be shoplifters attempt to return packages to a retailer that contain no merchandise, a used item, or in some cases things like bricks. This scam is aimed at inexperienced or naive cashiers, in hopes that they will not check the package during the return. When successful, the fake return is usually not discovered for several hours.

[edit]
Receipt Matching
The receipt matching scam involves using receipts to match merchandise codes from the receipt to items in found in a store. Most retailers use company specific merchandise codes on their merchandise so store personnel can identify the location more quickly and efficiently. Additionally the merchandise is used to verify merchandise that was purchased at a particular retailer during a return. This information is printed onto the receipts of purchased merchandise.

Typically shoplifters will search either retailer’s parking lot or trashcans looking for receipts that have a high dollar item on it. The shoplifter then enters the store and compares the code on the receipt to the codes printed on the merchandise in the store. Once the shoplifter finds a match they will take the merchandise to the return area and receive money for. Typically, to avoid detection, shoplifters will use a piece of paper with the merchandise code they are looking for written on it.

[edit]
Self-checkout scam
At some larger retailers, such as Wal-Mart, customers have the option of using self-checkout lanes, in which customers do not interact with employees at all when making purchases but check themselves out at a computer. Customers are expected to scan the items that they wish to purchase, insert payment for the scanned items, then bag the items and leave the store. Shoplifters have been known to purchase small items with these machines, and place additional items in their bags without paying for them. Many shoplifters intentionally act slightly confused when using these machines, and act as if they are attempting to scan the item which they wish to steal, so that, if confronted, they can claim that they took the additional items by mistake.

[edit]
Shopping Cart Magic
Shopping cart tricks are often disregarded by Loss Prevention personnel. Typically, older or professional shoplifters usually attempt this scam. The scam works in the following way: when the shoplifter first enters the store, they locate an empty shopping cart. The shoplifter finds the item they are looking for and typically place on the bottom or under the baby seat. The shoplifter then continues to gather a small dollar amount of merchandise and places it in the shopping cart. The shoplifter then brings the shopping cart to register and removes all the merchandise with the exception of the item they wish to steal. If the cashier is not paying attention the shoplifter will usually be able to get the merchandise past them without much effort. After paying for the smaller dollar items the shoplifter leaves the store and successfully pulls off the scam. The most prevalent method used to combat this scam is the use of door personnel who are trained to ask for receipts for high dollar and un-bagged merchandise.

[edit]
Shopping Cart Passing
Shopping cart passing is usually attempted by a two-person group of shoplifters. The first shoplifter will gather the desired merchandise into a shopping cart and take it to the register. The cashier will then ring up all the merchandise and place it in bags. Once the total is rung up, the first shoplifter states that they forgot their wallet in their car. The first shoplifter will then exit the store and most cashiers will put the shopping cart off to the side and resume ringing up customers. At this point, the second shoplifter moves in and grabs the cart and walks out of the store with the stolen merchandise in bags.

[edit]
Ticket Switching
Ticket switching is among the oldest shoplifting scams that retailers have faced. Typically, the shoplifter finds an item on clearance and removes the clearance tag. The shoplifter then finds a high dollar item and applies the clearance tag to it. The shoplifter then brings the high dollar item to an unsuspecting cashier and pays for it at a clearance price. Most retailers today now utilize electronic barcodes that when scanned will ring up the correct price. Usually, when the shoplifter challenges the price a cashier supervisor will refuse to ring up the item at the clearance price. Some more clever shoplifters are now utilizing modern printing and digital technology to copy low dollar bars codes for retail merchandise packages. These shoplifters then print bar code labels that will actually ring up at cashier registers.

[edit]
Out the Wrong Door
This method requires a common outside door with two diverging doors from the vestibule: one for an entrance (which is not usually supervised) and one for an exit. Two people enter the store. One person retrieves merchandise from the selling floor. When this person is ready to leave the store, he waits at the entrance door. The other person walks around to the exit, walks into the vestibule and activates the entrance door on the way out, and the person with the merchandise also leaves. Sometimes the second person will just distract the cashiers while the person with the merchandise waits for some unknowing customer to enter the store and activate the entrance door.

DecemberOfMe
26th April 2006, 03:19
Interesting read.

I'm not really sure what to think about this, i'll get back on the subject later.

FinnMacCool
26th April 2006, 04:07
A more affective means of fighting corporations would be trashing it from the inside.

Shoplifting is useless. Even though your not paying for a product, your still using so therefore your still a consumer.

Besides, if more people shoplifted, corporations would jack up prices and security and then everyone will suffer.

lovebombanarchy
26th April 2006, 04:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:22 AM
A more affective means of fighting corporations would be trashing it from the inside.


"Besides, if more people shoplifted, corporations would jack up prices and security and then everyone will suffer."
they do that anyway.

"
Shoplifting is useless. Even though your not paying for a product, your still using so therefore your still a consumer.
"

I'm talking about taking essentials like food, clothing, and such, as well as items that can be used to spread revolutionary ideas (blank cds for burning chomksy lectures, for instance) and things that can be given to disadvantaged people. we're thinking of getting a bunch of stuff and taking it to mexico this summer. im talking about that sort of thing

bcbm
26th April 2006, 06:14
I think mobbing or proletarian shopping are more damaging, but for the lone wolf, shoplifting is certainly a good way of meeting your needs for free, though I wouldn't call it revolutionary or view it as damaging. Its good for a low-risk practice of illegal activities, too, to get over the fear. Don't get cocky!

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback
26th April 2006, 10:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:22 AM
Shoplifting is useless. Even though your not paying for a product, your still using so therefore your still a consumer.
That is nonsense.

You buy the product --> You have the product
--> You've supported the company

You don't buy the product --> You have the product
--> You haven't supported the company


Everyone is a consumer by definition; whether you buy stuff or make it yourself. Therefore the only difference lies in buying, making, or stealing.

Anyhow, stealing from big/capitalist/fucked up corporations is fine, but remember never to steal from someone who needs it himself and is honest and hardworking.

Guest
29th April 2006, 00:36
there's such thing as altruistic shoplifting too. take "life necessities" and give them to poor and disadvantaged people! i even know people who shoplift and then drive to mexico to give things away!

Janus
29th April 2006, 00:58
That's direct action right there. :) But stealing in buik is always a bit harder.

OneBrickOneVoice
29th April 2006, 00:58
It doesn't even touch the coporations if you shoplift most of the time unless you take alot of stuff. They're so big and lucrative, that it doesn't matter That's why it's so easy to exchange the broken crap they give you.

apathy maybe
29th April 2006, 08:46
Shoplifting is not revolutionary. But it can be fun, and rewarding. But if you are going to do it, be prepared. Watch out for store cops and other people. And cameras. Look nice, but be anonymous. Also see these threads that also mention shoplifting ...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28056&hl=shoplifting)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36089&hl=shoplifting)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36651&hl=shoplifting)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38335&hl=shoplifting)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43593&hl=shoplifting)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40112&hl=shoplifting)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...&hl=shoplifting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46378&hl=shoplifting)

lovebombanarchy
2nd May 2006, 02:11
shoplifting is revolutionary. we cant wait untill "the revolution" to start taking back control of resources from the capitalists. we need to start now. if you shoplift altruistically (aka, if you give away shit you steal to disadvantaged people), then you're not only hurting capitalists, you're helping victims of capitalism. don't wait for the revolution to start actually taking action, because if you don't take action, there will be no revolution

apathy maybe
2nd May 2006, 06:53
Sure it is hurting capitalists (don't steal from comrades or people who could be comrades!), but it is not revolutionary.

Sure it is action, but so is graffiti.

Revolutionary acts actually hurt the state (and capitalism), encourage others to do so, and build a stronger attack by the mass of people against the state (and capitalism).

piet11111
11th May 2006, 03:50
shoplifting is becomming a necessity if you can get away with it do it !!!

best place for shoplifting is supermarkets just walk into their storage facility and pillage.
where i live its very easy to take full (or empty) crates of beer along without anyone noticing.

its not much ofcourse but you do get free money if you return the crate with the bottle's.
if you snatched a crate that has full bottles its even more rewarding.

also the supermarkets tend to hire teens and it does not take much to intimidate them (heck angry looks suffice 9/10 times)

Faceless
15th May 2006, 21:25
I am disheartened that not a single response has actually hit the nail on the head as to whether or not shoplifting is "revolutionary" but there sure are a number of opinions:

lovebombanarchy:

shoplifting is revolutionary. we cant wait untill "the revolution" to start taking back control of resources from the capitalists. we need to start now. if you shoplift altruistically (aka, if you give away shit you steal to disadvantaged people), then you're not only hurting capitalists, you're helping victims of capitalism. don't wait for the revolution to start actually taking action, because if you don't take action, there will be no revolution

apathy maybe:

Revolutionary acts actually hurt the state (and capitalism), encourage others to do so, and build a stronger attack by the mass of people against the state (and capitalism).

Firstly let me put one thing straight; shoplifting is not revolutionary and it is certainly not new to capitalist society. It is theft; a means of survival possibly for some but ultimately it is a lumpen method. The working class understands that to be arrested as a petty criminal is not revolutionary, that it is important to organise as a class, with a class interest, which the lumpenproletariat and "the poor" generally do not constitute. Revolutionary is to transform society, shoplifting does not alter the balance of power, nor does it change the mode of production. The property relations are untouched. The world would be the same even if "shoplifitng" took on an international nature out of all proportion to realistic hopes.

The actual result will be that shops targeted by shoplifting on a big scale will cut staff and lay the blame on them, they may even simply shut down that branch. If anything you will hurt individual workers and they will become alienated from the shoplifter's "cause" which they will not identify with.

apathy maybe on the other hand, you have correctly recognised that it is not revolutionary but have failed to explain exactly why it is not. I would go so far as to say that you even mislead lovebombanarchy. Revolutionary acts need not hurt the state. Revolutionary acts are a confrontation with the class which holds the means of production. They are an act against capitalism, yes, but they are foremost an act against the principle of private property, not against the state. The state is a class mechanism and does not bestow the right of private property. Whilst the feudal state was in existence, capitalist private property was also in existence and for the capitalist to be revolutionary was principally to confront feudal property relations. The state is not some generic thing with the same purpose in all societies but serves different class interests depending upon the state and the class which is dominant in a given society. To put capitalism in brackets as if it was inferred by an attack on the state was incorrect.

In fact property relations need to be overhauled and a different mode of production established. During this process the state will be destroyed and a new state of the working class established to fight the class war from above.

bcbm
16th May 2006, 11:43
I agree with your general analysis. Shoplifting isn't revolutionary, survival tactics usually aren't. But just to be nitpicky...


The working class understands that to be arrested as a petty criminal is not revolutionary, that it is important to organise as a class, with a class interest, which the lumpenproletariat and "the poor" generally do not constitute.

They do? So what're they waiting for, then?


The actual result will be that shops targeted by shoplifting on a big scale will cut staff and lay the blame on them, they may even simply shut down that branch.

Doubtful. In an era when many businesses will happily operate at a loss to drive out their competition, even a lot of shoplifting won't amount to crap.

Faceless
16th May 2006, 14:45
They do? So what're they waiting for, then?
OK, it was a sweeping generalisation. I would maintain that all workers with a sense of class identity would understand the value of unionising, organisation etc and would regard shoplifting as far from part of that class perspective. But you know very well what I'm getting at

apathy maybe
17th May 2006, 06:11
Faceless: I am an anarchist, so I don't necessarily agree with Marxian class analysis (actually I don't).

Shoplifting doesn't lead to staff being cut or similar except on a large scale, and in that event, then it could potentially lead to a 'revolutionary' moment (staff being blamed for something that they didn't do and getting laid off).

The state does bestow property 'rights', that is why they can take property away from a person.

I am also interested in knowing how I 'mislead'.

Faceless
17th May 2006, 16:14
apathy maybe:

I felt it was quite clear that your mistake was the result of your anarchism, but I didn't dare say so until you confirmed it for me.


Shoplifting doesn't lead to staff being cut or similar except on a large scale, and in that event, then it could potentially lead to a 'revolutionary' moment (staff being blamed for something that they didn't do and getting laid off).

I wouldn't be so sure. A local Boots to me became a target for shoplifters so the staff always had the prospect of the branch being closed, which they could do because there is a much larger branch near by and my local branch is small fry. Of course your argument is the same one which suggests that voting Conservative and having a period of capitalist reaction is progressive as harrassing workers will cause them to react in a revolutionary way (not true) except you are dealing with something entirely hypothetical for which there is no precedent.


The state does bestow property 'rights', that is why they can take property away from a person.

The state bestow property rights is your assertion. The suggestion is then that capitalist relations did not exist until there was a capitalist state and that where the capitalists do not control the state and there is no law, there are no "rights".

The state can also have individuals killed or incarcerated and where workers are subjugated and the state oppresses, there are other "rights" which the working class oppose to the "rights" as they exist in capitalist society. The state can take property away from a person at certain times but I would suggest that the state is usually impotent if it wants to attack the rights of individual capitalists. That is because it is usually under the control of the capitalists and is as such a tool for enforcing rights and that these rights do not originate in the state.

Of course there is a much simpler illustration of the nature of property rights and that is in the rise of capitalism. In its earliest days the rights of the capitalist were not recognised by the state. The state only recognised the rights of the serf, the feudal lords, the priests and the king. The feudal state could tax the growing capitalist class and do what it wished with its property according to law. Of course the capitalist class made its own revolutions which enshrined its rights and protected them. But to suggest that these rights only existed after the bourgeois revolutions is absurd. They existed as ideas within the minds of the growing bourgeoisie and the likes of Diderot and Voltaire. Thus the capitalist class, with its concept of property rights, created the state to protect such rights.


I am also interested in knowing how I 'mislead'.

It was obvious that you mislead because you suggested that the state is above the capitalist class and that only at the say so of the state does capitalism exist when in fact the state is only the creation and tool of the capitalist class who control it and are usually not controlled by it.

Cloud
18th May 2006, 05:00
Well before you go and shoplift your IPODS and your videogames and that nonsense, think of if you need any of that materialistic crap anyway? Are you doing it for yourself, or because your flooded with images of it everyday.

LoneRed
18th May 2006, 06:46
Also think of where those costs are going to be coming from?? the pockets of the workers..

bcbm
18th May 2006, 11:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:46 PM
Also think of where those costs are going to be coming from?? the pockets of the workers..
Certain stores have policies like that, but in most cases it comes from the general profits. You know, that money the workers will never see?

lovebombanarchy
18th May 2006, 23:30
ok.

I never said that shoplifting is revolutionary under all circumstances.
Shoplifiting is revolutionary when
a) the materials are stolen from big corporations, not small bussinesses.
b) the materials that are stolen are not used selfishly, but are used to meet necessities (food, shelter, etc.), or to be used in revolutionary projects (blank cds to burn chomsky lectures onto and then distribute to promote anti-capitalism, for example)

unless both circumstances apply, then no it's not really revolutionary. if both do apply, then it's revolutionary. also, it should be noted that there are far more shoplifters in this country than anti-capitalists. if we can build a movement of revolutionary shoplifters, many people who shoplift already might be more interested in our ideas (it's a simple principle of psychology. most people who shoplift now think what they're doing is wrong, but they do it anyway, so they have cognitive dissonance. if they knew of a set of beliefs that provided a moral justification for shoplifting, they would be likely to accept it, to avoid the feeling of guilt that they now have. )



again, don 't wait for the revolution to expropriate wealth from capitalists.

apathy maybe
19th May 2006, 09:50
Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless) I felt it was quite clear that your mistake was the result of your anarchism, but I didn't dare say so until you confirmed it for me.[/b]Oh right I did not realise I had made a mistake.



Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)I wouldn't be so sure. A local Boots to me became a target for shoplifters so the staff always had the prospect of the branch being closed, which they could do because there is a much larger branch near by and my local branch is small fry. Of course your argument is the same one which suggests that voting Conservative and having a period of capitalist reaction is progressive as harrassing workers will cause them to react in a revolutionary way (not true) except you are dealing with something entirely hypothetical for which there is no precedent.[/b]As I said a large scale, if a store is getting hit so many times that it is going to be closed, then that is large scale. I do not vote, and if I did vote I would vote for the more progressive people or parties. But I understand the point, and some anarchists have in the past promoted this line of thinking (not me however).

Originally posted by Faceless
The state bestow property rights is your assertion. The suggestion is then that capitalist relations did not exist until there was a capitalist state and that where the capitalists do not control the state and there is no law, there are no "rights".
The state can take property as it likes. There was a state before capitalism, capitalist relations existed before capitalism. Where the capitalists do not control the state, does not mean there are no 'rights', feudal states had 'property rights'.
I might not understand what you are trying to say however.


Originally posted by Faceless
The state can also have individuals killed or incarcerated and where workers are subjugated and the state oppresses, there are other "rights" which the working class oppose to the "rights" as they exist in capitalist society. The state can take property away from a person at certain times but I would suggest that the state is usually impotent if it wants to attack the rights of individual capitalists. That is because it is usually under the control of the capitalists and is as such a tool for enforcing rights and that these rights do not originate in the state. As I have said, the state and capitalism are different things. The state can and does take property away from individual capitalists, both in the form of taxes and appropriating land for state purposes (military or otherwise). The current Venezuelan Government is attacking the whole institution of capitalism, not just individual capitalists, yet there is still a state.

Originally posted by Faceless
... Thus the capitalist class, with its concept of property rights, created the state to protect such rights.Created the capitaliststate. The state existed before, and it exists after.

Originally posted by Faceless
It was obvious that you mislead because you suggested that the state is above the capitalist class and that only at the say so of the state does capitalism exist when in fact the state is only the creation and tool of the capitalist class who control it and are usually not controlled by it.I suggested, oops I meant not to suggest, but rather to mean. The state is above the capitalist class, that is why there are 'socialist' countries. They are still states. The state has existed before capitalism, it exists without capitalism.

If I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, please do correct me. However, I do not agree with you on everything, doesn't make me wrong.

[email protected]
Well before you go and shoplift your IPODS and your videogames and that nonsense, think of if you need any of that materialistic crap anyway? Are you doing it for yourself, or because your flooded with images of it everyday.
Besides the fact that it is harder to shop life such stuff, shoplifting food and other small items is also a possibility. And having this 'materialistic' crap can make a person's life nicer. Having portable music is on thing that a friend of mine really wanted when he didn't have it. He didn't need the other crap.

black banner black gun
Certain stores have policies like that, but in most cases it comes from the general profits. You know, that money the workers will never see? Basically.
In some countries there is such a thing as a minimum wage, that is what many workers in retail get, so they aren't going to get less.

lovebombanarchy: Yes the proceeds of shoplifting can be used for revolutionary purposes. The actual act it self is not revolutionary however. Yes you can damage a big corporation, but a single person cannot do much damage on their own. If you had a large amount of people, organised then there is more possibility. So go find your shoplifters and get them to convert to anarchism, but many do have a belief in capitalism, or at least private (mine) property.
Don't wait for the revolution to expropriate wealth from capitalists.

Faceless
19th May 2006, 14:08
lovebombanarchy: Yes the proceeds of shoplifting can be used for revolutionary purposes.

I would agree with that. Revolutionary movements need financing and at some point in thei development something like bank robbery may be appropriate. I feel that is not the case at the moment. Whilst bourgeois democracy affords us limited freedoms we should use them. In particular the risk of being locked up negates any advantage bank robbing might yield in my case.

Anyway, back to the discussion on the state, which is drifting some distance from the discussion on shoplifting I fear...


As I said a large scale, if a store is getting hit so many times that it is going to be closed, then that is large scale. I do not vote, and if I did vote I would vote for the more progressive people or parties. But I understand the point, and some anarchists have in the past promoted this line of thinking (not me however).

In the example I cited the individuals working in that shop were particularly demoralised and the closing of their store certainly didn't help. If it could have lead other workers into a confrontation with their bosses depends upon the prior history of those workers and if indeed they were already at something of a tipping point in their consciousness. The shoplifter would have no say in this.


Created the capitaliststate. The state existed before, and it exists after.
Yes, that is true, however before (and from my perspective after) the state had both a different purpose and a different form. This form was antagonistic to capitalist interest as it represented the feudal aristocracy and thus had to be destroyed. In these circumstances the rising capitalist class had to carry the banner of capitalist property rights in opposition to the state. The feudal aristocracy would have cared little for the "rights" as the capitalist saw them and where capitalism thrived was incidental except insofar as it could be taxed (which was far from incidental to the capitalists). My point then is this; not that there is a state of some form or another in other societies, but that:

a) the capitalist state is distinct from other states in a number of ways and that it is thus wrong to lump the word "state" to describe this apparatus as akin to the feudal government with its king, clergy and army.
b) capitalist property rights and feudal property rights were antagonistic and as such the state did not defent capitalist property rights and therefore the capitalist class had to wage its war, at some point, from below. This resulted in the destruction of the state apparatus.


I suggested, oops I meant not to suggest, but rather to mean. The state is above the capitalist class, that is why there are 'socialist' countries. They are still states. The state has existed before capitalism, it exists without capitalism.
Therefore this is wrong because it is not the same state. It has different laws, different apparatus (not relying upon the clergy so much as an army of bureaucrats) and a different army (a permanent body which is not drafted from a number of nobles). And this is not by coincidence. The former state was composed of feudal elements and represented a fedal ruling class, the capitalist state grew from the destruction of the feudal state to represent a new class. The state in each case was the creation of the ruling class and was subject to destruction by a new up and coming ruling class. No state in history survives this upheaval and as such is not above the capitist class.
Your counter example though is:


As I have said, the state and capitalism are different things. The state can and does take property away from individual capitalists, both in the form of taxes and appropriating land for state purposes (military or otherwise). The current Venezuelan Government is attacking the whole institution of capitalism, not just individual capitalists, yet there is still a state.
But it is because of the fact that this state still contains many of the capitalist, bureaucratic elements that the revolution is under threat so often. Quite clearly there are occassions when the huge apparatus of the capitalist class can go out of its control, which is why I chose my words carefully when I said:


That is because it is usually under the control of the capitalists and is as such a tool for enforcing rights and that these rights do not originate in the state.
I was thinking of Bonaparte but that does not make it a rule that the state is always beyond the control of the capitalist class. The fact is however that the Chavez government is not bonapartist. In the time of bonaparte the capitalists relinquished control of the state because it was in its own interest to do so, the Chavez government quite clearly depends upon the working class and the Venezuelan poor for his power. If he is to consolidate this power the state will need to be thoroughly purged of its capitalist character.

Chavez is quite clearly not taxing and appropriating land for the good of the state. The state itself has come under attack, from the bourgeois elements in the oil industry to the level of the military. It is clear to me that Chavez is not working in his own interest seperate from the interest of the venezuelan poor either. Chavez is not a bonapartist

Maximicus
20th May 2006, 19:06
.

lovebombanarchy
23rd May 2006, 23:22
i'm telling you, the shoplifting from big corporations does not hurt workers!
in most big corporations, wages for various jobs are set at the corporate level. if i steal from a local outlet, it will have no effect on the wages of the workers, it will come from the company's profit.. not to mention that most people working at big corporations are making minimum wage anyway and cant legally recieve pay cuts...

stealthisname67
24th May 2006, 02:49
Every so often I walk down the street and see a homeless man asking me if I have any jobs he can do for me so that he can buy food with it or just plain ask me for food or money (usually food), and I tell him "how about I work for you?" he raises his eyebrows in confusion and then tell him to wait where he is standing. I then proceed to casually walk in to the nearest convenience store and take a turkey sandwich from the freezer and a big can of green tea. I walk outside with the delicious sandwich and thirst-quenching tea in my coat and then tell the man to walk with me to my house (the man is still baffled). When we get there, I tell him to help me fix my leaking roof and then I pay him the rest of the money I have (I didn't need it) for helping me and then tell him to sit and eat lunch with me. I then pull out the sandwich and the tea that I had placed in the fridge while we work on the roof and give him the sandwich and pour some of the tea into a large cup and give them to him, and then we sit, talk, and eat.


This actually only happened once. :D

apathy maybe
4th June 2006, 08:32
Faceless: It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the state and its relationship to capitalism. This is fine and healthy societies have people who disagree on such things (hey look! RevLeft is healthy!). As such I fail to see the point in attempting to persuade you to my point of view and will thus abstain from such. And get back to how shoplifting affects corporations and mega chains (it doesn't ...).


Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless) ... The shoplifter would have no say in this.[/b] Exactly, so why take the time to care? The fact is that decisions are made by the corporate heads, not by the shoplifter. The shop might be closing because they are not getting enough people buying stuff, or it might be that they are loosing too much stuff through people nicking it. You don't know.


Originally posted by Maximicus+--> (Maximicus) The problem with activities such as shoplifitng is that the chain of damage seems to follow the chain of command from bottom up. The people most impacted by you stealing are the employees of the store, followed by the managers, individual store owners (Petit burgoise at best) way before anything reaches corporate, if it even does. [/b]
I disagree, the workers are paid a certain amount. Unless a petit bourgeois owns the store they will not have a pay cut. The corporation already pays them minimum I would imagine. In the case of the petit bourgeois, don't steal from potential comrades.


Originally posted by Maximicus
When you steal from a Wal-Mart store, you steal from the employees, who's jobs depend on you buying the products. The individual store takes the hit, not the corporation. So the money not paid is taken out of working class checks. Even if the responsibility is handed out evenly (Which it usually isn't) the workers take a bigger hit to their percentage. Say youy steal $5000 worth of stuff. The corporation doesn't suffer at all, but the employees get downsized.
Again, I disagree. At least in Australia this is not how things operate. The corporation takes the hit, the workers are not payed less simply because lots of shit is stolen from the store.


[email protected]
The trick to being a modern Robin Hood is to make sure it's the rich that you're stealing from.
Yup. The corporations.


Maximicus
Also, unless you're truly stealing out of the goodness of your heart, and donating 100% of your gains, you're just becoming a selfish, cappy monster yourself, only on a smaller scale (for now). It's a slippery slope once you start justifying personal greed with the idea that "They're more geedy than I am. I'm really doing everyone a service." Oh dear, I'm starving. But I'd better not shoplift, as I'll be on the slippery slope to be a capitalist monster. Why wait for the revolution to expropriate wealth from the capitalists?

stealthisname67: What did he say? Did you tell him about dumpster diving?

stealthisname67
17th September 2006, 03:58
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2006, 05:33 AM
stealthisname67: What did he say? Did you tell him about dumpster diving?
Actually, yes, we talked of it for a bit, and he did mention that he hadn't found anything good in a few days, so he just stood on the street asking for money or food.

worldtradeisadeathmachine
3rd October 2006, 19:15
I'd shoplift.
Not from my local corner store though, the one thats been on my road for around 40 years,
id steal from Tesco, which is piss easy, and Asda

citizen_snips
4th October 2006, 00:14
I say no to cash-drawer theft. That really does harm the worker, as they get accused of lifting from the till. Or carelessness. And if their boss is looking for a reason to sack them, they have it.

Other than that, just be careful if you're doing it in your own workplace.

zinzara
4th October 2006, 05:39
I think it is quite easy to shoplift from walmart if the conditions are right. I work there so i know some things (at least about my walmart). if you don't waste time from the time you open that cd case or whatever to the time you walk out the door, you'll most likely get away with it. they can't do anything to you by themselves but they do call the cops. and make sure there isn't a security officer that works there. also make sure you park in an area away from the front doors. or you can just take the items to the restroom. no cameras. just empty the contents into your pockets or whatnot and take the packages back on the floor (cameras will see that you took something in but "didn't bring anything out") I could acquire items very easily. when we find stolen merchandise (empty cd cases, etc.) we have to fill out a lil piece of paper and tape it to the product. then take it to the back to a bin. and the cameras are not real good quality so i can grab a dvd like it has been stolen (but really isn't) and take it over, fill out a paper, then take it in the back. and as soon as i get through the doors to the back, i'm free from cameras until i get around the corner, so i could slit it open, grab the disc, and boom. free products and $10-20 less a pop that walmart makes this year depending on the product of course. i've never actually tried this but thought it out quite extensively. it will work. just gotta get brave enough to do it.

Maximicus: When you steal from a Wal-Mart store, you steal from the employees, who's jobs depend on you buying the products. The individual store takes the hit, not the corporation.
I disagree. We get paid the same whether we have loads of shoplifting or not. Shoplifting has increased tenfold in the past month because of the phasing out of layaway. and yet we get paid exactly the same amount as before. the walmart corporation is so rich that they do not have to worry about shoplifters. sounds weird yes but it's true. they still gain large amounts of money from the products they do sell.