Gangs

[JC1]

So whats the deal with gangs ?

Are they a form of Capitalist orginization (are they realy just drug companys?) or are they anti-capitalist in nature (gang values are generaly positive (e.g. neighboorhood (working class?) pride, rejection of traditional values))?

What about suburban gangs ?

[Political_Chucky]

Hmmm well gangs now and gangs in the past are two different things for one to start off.

Now the gangs of the past(and when I say the past, I am saying around the 1940s-1960s), gangs were more about the protection of their neighborhood, their pride, and most of all, their people. Gangs here in Riverside, California once represented that and were a means against police brutality. Here, WSR(Westside Rivas), ESR, and CB(Casablanca) are the three more known Chicano gangs in the city. My friend's dad who was in CB, talked about how it once was like that way but it all changed because values changed. Police brutality was not as evident and minorities became less educated and more about fun.

I had been involved in that atmosphere, but wasn't really in a gang. Thank god I was never sucked into gangs because I would have never been able to regain my own mind and be aware of what I had been doing.

Surburban gangs on the other hand, in my opinion, are more or less a way for them to rebel and really depends on how far they want to take it. Its funny because the "town" I guess you can say I live in, which is inside riverside, is Rubidoux and was once one of the worst places to live in Riverside. There is still bad parts, but Rubidoux for the most part has turned suburban and there are still these little gangs who think they are ghetto. It seems funny to me.

Now lastly, gangs now adays are basically the unoraginzed market of drug distribution. I know all the hot spots in Riverside and can tell you that in general, these people know nothing but drugs. And the only thing to get them out of this shit is a wake up call from either a couple of bullets or the cops.

[JC1]

Now lastly, gangs now adays are basically the unoraginzed market of drug distribution. I know all the hot spots in Riverside and can tell you that in general, these people know nothing but drugs. And the only thing to get them out of this shit is a wake up call from either a couple of bullets or the cops.

Im not so sure about that. In my city, the gangs I have been around have a strong sense of neighboorhood pride, and while there all involved in the drug biz, being in a gang is not a pre-resquiste for being a pusher man.

I think this is a common situation, cuz I'm in the 3rd poorest postal code in Canada.

[Janus]

I would say that gangs are not the product of capitalism since the structure predates it. A gang is simply a group of individuals, though the term is commonly used now to describe those who engage in illegal activities, who share a common interest and are simply the result of the progression of human relationships rather than purely economical ones.

[ComradeR]

Well modern gangs as they are now are really nothing more then a symptom of the capitalist society. Because as capitalism progressees the rich get richer and the poor get poorer causing the society to decay, plus with the traits that capitalism increases in people (greed and cynicism) you start seeing poverty, homelessness, gangs etc. more and more.

[Tekun]

I've never heard of suburban gangs
What are those, groups of wealthy priviliged kids roaming through the valley in their BMW tearing shit up? :P

I take it you're referring to criminal organizations and not clubs/social groups

Gangs encompass a variety of interesting and large scale issues
From what I've seen, therez a variety of gangs
Therez the archaic version of gangs that dates back to Renaissance times, which were organizations of wealthy individuals which protected their cities from outside threats (however I doubt the post refers to these) mainly in the Italian city-states

Then therez the traditional old school gangs (the Mob) which shared many parallels with big business e.g. competition, exploitation, inflation of prices,...
To sum it up, these ARE big business, the only thing that changes is on what side of the law they operate
They incorporated every aspect of capitalism, the hierarchy, the exploitation, the competition
In addition, they also manifested a sense of cultural pride and racism which is very much apparent in the capitalist system
If anything, most mobsters lived and behaved like the bourgeoisie

The other type of gang is the modern urban gang e.g. MaraSalvatrucha, Crips, Flying Dragons,...
These are mostly made up by neglected young ppl who feel cheated and decide to get a "piece of the pie"
Although they're opposed to any form of authority (except their own, considering that they're quite hierarchical) they also share alot of ties with capitalist enterprises
They traffic, distribute, and sell drugs at the prices they deem beneficial
They exploit newer members of the gang
In places like Central America, they're notorious for taxing small business and everyday ppl that use services like public transportation and certain roads/highways
They murder anyone that opposes their authority (be it peasants or pigs)
And for the most part terrorize communities just by their presence

In the past, these gangs did have alot of the exemplary principles such as protecting their community, fighting the police, and not conforming to society
But I think that as the years have trangressed, values were traded in for comfort and power
And now these gangs resemble something like Bechtel rather than original "pachucos"

[Pirate Utopian]

suburban gangs: http://www.icyhotstunta.com/ :)
gangs are killing and poisoning the wrong people, they have the ability to get a group of young motivated men together, too bad it's for the wrong cause.
they have failed to see their true enemy is not someone with a wrong color on.

[Hiero]

With urban gans, primarily thoose made up of youth, it should be noted that there is alot of identity involved. Young people join these groups to join a community. The receive a basic uniform, colours, dances like the c-walk.

[Morag]

Gangs in my region, albeit not exactly an urban area, but not rural or suburban, either (complicated, isn't it), are more about identity and community then they are about pushing drugs. In fact, the majority of what we recognise as gangs are people (men and women, or boys and girls) who band together for protection and social reasons. We go out, have fun, and no one messes with you, not even the police. On the other hand, there are some gangs that are formed on an ethnic basis, like Native gangs, or the Vietnamese gangs that come up from larger cities, and these gangs are more likely to be involved in drugs. Although, even in the lesser organised gangs, they always seem to form around a drug dealer, and that dealer caters to the other members while those members often sell to people who are not in the group at all. However, the organised use of gangs to sell drugs are much more common among those gangs that form around shared identities, like one gang I know well who all grew up on the Native reserve, and another where they all grew up on the same street in the city.

[kaaos_af]

Nothing wrong with the lads and lasses hanging out together to cause some trouble and get some piss. Unless you're a copper of course.

[blueeyedboy]

Gangs are probably one of the most complicated socio-economic problems in existence today. I don't believe that all gangs are a result of economic problems, but some are. Some gangs are around to cause trouble and nothing else. There are no reasons for this, apart from boredom or doing it just for kicks. There are some gangs, though, that form for a purpose, as a result of economic problems. You could call us on here a gang, as we are a collective, with mostly the same ideas and wants. Also, we're from all different backgrounds, which makes us unique as most gangs are from the same backgrounds. The point is, a gang doesn't have to be violent.

In a communist society, I think the gangs that are out there due to economic problems would not find any excuse to stay in the gang, or if they do, then they would cause no violence because hopefully all economic problems would cease to exist. The gangs that just commit crimes for kicks should be punished in some way, although I don't know in what way.

Would anyone tend to agree with what I'm saying. If not, then elaborate.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:07 pm
So whats the deal with gangs ?

Social cancers and puppets of the system.

[Solitary Mind]

Gangs now adays are either products of the system or just around to cause mayhem and feel like they're a part of something big...

Originally though, i heard that the Crips were a gang of unity and were trying to emulate the Black Panthers, CRIPS orginnaly stood for "Community Revolution In Progress" or something along those lines..i forgot how the Bloods got involved, and from there, gangs have turned into nothing else but scum...

[midnight marauder]

So far in this thread it seems clear to me who has experience with gangs and the poverty that creates them (or at least understands) and who doesn't.

As has been brought up before, gangs aren't a modern phenomena. They've existed for centuries, predating capitalism. But all gangs share one thing in common: class based society.

That said, it's important to define what exactly a "gang" refers to (at least where I'm from). The structure gangs take depends on the material conditions that those who form them live under. This is the key difference between things like the mafia and groups of gangs like the bloods and the crips.

Gangs as we know them today in countries like the United States are little more than a reaction to the establishment: the rampant poverty under capitalism, the neglect of the modern education to teach subjects that are relevant and stimulating, the impracticality modern work and the opportunities to get it, the impossibilty of modern values under their living conditions, the assault on them of modern politics and the lack of any methods to change it, the problems with modern families outlined by Marx and refined by modern culture, etc. Although they offer a clear denial of societally accepted institutions, they aren't perfect, and they aren't necessarily communist, but they are victims of the "system," and they know it more than just about anyone else. This is why I, coming from a heavily gang related community and familiy, try to focus my attention on applying my ideas toward this segment of society, as cleary they have an enormous revolutionary potentional not present when Marx blatantly alienated the lumpenproletariat from any leftist activity in his writings from the 1850s.

Communist and anarchist revolution are applicable now to the lumpenproletariat more than ever before. The advancement of capitalism has changed the shape of this portion of the first world population to something completely new, and completely radical in nature. It's up to us as leftists to draw out this radical potential, and not to simply shove them off as "social cancers" and "puppets of the system."

As for me, I come from an extremely neglected part of Kansas City, where gang life is very common. My neighborhood is home to 39th Street Pirus, as most of my part of town is made up of bloods. There are also a large number of crip gangs as well as Latin Kings and some other local sets.

In terms of other types of gangs from other material settings, I can't really talk. I've never known any of the types of gangs outlined by Tekun and other users. But I can offer my knowledge on what it means to be gang related in America, and if anyone has any questions that I can answer when I'm not pressed for time, feel free to ask.

[midnight marauder]

Originally though, i heard that the Crips were a gang of unity and were trying to emulate the Black Panthers, CRIPS orginnaly stood for "Community Revolution In Progress" or something along those lines..i forgot how the Bloods got involved, and from there, gangs have turned into nothing else but scum...

Yeah. The crips were originally started by Raymond Lee "ice man" Washington in the 70s as a response to the symptons of society listed above. Washington modeled the gang after older gangs from his area of California, and it's often suggested that the crips were started to offer unity to impoverished youth of the Afrikan community. In fact, their origional numbers were made up with a great ammount of Black Panther children. However, they were also very economically motivated for obvious reasons and because they were growing exponentially, they soon got out of hand and lost a lot of organization. In effect, because of the ways in which they carried out their activities, some groups of crips began to "terrorize" communities in a terrible twist of irony.

As a result, other groups of local youth joined together to create a gang called the bloods in order to protect their communities. Unfortunately, the same thing happened to them in certain groups of bloods.

Different sets from different gangs operate differently. Some are very community conscience and protection oriented, while others operate purely off a motive for profit. During the eighties, a lot of gangs tried to demonstrate their potential and their lack of understanding by doing more overt community service and work to help out with their neighborhoods. It was during this period of time that many crip gangs started using the acronym "community restoration/revolution in progress."

Of course, a gang is a gang to the pig police, and these groups were quickly shut down.

[Tekun]

It's up to us as leftists to draw out this radical potential, and not to simply shove them off as "social cancers" and "puppets of the system."

Yes sir, many Black Panther's were exconvicts, criminals, gang members and the like
Its worthwhile to try to influence these ppl, although I confess that they're quite stubborn, authoritarian, and indifferent about those outside the gang
Nevertheless, we should try

[midnight marauder]

I can't quite say that that's been my experience, but I suspect you and I have different experiences with different types of people, and I respect that. It seems to me that once you convince someone that their problems aren't happening because they're destined to be bad people (as is the racist and classist ideology fatally persistent where I'm from), but rather the result of what we leftists like to call the "system," the rest falls into place.


Yes sir, many Black Panther's were exconvicts, criminals, gang members and the like

Right. One of what I feel the greatest contributions the Black Panther's made to radicals is the recognition of the lumpenproletariat as a revolutionary class. And that's one of the reasons they had the enormous success that they did (at least until COINTELPRO and the government's systematic assault on them).

[blueeyedboy]

JUICE has made some excellent points, and I particularly liked the idea that gangs can contribute to a revolution. I have had no gang experience, but my community isn't gang related. Also, it's true that gangs are formed through material conditions, but I think JUICE is generalising. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but not all gangs are formed by material conditions. Don't get me wrong, but I am a firm believer in the conflict theories of crime, but there are some gangs that just terrorise communites for no reason other than enjoyment, not just because thier poor. Mostly, though, material conditions are the reasons for the majority of crimes.

[midnight marauder]

Thanks. I'd agree, that yes, I am making some broad statements about the nature of gangs in the United States and other similar countries. However, the thread did address the issue of suburban gangs and I think that what you described (gangs just wanting to terrorize and rebel) suits what I would describe them as more than I would describe inner city economically motivated gangs.

Again, a sweeping generalization. Good point, though.

[BreadBros]

As far as I've seen, gangs and criminal organizations seem to take an almost feudalistic structure. They tend to have a highly territorial structure dependent upon the concept of some sort of "honor". They tend to operate in a pyramidical hierarchical structure: lower echelons of the gang produce wealth (through sales of narcotics, weapons, etc) and pay tribute up a chain of command to an upper class. They are often tied together by ethnicity or nationality. They tend to be very dependent on superficial moralism and reputation. All of these are features of feudalistic society. It appears to me that where capitalist production fails to take adequate hold or fails to generate sufficient wealth to uphold itself, small segments of society tend to regress into these feudalistic structures to create wealth.

I have to disagree with many in this thread and agree with Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire that the lumpen-proletariat seems to ultimately be a counter-revolutionary class. Most of the lumpen-proletariat highly depends on the upper-classes for their existence. For example, drug-dealing gangs rely on upper class drug manufacturers and drug traffickers to provide them with the goods needed for distribution. They are sometimes collaboraters with corrupt police and other entities. Most of the lumpen-proletariat is defined by their rejection of proletarian work and often make their wealth by exploiting or profiteering off of the harms done to the working class (drug addiction, robbery, etc). This is why Marx saw the lumpen-proletariat class as a counter-revolutionary class, while the proletariat (and in the time of Marx, the bourgeois as well) was progressive in its advancement of labor power, the lumpen-proletariat was regressive. It may be possible that certain elements of the lumpen-proletariat or gang culture may ally with the working class in any revolution, but the revolution would likely 1. destroy their means of sustenance/wealth and 2. go completely against their hierarchical, traditional, honor-based values, so I tend to doubt it.

[rouchambeau]

Some of them are bad, of course. However, the Zoot Suiters (Pachucos?) were pretty kick-ass.

[Cryotank Screams]

It's up to us as leftists to draw out this radical potential, and not to simply shove them off as "social cancers" and "puppets of the system."

Exactly how are we to extract radical and revolutionary potential from these groups when they are fueled material consumption, and commodity fetishism; where if you enter a certain street wearing a certain color that is a warrant for violence and execution by the dominant gang of that area; where there sub-culture degrades women, and sees them as sexual objects and things to be collected and exploited, or "pimp," them.

How are we to extract revolutionary potential from reactionary groups, and people who have no interest in revolution or Leftist politics except for maybe a very select few of individuals?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 01:59 am
Some of them are bad, of course. However, the Zoot Suiters (Pachucos?) were pretty kick-ass.
That wasnt really a gang, it was a youth subculture, with music, dancing, style of dress, slang etc., basically in a lot of ways its the American/Chicano contemporary of the French Zazou/jazz subculture. But anyway, I agree completely, they fucking rocked, I wish I was that badass.

[Lenin's Law]

Most gangs nowadays are predatory and their structure is rigid and highly authoritarian. Their embrace of violence and materialism and callous disregard of human life cannot possibly be looked on favorably by revolutionaries.

However, what one normally thinks of as a "gang" (e.g. "bloods" "crips" etc) ought to be distinguised from what many in the bourgeois/capitalist media use to tar and attack the left with. In every great social revolution, an advanced-class conscious armed groups of people organize to protect their neighborhood and fend off attacks from the bourgeois. This needs to be encouraged and is likely essential for any revolution to succeed - the arming of the masses - however this must be separated from what passes as "gang" in everyday languange.

One is reactionary and a symptom of capitalism while the other is revolutionary and necessary for the abolishment of capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 02:07 am
So whats the deal with gangs ?

Are they a form of Capitalist orginization (are they realy just drug companys?) or are they anti-capitalist in nature (gang values are generaly positive (e.g. neighboorhood (working class?) pride, rejection of traditional values))?

What about suburban gangs ?
it depends on the climate of the local area as the the political effect of the gang. Here in Northern Ireland, (esp the loyalists) they are more politically akin to fascism than capitalism although they do preach devotion to the british beourgious class and engage in drug dealing/extortion etc.

[LoneRed]

now i know, everytime i want to laugh, ill go to that website that was posted

[JC1]

What's the diffrence between "lumpen" prolatarians and the reserve army of the unemployed? I mean, I unno any drug dealer who dont have atleast a part time job (except for people who graduated to ki's).

[joser03]

While working on a painting of Che Guevara today, I was watching the History Channel. They were airing a series of reports about gangs in the US. From post-WWII until the present day. There is one gang in Los Angeles alone, that has 20,000 members. I started thinking, if America were ever to become a socialist nation through revolution, what would be done with all the gangs in America?

Since I've been reading a lot about Che, I would think that he would give gang members a chance to stop their gang activities or face the penalty of execution. If they are a threat to the Revolution, there is no choice but to do so. Are there any other alternatives? Is throwing money into education and programs the answer?

One reason people join gangs is to feel that they are a part of something. Perhaps they would be enlisted into the Revolution at it's infancy. Perhaps being part of the Revolution and knowing that they have the support of their comrades will deter many from gang violence. Gangs also promise members access to the American Dream, a lifestyle of materialism and comfort. They will make their money through arms sales, prostitution, drugs, etc. How can this be stopped?

I stand by Che's reasoning; execution. Let it be a warning of things to come if one attempts to challenge the system the Revolution is trying to build. If left unchecked, the problem will only snowball until catastrophic proportions. It sounds harsh, but it is a harsh world. Allowing them to continue will only corrupt the Revolution through capitalist means.

What do you think?

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:35 am
One reason people join gangs is to feel that they are a part of something. Perhaps they would be enlisted into the Revolution at it's infancy. Perhaps being part of the Revolution and knowing that they have the support of their comrades will deter many from gang violence. Gangs also promise members access to the American Dream, a lifestyle of materialism and comfort. They will make their money through arms sales, prostitution, drugs, etc. How can this be stopped?
Enlisting them in the revolution is a good idea.

After the revolution however, will there be any need for gangs? If everyone is given a decent standard of living, will gangs need to exist in order for people to gain this decent standard of living? Because let's face it, the reason gangs exist in America is because of the vast inequalities in society. If those inequalities cease to exist, maybe the gangs will cease to exist too.

[joser03]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 11, 2007 08:53 am--> (Tommy-K @ April 11, 2007 08:53 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 08:35 am
One reason people join gangs is to feel that they are a part of something. Perhaps they would be enlisted into the Revolution at it's infancy. Perhaps being part of the Revolution and knowing that they have the support of their comrades will deter many from gang violence. Gangs also promise members access to the American Dream, a lifestyle of materialism and comfort. They will make their money through arms sales, prostitution, drugs, etc. How can this be stopped?
Enlisting them in the revolution is a good idea.

After the revolution however, will there be any need for gangs? If everyone is given a decent standard of living, will gangs need to exist in order for people to gain this decent standard of living? Because let's face it, the reason gangs exist in America is because of the vast inequalities in society. If those inequalities cease to exist, maybe the gangs will cease to exist too. [/b]
I think ideally that would happen, but gangs will only cease to exist if all gang members are in-tune with socialist thinking. We would be kidding ourselves if gang members were told that after the revolution, a socialist model would be established and that they would all be willing to join up. If we are lucky, perhaps 50% would agree to follow it through. There will always be some who will continue to seek a lifestyle of wealth and material things. How do you tell people that jewelry, money, cars, etc. is not important when this is how they define themselves; how they value their life? Just like some world leaders seek to control the world, on a smaller scale, gang members seek to control their local area. How do you prevent people from violently seeking power? That would be a direct threat to the revolution.

[Tommy-K]

Well they'd have to be dealt with "by whatever means neccessary."

To use a favourite communist quote :P

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 07:04 am
Well they'd have to be dealt with "by whatever means neccessary."

To use a favourite communist quote :P
That's an extraneous statement by itself in this contex.

And it was not said by a communist.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+April 11, 2007 02:29 pm--> (Pawn Power @ April 11, 2007 02:29 pm)
Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 07:04 am
Well they'd have to be dealt with "by whatever means neccessary."

To use a favourite communist quote :P
That's an extraneous statement by itself in this contex.

And it was not said by a communist. [/b]
It's used by Communists which is the point I was getting at.

[luxemburg89]

There are always those who desire chaos and violence. They may be the main problem. I mean, are chavs, many of whom live fully comfortable lives, really making a stand against some inequality - they have been blessed by inequality- they are privelaged as a result of someone elses suffering. These people, I'm sure, will still exist after a revolution and would not be satisfied with losing their status and wealth. A major problem to consider is gangs of rich thugs (i certainly know a few) and what to do with them.

[RNK]

It's no stretch to say that modern gangs benefit from class struggle, poverty, and capitalism; removing these will largely weaken them, along with moving the underlying racist aspects of society. That will get rid of most gangs; the rest will merely have to be confronted mercilessly with persecution. The people themselves will also have the tools at their disposal to deal with gangs in their communities; I'd like to see a gang try shit in a neighbourhood of workers who all own guns and operate armed militia "neighbourhood watch".

[KurtFF8]

Well "ideally" (I don't like to use that term because it's associated with having some sort of ideology, as people who think about what would be ideal all the time usually aren't considered practical) after a revolution, what would be addressed would be the conditions in which allow gangs to exist in the first place.

These conditions would be dealt with, and with dealing with those would be the eradication of the conditions that make gangs necessary in the first place.

Not that gangs would then simply wither away on their own, but dealing with the conditions themselves in the first place would make dealing with the gangs directly much easier.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

we would have our own militant communist groups like the Red Guards of China for example to counter gangs and fascists and etc. I also think they would lose their purpose as society loses its consumerist mentality which gangs essentially thrive on

[BreadBros]

While working on a painting of Che Guevara today, I was watching the History Channel. They were airing a series of reports about gangs in the US. From post-WWII until the present day. There is one gang in Los Angeles alone, that has 20,000 members. I started thinking, if America were ever to become a socialist nation through revolution, what would be done with all the gangs in America?

Since I've been reading a lot about Che, I would think that he would give gang members a chance to stop their gang activities or face the penalty of execution. If they are a threat to the Revolution, there is no choice but to do so. Are there any other alternatives? Is throwing money into education and programs the answer?

Gangs wouldnt exist in a socialist society. Gangs are a product of the illegalization of certain forms of trade, black market goods, physical protection, etc. Lacking a function I don't see how they would continue to exist.


One reason people join gangs is to feel that they are a part of something. Perhaps they would be enlisted into the Revolution at it's infancy. Perhaps being part of the Revolution and knowing that they have the support of their comrades will deter many from gang violence. Gangs also promise members access to the American Dream, a lifestyle of materialism and comfort. They will make their money through arms sales, prostitution, drugs, etc. How can this be stopped?

People join gangs because a lack of legitimate methods of making a living under capitalism. That can't be stopped until you do away with capitalism or any other form of economic-societal organizing that creates inequality.


I stand by Che's reasoning; execution. Let it be a warning of things to come if one attempts to challenge the system the Revolution is trying to build. If left unchecked, the problem will only snowball until catastrophic proportions. It sounds harsh, but it is a harsh world. Allowing them to continue will only corrupt the Revolution through capitalist means.

This makes no sense. Most gang members are proletarian, why would they try to stop a revolution? Why would Che reason execution if gangs are a product of capitalism? Thats like executing workers for trying to better their situation under capitalism. You sound more reactionary than the gang members themselves probably are.


we would have our own militant communist groups like the Red Guards of China for example to counter gangs and fascists and etc. I also think they would lose their purpose as society loses its consumerist mentality which gangs essentially thrive on

In many places gangs already function as a sort of working-class militia. Where the state has weak control or police are oppressive gangs become the de-facto governing organization. This isnt communistic but it certainly makes it clear that many gang members are likely to be able to see some of the acute problems with capitalism.

[KurtFF8]

And another minor point about violently combating them:

If that were to happen, then support for whatever entity (in this example a Red Guard like organization) would be lost. Also more violent opposition to the revolution would most likely ensue.

On top of this, violently repressing any group is never a good idea in my opinion.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I'm siding with Kurt on this one. The means we use need to compliment the ends. If history has shown anything at all it's that idea.

Gangs are the product of a brutalized society. If we extend to them the opportunity to live without fear of being brutalized by the police, the landlord, the collection agency and rival neighbourhoods then I think the gangsta life would seem a great deal less appealing.

[midnight marauder]

BreadBros, that post is amazing.

It seems like, once again, armchair revolutionaries are bearing their teeth from behind their monitors on a subject I'd wager they had no personal experience with.

Come on, people. Gangs in America don't exist to hurt proletariats. They don't exist to stop revolutions. They're a complex social phenomenon that arise primarily out of all of the economic (and perhaps as importantly, socail) issues we're fighting to change.

We aren't all reactionaries. We aren't all revolutionaries. We're just people. In this respect, we're no different than any other segment of society. We're victims of the same system of alienation that leftists seek to destroy.


Since I've been reading a lot about Che, I would think that he would give gang members a chance to stop their gang activities or face the penalty of execution.

This has one of the most incredibly inane things I've heard in a long time.

Here's my suggestion to you: write a local prisoner. Take a drive through your city's black or latino ghetto. Volunteer with some gang members.

Hopefully you'll understand everything that's wrong with this statement.

(I shudder to think what Malcolm would have thought reading this thread, had he been alive today)

[joser03]

After writing and posting this, I thought some more and it does seem harsh. It is. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. I do think the majority of gang members would become part of the revolution, because as I said, they would be part of a support group and would probably fight to destroy the status quo. But there are some individuals, not your "average" gang member who's just looking to belong to something, the foot soldiers for a lack of a better term, but individuals who desire power and will kill to control. For some people, I think it's in their nature to be greedy and it has nothing to do with capitalism and consumerism. These are the people I speak of.

I do understand why people form and join gangs; so please don't try to belittle me by stating that I'm ignorant. Make your argument, but don't insult others because of their thoughts and ideas. That is why I joined this forum, to test my thoughts and to hear new ideas, not to be insulted. You won't win any support that way. Thoughts and ideas can change. Make a persuasive argument and I might just change my thoughts. Anyways, I do understand that people join gangs as an alternative to gaining things (material objects, security, freedom) that they have been closed off to.

Lastly, I do think most gangs would disappear with the victory of a social revolution, but it will not be the end of gangs. Like previously stated, it does not matter the political system in place, some individuals have the need to control, if on a national level or in a small neighborhood. Drugs will always exist in America and just with that, a gang can form. Violence for control will take place. That is what I'm talking. They are a threat to society. They are a threat to the revolution. No matter what is done, they will exist. A gang leader does not represent the people, it would be the opposite. They will intimadate the people and attempt to control. The question is, what kind of example do you want to set when individuals choose to form a gang and perhaps, kill others for control?

[BreadBros]

Lastly, I do think most gangs would disappear with the victory of a social revolution, but it will not be the end of gangs. Like previously stated, it does not matter the political system in place, some individuals have the need to control, if on a national level or in a small neighborhood.

Individuals may have a need to control, but what would be the incentive for individuals to be controlled? If workers control the economy and political structure, money is put on the path towards abolishment, restrictive laws are relaxed etc. it seems like most of the incentive to join gangs now would quite simply dissapear.


Drugs will always exist in America and just with that, a gang can form.

Gangs form around drugs because drugs are illegal in most of the world but a highly-sought after commodity. If drugs are legalized and their production and distribution put under progressive worker control, the drug trade and the gangs surrounding it would dissapear. Why would you buy pot from some shady gang at an inflated price when you can get it for free at your local workers co-op or whatever?


Violence for control will take place.

No doubt, and the whole idea of a socialist revolution is that we have to collectively fight that. In that post-revolutionary world then any prospective gang leader really wouldnt be different than someone seeking to reinstitute capitalism. However, I think JUICE's comments on the rank-and-file gang members is true. Most of them are just average people in dire straights, so I doubt they would necessarily be counter-revolutionary or that we particularly have to target gangs or anything. Think of a gang like a capitalist enterprise (which many of them are). The workers (footsoldiers) will probably be on our side, the boss (gang-leader) will probably be against us. No different than any other realm of society. Thats mostly for organized crime too, local neighborhood gangs tend to be more decentralized.


The question is, what kind of example do you want to set when individuals choose to form a gang and perhaps, kill others for control?

Well, like I said, in a post-revolutionary world that really would be no different than someone trying to re-introduce capitalist property relations, so we would have to stop them. That does not however translate to mass executions of gangs during revolutionary times or anything. In fact execution in general seems like a type of last-resort action. If someone tries to create a power structure around themselves or start a capitalist enterprise it means that the revolution isnt solid, it hasnt been consolidated fully, some aspect of inequality or capitalist property relations is still existent and creating the space for that type of event to happen. The real solution is to fill that gap and prevent it from ever happening. A mere execution just gets rid of one person but leaves the possibility for others to fill his vacuum of power.


I do understand why people form and join gangs; so please don't try to belittle me by stating that I'm ignorant.

I dont think either me or JUICE was trying to belittle you. We've debated this topic on here before and at that time I took a position similar to yours. I still think that when gangs threaten everyday people they should be stopped, however I also now realize that most gang-members arent particularly special, just proletarians with a very real lack of opportunities and I also think focusing on getting rid of crime or something of that nature takes away from the reality which is that its ultimately a societal structural problem more than a problem with "bad people" and the such. So my ideas have come around and changed and theres no problem if you're still working out your ideas too, its cool, no offense meant, we just disagreed with you quite vociferously :-P.

[joser03]

No doubt, and the whole idea of a socialist revolution is that we have to collectively fight that. In that post-revolutionary world then any prospective gang leader really wouldnt be different than someone seeking to reinstitute capitalism. However, I think JUICE's comments on the rank-and-file gang members is true. Most of them are just average people in dire straights, so I doubt they would necessarily be counter-revolutionary or that we particularly have to target gangs or anything. Think of a gang like a capitalist enterprise (which many of them are). The workers (footsoldiers) will probably be on our side, the boss (gang-leader) will probably be against us. No different than any other realm of society. Thats mostly for organized crime too, local neighborhood gangs tend to be more decentralized.

Thanks for your replies. I honestly do agree with you and you are right, I think the execution or forceful means is meant to be the last option, for those who decide, well... not to be a positive member nor to contribute to society.

I do think that tranforming our system into a socialist model would fill the gap and will provide the many needs people seek for. I still believe that if someone does choose to create mayhem and violence, an example needs to be set. Then the people would realize that one, a system has been created by the people for the people to protect the people and individuals who make choices that pose a threat to the safety and productivity of society for individual satisfaction will not be tolerated. And two, it's not worth it.


I dont think either me or JUICE was trying to belittle you. We've debated this topic on here before and at that time I took a position similar to yours. I still think that when gangs threaten everyday people they should be stopped, however I also now realize that most gang-members arent particularly special, just proletarians with a very real lack of opportunities and I also think focusing on getting rid of crime or something of that nature takes away from the reality which is that its ultimately a societal structural problem more than a problem with "bad people" and the such. So my ideas have come around and changed and theres no problem if you're still working out your ideas too, its cool, no offense meant, we just disagreed with you quite vociferously :-P.

And no offense was taken. It's only been a few months (if even) that I've subscribed to socialist thinking. I'm still learning and developing my ideas. Thanks for the feedback and comments.

[Janus]

We've discussed this several times before:

Gangs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63598&hl=gangs)
Gangs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57731&hl=gangs)
Gangs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62404&hl=gangs)

[joser03]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:49 pm
We've discussed this several times before:

Gangs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63598&hl=gangs)
Gangs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57731&hl=gangs)
Gangs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62404&hl=gangs)
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

[midnight marauder]

I dont think either me or JUICE was trying to belittle you.

Yeah, you're right. I sincerely apologize if I came off as belittleing you.

To be honest, it's a sensitive issue for me. I've grown up in an enviornment where most people are in and around gangs, and I tend to be a litte harsh on the topic.

It just bothers me when people elevelate Marx to an infallable god on issues like the lumpenproletariat over actually humanity for, understanding of, and solidarity with the victims of capitalism.

The important thing is that you're willing to accept it and use that it to develop and refine your worldview. No hard feelings :wub:

[VukBZ2005]

I have to disagree with many in this thread and agree with Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire that the lumpen-proletariat seems to ultimately be a counter-revolutionary class.

This is where I have to be in disagreement with you. The "lumpen-proletariat" is a part of the working class, whether you like it or not.

The overwhelming majority of the "lumpen-proletariat" are people without shelter, people who are not making enough from their jobs to support themselves and thus are forced to engage in illicit activities in order to make up for the low pay they are receiving and youth who are deprived of opportunities of obtaining high-paying manufacturing jobs due to de-industrialization and outsourcing. This is especially true in inner-city communities that were characterized by the manufacturing jobs that used to exist in there, but then were moved away from those communities, and thus pushed many working class people in those communities into the "lumpen-proletariat".

They are either under the subjugation of no-one, due to their inability to sell their labor at the skill level that is required for the Capitalist class to exploit them for profits effectively, the subjugation of Capitalist bosses in the time that they work or under the subjugation of those who profit from the distribution of drugs or other such illicit products, i.e., the drug lords and the main leaders of those gangs.


Most of the lumpen-proletariat highly depends on the upper-classes for their existence. For example, drug-dealing gangs rely on upper class drug manufacturers and drug traffickers to provide them with the goods needed for distribution. They are sometimes collaboraters with corrupt police and other entities.

No.

As I have demonstrated above, they are basically apart of the working class and there is no need for separating the "lumpen-proletariat" from the rest of that class.


Most of the lumpen-proletariat is defined by their rejection of proletarian work and often make their wealth by exploiting or profiteering off of the harms done to the working class (drug addiction, robbery, etc). This is why Marx saw the lumpen-proletariat class as a counter-revolutionary class, while the proletariat (and in the time of Marx, the bourgeois as well) was progressive in its advancement of labor power, the lumpen-proletariat was regressive.

Again, no.

The parts of the "lumpen-proletariat" that are involved in the distribution of illicit drugs and involved in illicit activities should not be considered a part of the "lumpen-proletariat" section of the working class at all; for these sections have developed a way to re-produce Capital through selling illicit products and through their involvement in illicit activities upon a fixed basis, i.e. a gang operating a "crack factory" in a neglected inner-city neighborhood. These sections are thus a minor portion of the petit-bourgeoisie.



It may be possible that certain elements of the lumpen-proletariat or gang culture may ally with the working class in any revolution, but the revolution would likely 1. destroy their means of sustenance/wealth and 2. go completely against their hierarchical, traditional, honor-based values, so I tend to doubt it.

The above only applies to those within those structures that are being exploited by the drug lords and the gang leaders, of whom have a higher standard of living than the footmen that they exploit.

It should be said that whenever these structures are threaten, the gang leaders and the drug lords tend to shift the emphasis upon the ethnicity of those of whom they are using, as so to isolate the foot soldiers from the rest of the working class. They are the small Capitalist class in a very mitigated form.

[joser03]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:04 am

I dont think either me or JUICE was trying to belittle you.

Yeah, you're right. I sincerely apologize if I came off as belittleing you.

To be honest, it's a sensitive issue for me. I've grown up in an enviornment where most people are in and around gangs, and I tend to be a litte harsh on the topic.

It just bothers me when people elevelate Marx to an infallable god on issues like the lumpenproletariat over actually humanity for, understanding of, and solidarity with the victims of capitalism.

The important thing is that you're willing to accept develop and use that it to develop and refine your worldview. No hard feelings :wub:
None taken. I was just making the point (like I said), some people will no matter what, be who they are, counterproductive to the ends of the revolution. But... thank you for your thoughts and ideas.

[RNK]

Gangs should be eliminated during the process of revolution. I don't mean "violently"; but many street-level gangs would probably find the revolutionary message very amicable to their situation. Personally, I think most gangs will either be very sympathetic to the revolution, and join (either individually or as a group), or they will become reactionary, oppose the revolution, and be wiped out (this would definately more be the case for organized crime gangs, rather than street gangs).

[Ultra-Violence]

theres this group called the balck riders who are trying to intigrate gangs into the revolution a sort of vanguard. and lets go back a bit to the l.a riots...gangs were out their fightin the police blocking intersections so the police couldnt get through and were actively in shoot outs wtih them! hello gangs have lots of revolutionary potentail to execute them is absurd my a well kill any proletrait BY ANY MEANS NESCERY! :o

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 13, 2007 02:30 pm
theres this group called the balck riders who are trying to intigrate gangs into the revolution a sort of vanguard. and lets go back a bit to the l.a riots...gangs were out their fightin the police blocking intersections so the police couldnt get through and were actively in shoot outs wtih them! hello gangs have lots of revolutionary potentail to execute them is absurd my a well kill any proletrait BY ANY MEANS NESCERY! :o
To be a part of the revolution, you gotta be able to speak A language.

Anyways, I'd say that gangs will, most likely, be wiped out, because they have no reason to remain formed.

[manic expression]

Although I'm not the most knowledgable person, I would think that gangs would absolutely jump at the chance to combat a government they are at odds with. Do you think they'll be mad that the police force was just dissolved? That the DA has been thrown out of office? Of course not, I'd imagine that they'd love that.

A lot of people join gangs because people don't have a real family, they have no way to make ends meet, they need protection or role models and for other reasons as well. Let the bourgeoisie oppose impoverished communities' attempts to bring resources and kinship to themselves, we should help them in this.

To me, gangs could be both revolutionary and a problem. Their hatred and opposition to the government, as well as their willingness to make gains for a heavily underpriveleged portion of society would be revolutionary; age-old grudges between groups, control of entire neighborhoods, the refusal to even wear certain colors (yes, it happens, sometimes it goes as far as people refusing to say a word that begins with a certain letter), mysogyny, quasi-racial tensions and other things would be a big problem. However, class consciousness will solve the latter and strengthen the former.

And if anyone is wondering why gangs can do some messed up stuff, listen to "Wolves" by Dead Prez (actually part of a speech by Chairman Omali), it sheds a lot of light on the mindset around it.

[luxemburg89]

I do not profess to know much about gangs in other parts of the world but in southern england Proletarians are few, and the bourgeoisie are many. The gangs around here are rich kids - and this is no generalisation - they are, the majority of them in my city especially, able to afford all the stuff they need to be thugs. Now, while i understand this is no way the case in other parts of the world let alone britain but these people are not in gangs out of social injustice - there are some who just enjoy the violence and thuggery - they would spit in the face of our revolution. We need to have some sort of solution to that sort of gang.

[dez]

Gangs are not a homogenous organization.

But by definition gang members are not proletariat.

1 : the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live

Those criminals do not feel like they belong to prolectariat. They do not act as ordinary prolectariat, and many times exploit them. They do not work in industries either.

Most gang members nowadays enter gangs while they're pretty young.
They didn't get to work or regular jobs, neither they will.



I know there are different people in gangs, but on my way of looking at things, there are two types of them.
One is the that joined it over lack of option, over anger against the oppresive system or lack of conformism. Those are utile for our cause, IF taught how to live in society, IF reeducated.
And there is the average scum type, the one just looking for riches, material goods, being 'more clever' than other people and the likes.


About the second ones, a revolutionary government should deal with them a la Fidel.
Deport them to capitalist countries.
I'm not against the idea of permanent exclusion of society and forced labor to those people either.

[Janus]

Gangs are not a homogenous organization.
That contradicts what you say below:


But by definition gang members are not proletariat.

Since gangs are quite diverse in composition and structure, you can't simply categorize/generalize all gang members based on the actions of a few i.e. the more organized gang/crime syndicates.

[dez]

Janus, gang members can even work once in a while, but most of them don't think they belong to the proletariat's class, so i think it's rather uncorrect to use that term to define most gang members.

[JC1]

STR8 UP RT^N in here. Where are all of youre statistics for claiming that gangsters are not workers? You punks are using anecdotal evidence. Most Gangbangers I know dont work in the drug trade, and most people in the drug trade have legitamate jobs aswell.

Gangs are not a lumpen phenomenoa (atleast in my city). There are sets from all classes, for example the primarily Petit Bourgoise Eastside Crabz, or the primarily Lumpen Indian Posse. My set is primarily Working Class, and Gangs like Zig Zag or the traditional mafia, witch are largly intergrated with bourgoise and petit bourgoise.

[Jude]

Execution as a means of ending violence? That sounds more like Cho than Che!

[Janus]

gang members can even work once in a while, but most of them don't think they belong to the proletariat's class, so i think it's rather uncorrect to use that term to define most gang members.
Gang membership is not always a 24 hour job which means that some gang members have to work in order to survive as well. Whether or not they see themselves as workers has no impact on their physical existence as wage slaves.

[Sickle of Justice]

gangs, and im assuming you mean criminal orginization, violent in nature, are a biproduct of capitalism. capitalism is competion, and the ultimate act of competion is cheating. rejected from corporations and government, dissilusioned youth create they're own equivilent, except because they have no place to start, the cheat to get ahead. Crime is the ultimate act of capitalism.

of course, its a deeper problem than that, people who can't get along in society tend to get desperate. but capitalismis part of the problem, and in communist/socialist/anarcho society, it would decrease greatly.

[RedKnight]

Mao Zedong had to deal with triad gangs in China. http://www.alaska.net/~royce/spam/spam-col...ion-2005-04.jpg (http://www.alaska.net/~royce/spam/spam-collection-2005-04.jpg)

[R_P_A_S]

I find your adoration for Che more dangerous than the gangs themselves lol. there are other books aside Che. everything Che says you shake your head and just agree? you have to also develop your own thoughts homie!

just saying. read more than just Che.

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:18 pm
STR8 UP RT^N in here.
Dude WTF are you doing with the CPC? Lol

Often times, gangs are vehicles of defense when otherwise a struggling youth would have nowhere else to turn. It's unfortunate that gang life has been so glorified as ultra-violent and all about hoes and drugs and all that shit, and neighbours clashing and kids being senselessly murdered. When I see two gangs trying to kill each other I can't help but feel sorry. They should be turning their sights on the system, not on each other.

[freakazoid]

lets go back a bit to the l.a riots...gangs were out their fightin the police blocking intersections so the police couldnt get through and were actively in shoot outs wtih them!

Wasn't a lot of innocent people attacked and killed by the gangs? I hardly call that revolutionary material.

[joser03]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:40 am
I find your adoration for Che more dangerous than the gangs themselves lol. there are other books aside Che. everything Che says you shake your head and just agree? you have to also develop your own thoughts homie!

just saying. read more than just Che.
Well obviously. But I had these ideas even before Che. I then watched the Motorcycle Diaries and was like, interesting... thats kinda how I think. And then I read a biography and was like, fuck... this is exactly (for the most part) what I believe in. I do want to read other ideas, thats why i joined this forum. I'd love to learn more and find new alternatives and I rely on everyone here to assist me on my journey.

[Janus]

Mao Zedong had to deal with triad gangs in China.
The history of the Triads/organized crime in China is a bit more complex than the origins of many gangs in the Western world. However, what happened in China was not as much the result of the actual elimination of organized crime but that the crackdown simply forced/caused the Triads to move into Hong Kong and out of the PRC.

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:48 pm

Mao Zedong had to deal with triad gangs in China.
The history of the Triads/organized crime in China is a bit more complex than the origins of many gangs in the Western world. However, what happened in China was not as much the result of the actual elimination of organized crime but that the crackdown simply forced/caused the Triads to move into Hong Kong and out of the PRC.
same thing with cuba, to the us.
Anyone remembers 'scarface'?
It was just a movie, but it explains how the cuban mafia began.
:)
And i find the 'leave or die' approach to criminals pretty effetive.
They are oppressors too, most of the time gang bangers (either that be actual gang bangers or white collar fucks) act against POOR people that have no LEGAL means to defend themselves. And they do that because it's easier.

[Sickle of Justice]

yeah.. i dunno, i think the term gang is kinda too broad. are we discussing the upper class mafia, lower class street gangs, crack gangs, motercycle clubs, all of the above? what?

[Sickle of Justice]

An interesting idea is to compare gangs to governments. whats the difference between a gang and a corrupt state? one is bigger, and has spread the word that they are in control. gangs often do this in more covert ways.

Oh, and what about the crack epidemic? i think thats related? thats one of those cases where gangs are basically taking a capitalist aproach to steal from the poor. i read in this book "Freakanomics" about how a lot of crack gangs organize themself like corporations.

but many gangs are very different than these. some arn't even profit based. its a diverse issue.

[joser03]

I guess it comes down to, how these groups/gangs/thugs/mafia/etc. going to benefit for the whole society and to the revolution? If they start doing business to only suit their needs, then something must be done. If groups and gangs use violent means against the population to earn a living, then they must be expelled or executed. Obviously it would vary from case to case.

[Sickle of Justice]

yeahhh, though i oppose the execute/expel part, i agree. gangs have many diffrent situations. The media thinks anarchist groups are gangs, so gangs and shit must be looked at carefully.

[Sickle of Justice]

gangs are vague, as i said in another, really simialar thread. a gang can mean many different things. sometimes a gang is a guerrilla anti-cop group, sometimes a crack pusher group, or watev. it depends on the inividual gang.

[Alenichev]

Has anyone seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rra6R8RUwy8) series? It's rather disturbing to see the (development) of neo-nazism in the former Sovjet Union, I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it manifested itsself in semi-professional gangs as can be seen in the series. Are there gangs like these in Western-Europe and North-America? Are there leftist counterparts who are as well-trained as them?

[Janus]

Merged.