Riots

[SwedishCommie]

Hi!

I don't know if this has been discussed before.
But my question is how many of you think that using violence is justified when you want to express you opinion. Like destroying property, riots etc.

I think that people that throw rocks like they did in Gotenburg 2001 gives people a bad view on leftist.

What do you think?

[scott thesocialist]

i think sometimes people get very frustrated and in the heat of the moment they can do thing that they would not normally do, like throw stones rocks at buildings and police. its not uncommon to find people who are only there to cause trouble, sometimes the police don't help their can be over aggresive, and a flash point can turn into a full scale riot. i don't agree with it but i can understand why some people do it.

[crazy comie]

I agree with scott thesocialist. But i think that when the police start beating the crap out of people for no reasson violance is justafied.

[James]

A riot can only destroy credibility.
Its a bad idea.

[The Radical Elf]

Yes, rioting is justified. In many cases, the riots are provoked by the fascist pigs... i mean, cops. Like in Seattle in 1999, the protestors started smashing windows, looting stores, and writing graffiti on walls only after the cops began to tear gas and pepper spray nonviolent protestors.

And anyways, the stores targeted for window-smashing were stores belonging to big corporations like Starbucks, McDonalds, and the Gap. Those companies exploit workers not only in America but around the world. I see no problem with destorying the property of these evil monstrosities.

[Organic Revolution]

Quote: from The Radical Elf on 4:46 am on May 30, 2003
Yes, rioting is justified. In many cases, the riots are provoked by the fascist pigs... i mean, cops. Like in Seattle in 1999, the protestors started smashing windows, looting stores, and writing graffiti on walls only after the cops began to tear gas and pepper spray nonviolent protestors.

And anyways, the stores targeted for window-smashing were stores belonging to big corporations like Starbucks, McDonalds, and the Gap. Those companies exploit workers not only in America but around the world. I see no problem with destorying the property of these evil monstrosities.

good point

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I have actually been in a riot and it's pretty crazy. I live in Seattle and was right downtown for the WTO riots. You get in a weird state of mind when cops start shooting at you unprovoked, you want to smash burn and kill anyone in a position of authority. The protest was going great until that first can of tear gas dropped into the crowd, after that it was chaos. At first I was trying to be calm, refrain from breaking shit, then I got clubbed with a baton and almost maced for standing against a wall watching the action. After that, I picked up rocks and began hucking them at cops. I smashed up a Starbucks, I threw a garbage can through a huge glass window at Nike town, I have to say that it felt good. I wasn't there to cause trouble, I was there to protest, but something takes over your mind in a riot, it's like a drug. There were probably people just looking to break shit but I promise they were the minority.

Anyway, my fun ended when I got shot with a beanbag shotgun, I thought my leg was broken.

[James]

And anyways, the stores targeted for window-smashing were stores belonging to big corporations like Starbucks, McDonalds, and the Gap. Those companies exploit workers not only in America but around the world. I see no problem with destorying the property of these evil monstrosities.

Who came worse off though?
I think they can afford to mend a few windows etc
A reputation is near impossible to mend though...

It seems to often be the case that the police appear to esculte the violence.
I got involved with the STW violence at the student strike in manchester back in march (i think). I agree, you just loose control with sheer anger and its a wierd buzz. Not nice at all really.

The police told me (afterward) that they wern't used to having to deal with riots in Manchester especilly from students. Apparently a few paniked. This i can understand - i wouldn't wanna be one in such a situation.

I stand by my belief however - they can only acheive bad press which is very damaging to the cause all round. Thus, i don't think it is justified.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from James on 3:45 pm on May 30, 2003[Who came worse off though?
I think they can afford to mend a few windows etc
A reputation is near impossible to mend though...

It seems to often be the case that the police appear to esculte the violence.
I got involved with the STW violence at the student strike in manchester back in march (i think). I agree, you just loose control with sheer anger and its a wierd buzz. Not nice at all really.

The police told me (afterward) that they wern't used to having to deal with riots in Manchester especilly from students. Apparently a few paniked. This i can understand - i wouldn't wanna be one in such a situation.

I stand by my belief however - they can only acheive bad press which is very damaging to the cause all round. Thus, i don't think it is justified.

Hmm, I think that's quite naive. If you're talking about the mainstream press, anti-capitalist protesters are ALWAYS going to get "a bad press", whether they smash shit up or not. Even when they don't riot, they're a "travelling circus" or whatever.

[atlanticche]

it is justified but only in outrage and politics as a last ditch attempt at getting your feelings across

[Pete]

What is a revolution but a wide-spread semi-controlled riot?

BTW the definition of a riot is more than two people causing a ruckus.

[Kez]

a revolution is NOT a riot

a riot is uncontrolled,
for a revolution to be succesful it must be controlledd and organised to be most effective


(Edited by TavareeshKamo at 12:07 pm on May 31, 2003)

[Ian]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 10:16 am on May 31, 2003
a revolution is NOT a riot

a riot is controlled,
for a revolution to be succesful it must be controlledd and organised to be most effective

I agree whole-heartedly with Com. Kamo on this one, riots hold no function except to convert already radicalised elements of our society (or in marxinese; The more advanced elements of the Proletarian class) to other groups or sects, (Kamo will tell you about his experiences with sects if you ask him nicely) this is not what we want, we want to perform actions which will radicalise the apathetic or apolitical elements of the proletarian class. Easier said than done of course, but we have the experience and the revolutionaries!!

[James]

Hmm, I think that's quite naive. If you're talking about the mainstream press, anti-capitalist protesters are ALWAYS going to get "a bad press", whether they smash shit up or not. Even when they don't riot, they're a "travelling circus" or whatever.

how is it naive?
A) it achieves ???
B) press - this controls how people think. True we shall never get a "good press", but there is a bad press and an awful press.
Ask people where i live what they think about May day protesters and they'll simply say hoolagons (spelt?). This is all the press is focusing on. True we are a "travelling circus" - but better to be simply that than that PLUS hoolagons.
If you are serious about real change and not just how many policemen you can knock over, you would understand the importance of the mainstream press (the left wing press in the UK means jack all; hardly anyone reads it).