Widespread political implications of petty theft from walmart?

[Rascolnikova]

The title pretty much says it.

I hear leftists of various stripes advocating for petty theft from large corporations. If there were only two parties in this exchange, I could not disagree with them; certainly Walmart as an organization deserves, approximately, everything we can possibly dish out.

However, there are not just two parties involved here. I posit that to advocate for, or to preform, such actions hinders our ability to form the proletariat--the whole proletariat--as a class.

It's like the Stanford Prison Experiment. The prisoners, focused on their individual suffering, remained divided throughout. When they were all punished for the actions of one of their own, they blamed the one--not the guards, who decided upon and carried out the punishments.

Whether or not prices go up due to shoplifting, it is perceived by much of the proletariat right that they do--and it it perceived that petty theft is an irresponsible, short sighted, and selfish tactic. As far as I can tell, since it alienates the proletariat right from class struggle without holding other significant value, it is effectively reactionary.

Unless it holds other significant value I'm unaware of?

Thoughts, anyone?

[Incendiarism]

I don't particularly see the utility of such actions, unless one is driven by the most horrid of circumstances to carry it out in which case I believe it is excusable. We shouldn't relegate ourselves to such action is there is no meaning in it outside of the symbolism, I guess.

[Annie K.]

I would say that the reactionnary phenomenon is in the perception of theft by the working class.
The syndicalist actions can also be perceived as a selfish tactic, and that's not a reason to abandon it.

I'm not sure whose ability to form the proletariat as a class it is you're talking about. But if it exists, it should be used to fight the dominant moral values rather than to fight the activities opposed to them.

[Elway]

There are NO property rights that hinder another's right to enjoy living. Walmart has no right to the ppoperty in its store, because its not used by its owners, but is sold for profit.

[Rascolnikova]

I would say that the reactionnary phenomenon is in the perception of theft by the working class.

I'm not sure. Stealing from Walmart, as an individual, doesn't accomplish any revolutionary aims that I'm aware of. It asserts a legitimate vision of property rights, but at what expense?

It goes back to the sociology bit I mentioned. I don't have references on anything but the Zimbardo study (SPE), but I'm pretty sure that it's been widely replicated, and it falls very much into line with my experience with human nature and usual responses to authority.



The syndicalist actions can also be perceived as a selfish tactic, and that's not a reason to abandon it.How so? I am extremely curious.



I'm not sure whose ability to form the proletariat as a class it is you're talking about. But if it exists, it should be used to fight the dominant moral values rather than to fight the activities opposed to them.

Our ability to form the proletariat as a class, of course. Isn't that what revolutionaries are supposed to do? And if we alienate them by making life harder for them in the short run--which, if all we do is individual shoplifting, is all we're doing--we've shot our own feet.

[bcbm]

Generally people steal out of survival, not to live up to some leftist ideal. Proles been shoplifting since the first store opened and not because vague "leftists" recommended it. I think this is a non-issue.

[Rascolnikova]

Generally people steal out of survival, not to live up to some leftist ideal. Proles been shoplifting since the first store opened and not because vague "leftists" recommended it. I think this is a non-issue.

I started thinking about it because I saw the DIY thread on stealing subway. . . it reminded me of some vaguely hippie types I know who do that sort of thing and proclaim themselves revolutionary for it. :rolleyes:

Is it survival? Sort of. I mean, everybody has to eat. That doesn't mean there aren't other--arguably better--options out there.

I think they do harm to the movement. . . except that let's face it, it's not really a movement . . but I do think they do immense harm to general perceptions of the ideology, which were pretty negative to start with.


Edit: Other options out there for healthy 20 somethings in a country where dumpster diving is more than enough to live on.

[chegitz guevara]

There are NO property rights that hinder another's right to enjoy living. Walmart has no right to the ppoperty in its store, because its not used by its owners, but is sold for profit.

Actually, Walmart has every right to the property in its stores because we live in a class society. Until we overthrow that society and replace it with a new one, that right won't go away.

[Elway]

Actually, Walmart has every right to the property in its stores because we live in a class society. Until we overthrow that society and replace it with a new one, that right won't go away.

I do not agree.
Using that concept, Southerners in the USA, Egyptians, and Incas had a "right" to hold slaves because there was a slave code.

Rights MUST be interpreted to benefit the people. Walmart has LAW to protects its property interests, and perhaps that's the word you were looking for. Walmart doesn't get to define what it rights are. Perhaps some of them, but not all of them.

My view, anyway.

[JimmyJazz]

Actually, Walmart has every right to the property in its stores because we live in a class society. Until we overthrow that society and replace it with a new one, that right won't go away.

What he said.

I don't care about "natural" rights, because there aren't cops and an army and a judicial system enforcing those. I care about changing legal rights, which are enforced by violence, and bringing them more in line with justice.

In regards to the OP:
Treating people as consumers, even in a so-called "progressive" way (shoplifting, organizing boycotts, etc.), is entirely non-revolutionary. The main economic role of humans is as exploited producers (or, for those who belong to the minority, as exploiting non-producers). The ideological pushers of capitalism work hard to make everyone think of themselves primarily in terms of what they consume, and any 'leftist' who helps bolster this view, I have little time for.


I do not agree.
Using that concept, Southerners in the USA, Egyptians, and Incas had a "right" to hold slaves because there was a slave code.

You're confusing rights (a legal thing) with rightness (a morality thing). Southern slaveholders did have the legal right to hold slaves, and what was it that eventually ended this right? Was it individual slaves deciding to pocket some of the cotton they picked because they they didn't recognize the right of their owners to own them as legitimate? Was it even the result of individual slaves running away from the plantations for the same reason? Or was it the collective violent overthrow of antebellum slave-owning society in the South?

So I think your analogy actually supports what chegitz says perfectly.

An even better example using slaves would be the Haitian Revolution, since in that case the violent overthrow of a slave society was carried out by the self-organized slaves themselves. Read up on it if you haven't. It's also interesting to read some of the stuff Americans and Europeans from that era were writing about the impossibility of blacks (especially former slaves) ever successfully governing themselves. Much of it mirrors what privileged writers in the capitalist countries would later say about the Russian Revolution and the impossibility of a workers' society ever functioning.

[Elway]

I don't care about natural rights, because there aren't cops and an army and a judicial system enforcing those. I care about changing legal rights, which are enforced by violence, and bringing them more in line with justice.

There is a bit of wackiness associated with this discussion, in as much as post-Revolution is involved.

Currently, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that GOVERNMENT must use a due process, and pay you to take property from you. In our current society, VITAL to have it, to prevent the government from taking what is "yours" and giving it to a capitalist power.

In post-Revolutionary term, however, the flipside would occur for justice: The abolishment of the Takings Clause, and the state, combined with the People's Army, taking "property" from the capitalist class for distribution to society.

All of this, like your comment suggests, makes for weirdly phrased discussions.

[bcbm]

I started thinking about it because I saw the DIY thread on stealing subway. . .

Wasn't that thread about scamming it, or robbing it if you work there? Either way, these are both things proles have always and will always do... if you think I'm wrong, check into how many people go down for stealing from their job. I doubt you'll find many "leftists."


it reminded me of some vaguely hippie types I know who do that sort of thing and proclaim themselves revolutionary for it. :rolleyes:

There are morons in every pack but I think it is incorrect to say its a major part of the movement.


Is it survival? Sort of. I mean, everybody has to eat. That doesn't mean there aren't other--arguably better--options out there.

Petty theft isn't very risky at all if you know where and how to do it and then you have access to much nicer and more varied foods than dumpstering allows. The only really better option is food stamps, but those can be a real pain in the ass to get in many areas.


I think they do harm to the movement. . . except that let's face it, it's not really a movement . . but I do think they do immense harm to general perceptions of the ideology, which were pretty negative to start with.

Except few elements in the movement even bother to mention stealing and the ones that do aren't the ones that get much exposure to people outside of the milieu who wouldn't be down for stealing anyway.

[Wanted Man]

It's neither positive nor negative, it's just there. If there are "revolutionary leftists" who shoplift to make a point, and openly brag about it, then they're idiots. On the other hand, the same goes for "revolutionary leftists" who denounce such a thing as evil selfish boor-zwah individualism or whatever they call it.

So yeah, who cares? These supermarkets are multi-million dollar companies, and once in a while, some kid decides that he doesn't want to pay for a packet of crisps. Wow, let's have a political discussion.

[Pr0d1gy]

@ OP:

Such actions are generally a waste of time, as they will be seldom understood by those that must be won over to our cause.

[Rascolnikova]

Wasn't that thread about scamming it, or robbing it if you work there? Either way, these are both things proles have always and will always do... if you think I'm wrong, check into how many people go down for stealing from their job. I doubt you'll find many "leftists."

There are morons in every pack but I think it is incorrect to say its a major part of the movement.

Petty theft isn't very risky at all if you know where and how to do it and then you have access to much nicer and more varied foods than dumpstering allows. The only really better option is food stamps, but those can be a real pain in the ass to get in many areas.

Except few elements in the movement even bother to mention stealing and the ones that do aren't the ones that get much exposure to people outside of the milieu who wouldn't be down for stealing anyway.

I should be clear: I don't see any implicit ethical problem with petty theft from large businesses. It's when the people who do it conceptualize it as revolutionary that it bothers me.

As for them being insignificant compared to the movement at large, I wouldn't know but I certainly hope you are right.

Also--

Treating people as consumers, even in a so-called "progressive" way (shoplifting, organizing boycotts, etc.), is entirely non-revolutionary. The main economic role of humans is as exploited producers (or, for those who belong to the minority, as exploiting non-producers). The ideological pushers of capitalism work hard to make everyone think of themselves primarily in terms of what they consume, and any 'leftist' who helps bolster this view, I have little time for.

interesting take, thanks.