berlin activists start campaing to destroy surveilancecamera's ahead of police summit

[Sasha]

Pigs is a completely accepetable term for cops arround here, i wouldnt go so far as saying mandetory (as there are plenty of other collorful terms for them and its kind of insulting to real pigs) but you better get used to it because its far more acceptable than your "fellow workers" bs.

[Art Vandelay]

Why? Because one does so more directly than the other?

Because one militantly enforces bourgeois hegemony; they terrorize and cage the proletariat; they are literally the domestic army of the bourgeoisie; they are scum.

[l'Enfermé]

The different between cops and nurses, mate, is that nurses don't beat workers down with their batons or shoot them with rubber bullets when workers rise up against the hegemony of capital. In fact usually nurses are the ones that help treat workers after cops brutalize them.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The job of the police is to enforce bourgeois law. Our goal as communists is to abolish the power of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the police inherently stand against us.

[Clarion]

They are workers who sell their labour power, our issue is with the bourgeoisie ownership of that labour power and the purposes they set it towards, not the worker who takes the job.

Does the job tend to attract bullies and those of an unhealthily authoritarian personality? Yes, it does. But others also go into it out of a genuine desire to keep their communities safe from crime.

Being a marxist I am not particularly concerned with their motives or on moralistically passing judgement on how they manage to earn a living.



Yes, their job inevitably pits them against us. That doesn't mean they aren't workers.

[thriller]

They are workers who sell their labour power, our issue is with the bourgeoisie ownership of that labour power and the purposes they set it towards, not the worker who takes the job.

Does the job tend to attract bullies and those of an unhealthily authoritarian personality? Yes, it does. But others also go into it out of a genuine desire to keep their communities safe from crime.

Being a marxist I am not particularly concerned with their motives or on moralistically passing judgement on how they manage to earn a living.

Yes, their job inevitably pits them against us. That doesn't mean they aren't workers.

I would argue that many cops are probably not authoritarian at the beginning of their police career, but the social structure of their job (both people they work with, for, and against) tends to lead them that way. The very purpose of social systems in capitalism, especially jobs, is too make the masses act and think a certain way (usually favorable to the ruling class).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Yes, their job inevitably pits them against us. That doesn't mean they aren't workers.

Of course, they draw wage and perform menial tasks on orders from above but then so do scabs. The difference between police and workers is that workers produce value whereas police simply defend the bourgeoisie's 'right' to own that value. Some on this board might oppose police because of personal or moralistic reasons but most oppose them in the same way we oppose 'benevolent' capitalists who give millions to charities. They might individually be alright people but that doesn't change the fact that their entire livelihood revolves around defending what we seek to destroy.

[Let's Get Free]

The difference between police and workers is that workers produce value whereas police simply defend the bourgeoisie's 'right' to own that value.

To be fair, there are many workers who do not produce value

[o well this is ok I guess]

Petty vandalism isn't a revolutionary act. It's an infantile act of individualism.

What is this expected to achieve?

Vandalizing a starbucks window might be a little petty. CCTV's, on the other hand, are a means by which the police actively monitor the population.

But I mean go on raising the red flag at swp marches or some shit. That's some real material action right there.

[Sea]

Clarion, how is dismantling surveillance equipment tantamount to vandalism or individualism? It's not motivated by an individual's silly desire to destroy, it's motivated by politics, and as such I would classify it as a revolutionary act. It's not nearly as big of an act as reclaiming an entire city but it's every bit as revolutionary in character.

I suppose I could see what you mean by vandalism in the strictest sense, but it's certainly not vandalism-as-such seeing as it serves a purpose.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Vandalizing a starbucks window might be a little petty. CCTV's, on the other hand, are a means by which the police actively monitor the population.

Yeah, I don't get what Clarion doesn't understand about this. The survelliance system in his own country, specifically in London, is considered something of a model for authoritarian states, many of which have actually sent representatives to England to study it. But yeah, none of that has anything to do with re-enforcing the power of the capitalist state.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, I don't get what Clarion doesn't understand about this. The survelliance system in his own country, specifically in London, is considered something of a model for authoritarian states, many of which have actually sent representatives to England to study it. But yeah, none of that has anything to do with re-enforcing the power of the capitalist state.

I get the feeling that he's masquerading as a leftist in all honesty.

[Clarion]

I would argue that many cops are probably not authoritarian at the beginning of their police career, but the social structure of their job (both people they work with, for, and against) tends to lead them that way.

Indeed.

Of course, they draw wage and perform menial tasks on orders from above but then so do scabs.

Scabs are workers. We don't condone their actions but that doesn't change their class status, if they weren't proletarian they wouldn't need to scab, after all.

The difference between police and workers is that workers produce value whereas police simply defend the bourgeoisie's 'right' to own that value.

In stopping people smashing store windows, shop lifting at will etc. they enable the sale of commodities just as much as the person on the checkout. In both cases their labour does add to the value of the commodities as they are necessary for the completion of the whole production and sale process.

How much of that labour would actually be necessary in a post-capitalist society is, of course, a different question. This added social cost is an example of the kind of inbuilt inefficiencies of capitalism which will one day lead to it being superseded.


As is the surveillance state.

Some on this board might oppose police because of personal or moralistic reasons but most oppose them in the same way we oppose 'benevolent' capitalists who give millions to charities. They might individually be alright people but that doesn't change the fact that their entire livelihood revolves around defending what we seek to destroy.

What I was objecting to wasn't criticism of the institution or pointing out the role played by the police in a capitalist society, it was the vitriol directed at the persons themselves.

Vandalizing a starbucks window might be a little petty. CCTV's, on the other hand, are a means by which the police actively monitor the population.

I'm not disputing the role played by those cameras, I'm just taking issue with the strategy of a few self-appointed revolutionaries taking it upon themselves to smash them.

But I mean go on raising the red flag at swp marches or some shit. That's some real material action right there.

I don't do ineffective sectarian politics, not in SWP or black bloc flavours.

Clarion, how is dismantling surveillance equipment tantamount to vandalism or individualism? It's not motivated by an individual's silly desire to destroy,

I'd be surprised if that didn't play a role in it, but whatever, I'll take your word for it.

it's motivated by politics, and as such I would classify it as a revolutionary act. It's not nearly as big of an act as reclaiming an entire city but it's every bit as revolutionary in character.

Doesn't a revolutionary act have to actually further the cause of revolution? Does it further the cause of revolution or set it back? It won't exactly endear most of the working class to revolutionary politics so it would seem to be objectively counter-revolutionary.

I suppose I could see what you mean by vandalism in the strictest sense, but it's certainly not vandalism-as-such seeing as it serves a purpose.

Futile gesture politics?

Yeah, I don't get what Clarion doesn't understand about this. The survelliance system in his own country, specifically in London, is considered something of a model for authoritarian states, many of which have actually sent representatives to England to study it. But yeah, none of that has anything to do with re-enforcing the power of the capitalist state.

I understand fully the role that surveillance plays in re-enforcing the power of the capitalist state. I'm sorry but if you wish to attack a straw man then you don't really need my half of the conversation, do you? At no point have I contested that surveillance cameras play that kind of role.

I get the feeling that he's masquerading as a leftist in all honesty.

And I get the feeling that you've lost sight of what we're trying to achieve and have allowed smashing shit up to become a substitute for the boring politics where you have to get your hands dirty working along side reformists and people who haven't even read Trotsky.

[Sam_b]

Being a marxist I am not particularly concerned with their motives or on moralistically passing judgement on how they manage to earn a living.

Yes, their job inevitably pits them against us. That doesn't mean they aren't workers.

Let's pretend for a second that we're not talking about cops. Let's replace 'cops' with 'strikebreakers' or 'scabs' here. Would you also be refraining from "moralistically passing judgement on how they manage to earn a living"?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I understand fully the role that surveillance plays in re-enforcing the power of the capitalist state. I'm sorry but if you wish to attack a straw man then you don't really need my half of the conversation, do you? At no point have I contested that surveillance cameras play that kind of role.

If you understand their negative impact, then why are you objecting to their destruction? Because you feel that ordinary people will feel alienated by omnipresent survelliance cameras being smashed? If you feel that smashing cameras has no positive bearing on revolutionary ambitions, then surely the opposite is true; that smashing cameras has no real consequence to revolutionary ambitions, seeing as how it's such a small and "meaningless" act, in the larger scheme of things. So why do you oppose it?

Destroy the infrastructure of the survelliance state and make sure people know why you're committing these acts. Then it's not pointless or nihilistic or whatever, then it's a meaningful political act w/ wider implications for society as a whole. Whether or not such an act gains "working class acceptance" is another matter, and one largely outside the control of pro-revolutionaries. Regardless I don't see any way it impedes revolution, certainly not anymoreso than whatever tactic the SPGB or whatever group you're affiliated with (if any) advocates.

[Clarion]

Let's pretend for a second that we're not talking about cops. Let's replace 'cops' with 'strikebreakers' or 'scabs' here. Would you also be refraining from "moralistically passing judgement on how they manage to earn a living"?

Maybe not, but I would be wrong in doing so. The problem of strike breaking won't be dealt with by passing moral judgement, it will be through organisation and politics. The detail of which would no doubt take this thread too far off topic.


To be clear, there's nothing wrong with deterring scabs at picket lines and more than there is with defending ourselves against police attacks on those lines. We just don't need the unconstructive moralising.

If you understand their negative impact, then why are you objecting to their destruction? Because you feel that ordinary people will feel alienated by omnipresent survelliance cameras being smashed?

They don't see pictured of angry young men smashing up cameras and think, yep I'll give serious consideration to their manifesto.

If you feel that smashing cameras has no positive bearing on revolutionary ambitions, then surely the opposite is true; that smashing cameras has no real consequence to revolutionary ambitions, seeing as how it's such a small and "meaningless" act, in the larger scheme of things. So why do you oppose it?

I oppose it because it's counter-productive, it has a negative impact.

Destroy the infrastructure of the survelliance state and make sure people know why you're committing these acts.

Ah yes, graffiti Orwell quotes on the station walls next to the cameras. Those commuters will be hanging their employers from the windows by lunchtime. . .

Then it's not pointless or nihilistic or whatever, then it's a meaningful political act w/ wider implications for society as a whole. Whether or not such an act gains "working class acceptance" is another matter, and one largely outside the control of pro-revolutionaries.

These kind of tactics don't forward the revolution because they are minority actions, not class action. It's contributes nothing to the consciousness of the workers' movement but a general instinct to stay away from those "far-left hooligans."

Regardless I don't see any way it impedes revolution, certainly not anymoreso than whatever tactic the SPGB or whatever group you're affiliated with (if any) advocates.

Again, another tiny sect with no relevance to the broader working class. Mind you, at least the SPGB don't pretend their achieving anything. As I said above, I don't do sectarian politics.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They don't see pictured of angry young men smashing up cameras and think, yep I'll give serious consideration to their manifesto.

I actually know a lot of people who do not like "survelliance society", and who not necessarily political. Privacy is still a concept that a lot of people appreciate, at least where I'm from.

I oppose it because it's counter-productive, it has a negative impact.

How does it negatively impact anything? Because it keeps people away from "the cause"? As if they're all just waiting for the right argument that fulfills their desire for a complete re-structuring of society, yet tastefully avoids even the most minimal of property destruction? Give me break. Our arguments are out there for free, for anyone who's inclined to read them. Once this fact is accepted, one also must accept the fact that the success or failure of our political project isn't entirely within our control. Committing a small political direct action like expropriating a supermarket or smashing a security camera doesn't really progress revolution, but neither does it impede it when we look at the fact that our conscious actions as leftists, while important, do not create a revolutionary movement on their own. (Helping orient a revolutionary movement is another topic...)

Ah yes, graffiti Orwell quotes on the station walls next to the cameras. Those commuters will be hanging their employers from the windows by lunchtime. . .

Now who's position is being strawmanned?

These kind of tactics don't forward the revolution because they are minority actions, not class action. It's contributes nothing to the consciousness of the workers' movement but a general instinct to stay away from those "far-left hooligans."

I don't really agree with this assertion at all, actually. My first interest in political issues came after the 1999 Seattle riot/police rampage. That's the sort of thing that attracted me to politics, not turned me away from it. I think that's how it is with a lot of the youth, actually. Also there have been "armed struggle" groups that have attracted significant measures of popular support, so I hardly think that something as minor as property destruction is something people intrinsically turn away from. In incidents of the past, like the Quebec student strike or the M30 Spanish strike or January 2011 in Egypt, there was tons of property destruction but no one cared. The trick is to tie whatever direct action you've participated in to a wider struggle, in order to give the act coherence and relevance.

[Clarion]

the success or failure of our political project isn't entirely within our control

I don't accept that. The left needs to own up to its mistakes and accept responsibility for the sorry state that its in. Only then can things imrpove.

I don't really agree with this assertion at all, actually. My first interest in political issues came after the 1999 Seattle riot/police rampage. That's the sort of thing that attracted me to politics, not turned me away from it. I think that's how it is with a lot of the youth, actually. Also there have been "armed struggle" groups that have attracted significant measures of popular support, so I hardly think that something as minor as property destruction is something people intrinsically turn away from

Substituting minority action for class action does encourage people, it encourages people to go out and substitute minority action for class action. There's just so much better people could be doing.

January 2011 in Egypt, there was tons of property destruction but no one cared.

What happened in Egypt was a revolution in progress, not a few individuals playing at one.

[Sasha]

Like? Slagging other leftists on the internet? I'm not joking, what are these meanigfull actions that further the class struggle? Because in all honesty looking at europe and the US autonomous and insurectionary activist anarchism seem to be the only radical left that atract a inspired, vibrant significant crowd that gets at least something done which could be seen as activity in a revolutionary framework, the rest of the left lost imho almost all claim to calling it self revolutionary, they either descendent into dead end reformism or insignificant sectarianism mistaking driving a split in another insigficant cult and stealing two of their members constitutes "party-building".

[Ravachol]

who cares about people like clarion tbh, they either end up as some petty low ranking union bureaucrat wasting away trying to sell their leftist rag of the proletarian communist party of proletarian communism (ML/Opposition Faction) to some other irrelevant union bureaucrats or they'll just stand by whenever shit hits the fan ready to condemn everyone who doesn't wave a placard or 'builds the party'. They're politically less relevant than some kid who dives dumpsters and listens to crass while spraypainting circle-A's on the walls of his high-school.