Occupy's Communist Problem

  • Posted on: 1 May 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/05/01/occupy-oaklands-communi...

<p>Last night&#8217;s <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/05/01/occupy-general-strike-g... in the Mission District of San Francisco has drawn some criticism from Occupy activists—for its violent tactics and also for its direction against local businesses. But while many Occupiers would like to limit their focus to big banks and other entities they perceive as getting unwarranted special treatment in the economy, others are just opposed to capitalism altogether. For these protesters, small businesses are fair game.</p>
<p>Though last night&#8217;s vandalism was in San Francisco, the event that sparked it was organized by Occupy Oakland. And OO describes today&#8217;s general strike as an &#8220;<a href="http://strikemay1st.com/oakland-strike-station-1-anti-capitalist/">anti-... action that also sees small business as the enemy:</p></td><td><img title="burn the seats at the table, the table, and whomever moves slow enough away from the table to not get burned" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/club_children.jpg"></td></t...

<blockquote><p>Our hatred of banks, while informed by their participation in the national lending crisis, is moreso a result of the immediate effects that their transactions have brought upon us—home foreclosures faced by our friends or family members. While we understand the alienation of work, we take to the streets on May Day because we seek a better way of living collectively. <strong>While we will oppose the presence of corporate stores in Oakland, we also understand that local businesses are equally exploitative</strong> and that in the end, work under a corporate boss or a small family business is still work.</p></blockquote>
<p>Last night, a statement went up on the Occupy San Francisco website, saying &#8220;The march in the Mission Monday night was not an OccupySF event. OccupySF does not endorse this kind of destruction of the 99%&#8217;s property.&#8221; Weirdly, that statement has now been scrubbed. Occupy Oakland has been much more militant than Occupy San Francisco. But perhaps denouncing the vandalism of local businesses, or implicitly defending the property rights of the top quintile, is not a consensus matter even for OccupySF.</p>
<p>This fissure remains a challenge for the Occupy movement. Occupy protesters take a number of positions that can garner broad support—tax the rich, hold banks accountable, stop foreclosures. But some of its core activists are not satisfied with an agenda to reform capitalism. If you are broadly opposed to profit-making business, it&#8217;s not clear why you should be nice to the local artisinal goods shop, or how you can be a part of a winning political coalition. If it wants to be a player in policymaking, Occupy is going to have to push out this extremist wing.</p>


I think that reformers and revolutionaries shouldn't mix, it dilutes the potency of each.

that's what she said.

but not what she meant.


It also misses the point. Small businesses are diverse. Some are exploitative. Some are less. Some are outright egalitarian. Some are jointly owned by their workers... and finally, at least in some places, there's the occasional anarchist venue too, which might externally bear a passing resemblance to a small business. :P :O

(yes, I know, shock horror: some people first tried robbing banks, and when that didn't work out, they established cooperatives; others didn't try robbing banks, but already knew it was a poor tactic, and went straight to step B :P )

So... unless the vandal is local and *very* clearly knows what the fuck they vandalize, they could be committing clueless idiotism instead of politically useful direct action.

And yes, it makes poor relations if you blame people for their current mode of living without offering an alternative. Go start that cooperative first (evade taxes if you can) to overstep the privately owned small business in evolution, and then, when it has looked like an outdated and unjust institution already for some time, sure enough, someone may smash it too...


Yea! Be more "politically useful", yea!

"clueless idiotism"? as apposed to "idiotism" with a clue?

you should go die and stop calling yourself an anarchist you liberal fuckwit. you can go take your co-op capitalism and shove it. egalitarian business? seriously? what the fuck are you even doing on this site?

break all the co-op windows!

fuck you i'm so anarchy, i wipe my ass with copies of the daily worker.

not very anarchy.

i'm so anarchy i start forest fires because animals should not dictate my freedom

im so anarchy im part of the anarchistnews collective but still post anonymously because i dont like the hierarchy between people with names and anons

I find this article extremely dangerous. Our occupations have brought attention and support by not ever limiting our scope, by declaring that our neighbors problems are our problems and that all these problems come from the common root. Though I am not a reformist, the concept that for one group to win they need to push out another sounds ridiculous. We don't have to play by the previous rules any more, we don't need to narrow to win. Also Occupy isn't the type of entity to be 'a player in policymaking'. That very notion is trying to turn our occupations and blockades into something 'they' can understand, work with, co op and defeat. We exist with new tactics and we exist as collections of free peoples without leaders or centralism, things the current orgs cannot understand. Policy might be changed because of our dissent and we might approve but policy changes are not our end goals; complete turn over of the profit mentality and individualism, these are our ends.


Why is it dangerous? Who in the fuck reads Forbes anyway except people who own businesses or want to, Forbes is all about capitalism so fuck them

"If it wants to be a player in policymaking, Occupy is going to have to push out this extremist wing."

ROFLMAO. Best of luck with that policy making. Black blocers have more chance of negating the state tomorrow by charging the White House masked up and riding on unicorns than occupy does of affecting policy in any way.

Lame, real lame. Small business owners are people who can generally go either way. They might see themselves as persecuted by the state in the name of corporate interests, or being what they are, petty bourgoise. But if a simple dialogue would have been possible, IT AINT FUCKING NOW KIDS

i think they're more likely to see themselves as persecuted by the state for the sake of socialism and support the tea party. even if they are SF liberal small business owners, i'm sure they understand their class interests more clearly than you seem to.


we may be doomed. really, a few more comrades wouldn't hurt.

whether people hit small businesses may not be the biggest factor in this, but a general "we don't need em" attitude to the rest of the population is both anarchists' greatest strength and greatest weakness. let's not automatically assume the best thing to do is just target whoever isn't wearing a mask at any given time.

yo how about we get the workers at those small businesses first and then maybe later we can see about the owners. but probably just send them to the salt mines. k?

yo unless those workers are wearing masks then fuck them too. anarchism means masks, it's from the greek, 'anarkos' meaning 'mask wearing window smashers'

cross-class alliance = the essence of liberalism. don't you think such activity illuminates the real divisions and existing conflict between bosses and workers, personal property and capitalist property, etc? that thing about smashing the minivan in sf is really fucked tho, although that's not what we're talking about here...

Amen dude.

I dunno about being doomed, but Occupy doesn't seem to have given the spread of anarchist thought the kick up the arse I would've hoped for. It's like the old arguments about autominous action, black bloc's, etc - same old shit, different era. You can blame influentual intellictuals, the media or mass castration of the masses, but it's very much becoming a line drawn between leftist activists and anarchists. At least that's how it looks to me (on the outside looking etc).

If we wanna win this war, we need comrades, allies, more bodies, whatever you wanna call it. And I really hope no one starts the usual "fuck anyone who isn't full anarchist, they're just useless plebs" argument - if you really wanted to draw people to your cause, you'd figure out how to connect and communicate with those people.

When you say "the masses" you fail Anarchy 101.

"anarchy 101", please. who asked you, professor? shake in your shoes, pedant,the international power of the working classes will soon wipe you out. humanity won't be happy till the last condescending would-be teacher is hung with the guts of the last marxist

no see you literally have to go to anarchy101.org now and get edumacated

No uniformed fuckers are gonna make me wear fuckin pyjamas to fuckin work thats a fuckin fact over my fuckin dead body!!aka8ball

This is pathetic and hilarious. Poor little shit-for-brains Forbes columnist Josh Barro is mentally incapable of grasping the simple fact-- repeated thousands if not millions of times-- that the entire Occupy Movement is founded on a mutually shared desire to lynch financial industry motherfuckers like you, Forbes columnist Josh Barro.

Yes, Josh Barro the author of this half-assed piece of capitalist propaganda was a Wells Fargo finance scumfuck before taking the glorious position of propaganda writer for Forbes.

The problem with the violence is that it will drive away the majority of the populace unless they are also at the point of frustration and willing to accept it as well.
Either the government must run its' course and people will naturally become frustrated enough, or peaceful demonstrations where the state uses force to stop them must occur. These are the two ways I see to actually bringing about change in the country and the world as a whole.
Lastly, the masses must begin to think for themselves. Most currently live in a state where they think what they are taught and do not think to teach themselves.

Good points. Common responses from non-@'s in my experience range similar to the vibe I'm getting from this 'desert' book I'm finishing: none of human existence will matter after the sun runs out, nothing can be done (a feminist said this), who cares, it would never work, I don't know anything and don't wanna know anything about politics---it's boring/depressing to learn about. Besides, it's easier to watch tv, fiddle around on a phone/internet, play video games and just try to get laid or get drunk...because those things are easy fun and involve having fun with others. And with those others you can easily invest your hope into rooting for a sports team. So many of us our infected with Hollywood ways of thinking...inter-personal drama for the sake of drama. Keeps things interesting. Keeps people feeling cared about in the weirdest of ways, due to the attention it causes.

Once had a palin-supporting cousin of my girlfriend tell me that he supports business because he works and business is always going to be there (so that's the logic he decides his vote with), and who cares when the resources run out...we did this to ourselves and why should we live any longer for it. Then told me that's why you just try to party and have fun.

Nevermind the reactionary thinking that's as apocalyptic as 'Desert.'

A guy in his late 20's at my work (he has some college education) said since people are starting to get into all sorts of crazy and extreme thinking, and he thinks there will be civil war, he might as well go home as continue to play his scifi video games at the end of the night. I see that same level of escapism into unreal worlds around me a lot in younger people. Those that can't escape long enough get cynical.

I mention 'desert' to hear the thoughts of others, and because it seems an invitation to me to rejoin the lumpenprole (as echoed in example sentiments above), and pray for the only alternate reality they can envision: apocalypse.

Its main points seem to be

*everything about how we will exist (most likely under authoritarianism as now). So what exactly would we be resisting? How could we resist when mother nature in the end determines our fate. Why would we need to resist that which we cannot control nor determine?

*I'm not being told anything the average person says ("that way of life [anarchy] just doesn't work"). One could argue that the text implies that the only thing that has worked is centralized power (which has destructive ways which will help mother nature regulate populations through wars and climate change. Lumpenprole say "Because people are naturally greedy.")

*Look at all of the bad shit people have done to this Earth. Yet, life goes on (in the Exclusion Zone, desert, etc).

*Earth cannot be saved, nor can humanity be changed, so carry on with everything as is. (Not saying I believe in global revolution or the vague concept of "saving" the planet.)

*Resistance amounts to making one's life more hellish than it is now and in the future with climate change--because we never win.

That sort of nihilism reinforces the worst of Hobbes's thoughts that life in nature is short, hellish, and brutish. It also reinforces the worst of Western religious belief (and hope) in apocalypse.

Oops. First point should have been something like because of environmental destruction and climate change, every aspect about the way we will live and be able to live will be a gamble.

I do what I want and sometimes that means conflicting with order. I can't claim to be in a state of being that is more powerful than it is, but I can recognize my own power and express it in various ways. Perhaps each of us are all sheep in our own way and there are only flashes, only moments when we become our power. We feel that power at the point of refusal on one hand. On the other we find it also in the point of self-expression.

Even the most obedient must choose allegiances, this is the game of the shepherds. The more we want to express power, we attempt to grow our personal wealth of power...those around us become assets and we become shepherds. Conversations become about people, how those people help you, how you help them, how they don't help, how you need help.

The anarchist is a beast that can be sheep, but can also be shepherd. Most find refusal, the rejection of obedience, to be reason enough to grasp to an identity that reinforces this view. While we can move towards the path of shepherds, we often find it also unappealing.

Some point to the horrors that shepherds bring upon the sheep...but shepherds just as easily can bring horror onto other shepherds, sometimes far worse as sheep tend to latch onto shepherds.

So we instead point out we don't need to lead sheep. Leave them to their own devices. Perhaps someday they will destroy the shepherds...but also perhaps not. Waiting for it is foolhardy and guiding sheep towards destroying other shepherds is playing their game. We stepped away from this game because we want to rule no one.

So while the sun may burn out and the future never look brighter from the shadows, there is the calling. Underneath us somewhere we grasp onto our self-expression and scream into the night "I am a rainbow in the dark!" We see our brief moments. It is our choice to seize them or wait for the days of the sheep to change the game.

"The anarchist is a beast that can be sheep, but can also be shepherd"

no gods no masters, gdmt.

The anarchist is a beast that is not a god, master or slave. I don't really understand the point of your post.

the anarchist is a beast that needs a shearing and a bathing

re: image

well done.

smashing a 1990s toyota minivan and an art gallery, nice one guys.

I'm in solidarity with y'all but whoever did those specific attacks needs to be talked to.

art gallery, whatever.

on the other hand afterward seeing a latino family standing dumbfounded around their minivan with all the tires slashed and a circle a on the window... 'talking to' whoever did that is putting it lightly.

Remember the story about the old woman in Greece who had her flower shop trashed in the 2008 riots and how anarchists put together a fund to help her rebuild?

Anarchists in the US loved repeating this story as if it negated the fact that any ordinary people already struggling in their lives had suffered as a result of the riots. Maybe it's time to do more than just cite how others have dealt with these things and actually try to make some attempts at communication and solidarity not just within our own little closed circles. I mean, the reality is that shit like this happens in riots, in Greece, in the US, anywhere. Regrettable shit happens in the moment, the question is how to we deal with it.

I agree that those responsible should be confronted about it, but more importantly than chastising them (which really won't change much at all) is showing some gesture of support for the people whom this happened to, you know a reminder that we actually see them as human and care about their circumstances? If we're not capable of doing at least than then we might as well just get comfortable being some cliquey little vandalism club with no desire to affect or communicate with those around us.

put your money where your good idea is. do the research to find out how we could support them materially.

I can see how just saying 'people should do this' on @news isn't exactly putting my money where my mouth is, but I live in Quebec dude. That said if someone from the area is able to figure that shit out I'll gladly throw in to the fund.

I believe this would be the person y'all are talking about:

Family from Vancouver. The man is talking mad shit but.. Anarchist outreach? Yeah?

"small business" is often the worst oppressor of a wage-labor slave. Small businesses are the political champions of the moderate left: power-wielding, statist democrats who appeal to the demographic of voters who are susceptible to ideals of fairness, equality, and faux-socialistic institutions and programs. Of course they embrace the small-business champions of economic and employment growth of small-business! However, small-businesses generally employ low-wage labor slaves who are well-informed of their expendable, precarious nature of employment. These unfortunate, brainwashed, low-wage, working-class consumers and laborers do not have the option of joining unions, much less participating in may day general strikes or Occupy movements.....because if they don't show up to work, someone else will.
The small businessman in the US is the equivalent of a slumlord.

Your description sounds more like Wal-Mart employees than any small business employees I know.

as a matter of fact, the above is how this bike mechanic's boss talked my ass into work, even for half an hour day today.

No Gode, No Bike Shops

It's interesting to me that much of the indignation and uproar in anarchyland that happened after the May Day 2010 vandalism in downtown Asheville, NC doesnt seem as likely to reappear after this action. Im not sure if this is just because folks are focusing on may day in general, or because im not on the west coast to see it. But im hoping its cus some shifts have occurred in the last two years as to how lots of folks, even folks who wouldnt do this action themselves, think about vandalism and small businesses, etc. Maybe its just become normal. Because this reminds me of that, in a way.

That being said, i m inclined to agree with the commenter above about the random minivan....what, did they run out of luxury cars? come on yall, that shit aint cool.

otherwise, props to folks who did this, especially the night before mayday. i ve lived in towns that had areas like that part of the mission, and i bet it felt great.

Yeah, don't fuck with the minivan, that's just stupid. Props besides that, but don't hit random inexpensive cars. Dumb dumb dumb.

fuck your minivan, breeder.

oh go get married in massachusetts, assimilationist

go kill three people in a bank fire, antisocialist.

Lol. Those scabs that burned up in Marfin had it coming working on a day of national general strike. Fuck 'em.

new proposal for anarchist practice:
1. declare general strike
2. kill
3. ????
4. profit!

Jesus you idiots are depressing me.

Seriously. The comments today are stupider than usual.

the good folks are still in jail from yesterday.

Dear you sexy extremist wing,
keep doin' the damn thing.

Theres still some fuckin workerists that are fuckin frustrated anarchists just waitin for a fuckin chance,,,like I did once,,just waiting for some breathin space doin the compromise,,,so I dont think bad so fuckin much about em cos some have little fuckin babies to feed,,,I got a fuckin heart!,,,AND I still think the fuckin family institution is fucked because of its fuckin indoctrination practice but until somethin comes along to fuckin replace it like them jewish kibutches without all the fuckin religious pomp and fuckin ritual well,,,we just gotta hang out with our fuckin blood and fuckin avoid them as much as fuckin possible,,hah to be an anarchist has its fuckin challenges,,,8ball

yo there werent enough fucks in this so i had trouble understanding it,,,balla8

Are you guys really serious. I've never seen so much naval gazing in my life. Are you guys even living in the real world? 'Get the workers first and the owners will follow' this is insane. Do you really believe this nonsense you are spouting?

My guess is that the Poly-Sci or Philosophy degree you knuckleheads got at Cal-Berkley didn't work out for you when you graduated and you want to blame someone else for your poor choices.

So your solution is to kill off the productive members of society and then what? Everything will fall into place? Please.

And what if you got what you want? True anarchy. As soon as one of you declared yourself the leader the others would turn on him like a shark feeding frenzy.

Here's an idea why don't you folks take a bath and get a real job and stop blaming your situation on others.


Sorry thought you guys wanted a debate. I'll leave you to your echo chamber..

debate? you just posted the same comment twice on the same news story. it seems to me that all you are doing is keep asserting your argument.

The "productive" members of society are oh-so productive that they must rely on the labor of other people to make their money.

And labor relies on those who take risks to make money. Instead of gripping about what you want why don't you take a risk and go get it. Or is it that those who take risks somehow owe you, the worker, something that you didn't earn? Labor is a commodity not a religion.

>assumptions that taking 'risks' with money somehow legitimates capitalism

Look no one here agrees with you on even the most basic things. The entire focus of this discussion is on creating ruptures in the system that you are trying to rationalize to us. Save yourself the time and turn back now dude, even if you were up for a serious debate on this and not just telling us to accept society as it is, @news is not the place for that debate. This is where we come to do our 'gripping' about things.

An addendum to that, if you think labor isn't a religion you probably haven't spent much time around leftists.

I never said Capitalism would 'save' anybody. It works for me and mine and that is all I can control. evil Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. Communism on the other hand has killed about 100 million people in the last century alone.

Lulz at the troll who argues against communism as if any of us support it. By the way, you're history is shit. Capitalism drove more people off the land than any other system and brought us to resource exhaustion and eventual collapse. Obvious troll is fucking retarded.

Not sure why being driven 'off the land' is such a bad thing. As for resource exhaustion there is enough clean burning natural gas to effectively run this country for 100 years at current consumption levels.

As for supporting or not supporting communism It is unclear to me what you guys support. It is true anarchy? Will roads just magically be made under your system? Schools magically be built? Further, if under your system, someone wants to make their life better (and by definition making everybody else's relatively worse) do you just kill the guy because he has risen above the crowd?

you are such a cliche.


So long as the country is running, FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT.

We are anarchy wizards and our perfect society does run on magic, yes.

I like that people make the argument for massive-scale property ownership as "rising above the crowd" without putting that into any context. I'd say that dictators rose pretty well above the crowd, too! I guess we should just leave them be, since they worked so hard for it, and all. . .

Anyway, if you know so little about anarchism, maybe you should try to educate yourself a bit before picking fights with people? If nothing else, it might make your arguments into something that people haven't heard literally 100 times before.


"Here's an idea why don't you folks take a bath and get a real job and stop blaming your situation on others."

"Sorry thought you guys wanted a debate."

Right, I can tell that's totally what you came here for. Troll on.

Actually I came here to learn what Anarchists really want - the occupy'ers aren't exactly eloquent with their message. I guess when you are paint bombing police cars and breaking store windows you don't have a lot of time to discuss their message.

So just so I understand your definition of Troll. Someone who comes to your comment section and actually disagrees with your point of view. Is that it? So rather than explain to me the superiority of your philosophy you just call me a troll and you feel good about yourself. Lame.

Why don't you explain your position so I can better understand what it is you are trying to say?

Learn it on your own. Go read a book like the rest of us. You clearly have internet access. Google it you lazy prick.

Ahh, I guess you are too busy throwing bricks I assume..


As it turns out, a lot of anarchists have social lives and jobs and things we need to do to survive in day-to-day life (in addition to all the brick-throwing we do!) and can't always be on call to answer abrasive questions from every self-assured critic on the internet.

Seriously dude, read a book, go to Anarchy101.org, open up Wikipedia even.

>Mass society
>Social Hierarchy
>The State
>Global Economic System

These are all things which I, and many (but not all) anarchists want to do away with or at least negate within our lifetimes by creating ruptures in these manifestations of domination which hold us back from our true desires. Now if you want info on Anarchism and its various ideologies why not start where many others have?


If you actually wanted us to explain our positions, maybe you should have just asked us that instead of being a dick and throwing out stereotypes and insults, you usually get a better response that way. Besides, we aren't the PR branch of Anarchy Inc., we're just a bunch of pissed mofos who want seize freedom by the fucking balls.

Thank you sir/madam for taking the time to put this together, honestly I appreciate it.

But here is where it falls out of bed with me. I simply can't get over the theory that a stateless society based on non-hierarchical voluntary association can really work in a global sense. Sure you can get about 50 or so folks in a commune to get along for a while but eventually someone is going to want to rise above the herd. Again this is nothing short of navel gazing. This stuff would never work in the real world.

The global Capitalist grab (a few take everything and pay you off with crumbs) is quickly wrapping up for you. We'll need your full creativity to help decide what forms follow this crumbling one. But you are very welcome to sell shoestrings, phones, and pizza to a world of bankrupt, busted people from 80 countries.

In short it wouldn't 'work'. That's the point. We don't want a society that works or which forces us to work, and we certainly don't want it to work globally.

Face to face contact in small localized communities (50 or so is a good number) is exactly the type of community we strive for. If you are thinking "Gee, wouldn't that be the kind of society that wouldn't produce all the stuff we have now (computers, cars, fast food chains, landfills full of trash, pollution, smog)?" Then you are correct, yes we do want to do away with all of those things in favor of the autonomy of not being chained to this system.

As far as this working in the 'real world', the sort of existence I just described is how humanity existed for 99.99% of human existence, and yes I mean pre-civilization band societies. All of war, poverty, disease (which comes almost exclusively from domesticated animals), genocide, and environmental degradation fits within the tiny sliver of human existence where we decided to dominate the land and each other. Get where I'm coming from now?

Again, there are MANY strains of anarchist thought, and some would strongly disagree withe me, but I would say that a good chunk of the people on this site sign on to the ideas that I just described.

OK but you know this will never be a reality. For example, I for one like toilet paper - in fact I don't think I could live without it. But in your society that would not be an option for me. We would be living in caves using flint knives and freezing our butts off in winter. If that's your utopia guess you gotta count me out.

you can live without toilet paper.

Funny enough I actually used to think that about toilet paper too, but our contemporary stereotypes about primitive societies are actually incredibly cartoonish and inaccurate. There's a thing called leaves, they grow on a thing called trees, which are actually important for our ability to breath the air on this planet. They are also something we are burning through like tommy chong on blunt so that you can have you're soft, silky toilet paper. The vast majority of people, who are all to some degree products of their environment, won't want this reality, but it's the only one which allows true human autonomy and which would result in an immediate end to this global march towards industrial suicide.

We wouldn't expect you to agree, and that's why most people on this site are making jokes at your expense instead of laboriously trying to explain their perspectives to you, but anyway: now you know. You can't say I wasn't up front about my beliefs.

Human extinction will eventually be a reality. Assumptions about the future based on our precarious present are null and void of meaning.

Hah here is a fuckin realist^ ^ ^ and thats a fuckin fact but everyboner round here seems to have this christian fuckin remorse aboiut their sorry fuckin existence and the end of the fuckin Ooooo, ,.world Ooooo,,,I nmean they d.o .n.t ,e,v .e n f, u .c ,k.i .n k. no. w who the fuck sartre or camus the fuck are,,,,AND yous know the fuckin cognition is what its all about right?,,,fuck yeah!! Like we fuckin were not made in the image of some white fuckin paternalistic hippy sort of fuckin delusion identity fuckup(25% zerzan)
,,,,hey,,,,when yoiu wake up in the fuckin morning why the fruck do most of you get up out of fuckin bed????? Ill fuckin tell you why cos you all frightened of being abused by the state and its landlords and youre sheep for takin that shit cos an existensialist fuckin thinks whats going on in their fuckin perfect consciousness that anyone fuckin else has NO Fuckin right to interfere with???!!!8ball

My anarchist society has toilet paper, it's cool, bro.

And yet 99% of human history proves your strange ideas and practices to be the aberration...

Damn! You got in before me by two minutes...

Ha! You've beat me to the punch many times so I'm glad I got this one.

Anarchists the world over want a nice boss who will give really generous Christmas bonuses. Also Anarchists all want really good, low-cost pizza with free delivery, and some decent shows on TV for a change.

on @news? never.

it's me. i am the leader of anarchy.

nuh unh, it's me. you know it's true.

Whatever, I'm the emperor of the universe. I'm just very hands off. You're all just figments of my imagination anyway so shut up and dance.

Occupy finds solidarity in mid-sized, capitalist enterprises...whoa, cool. Now I know enough to stay away from them.

The sanctification of local business needs to end. Most of the restaurant and bars that got smashed on Monday were fucking hipster yuppie dives. Sorry, but I'm not going to shed any tears because some gentrifier got their Mercedes tires slashed.

Out of curiousity, what about small businesses without employees who just provide services (cobblers, massage therapists, etc), make their own products or sell things for other artisans etc.? Just asking because a lot of my friends are in this boat, and honestly I couldn't see the point in fucking with them. They're just imperfect people who were sick of being wage slaves and started making shit and selling it in stores through consignment, etc. (they don't consider it exploitation).

Are they capitalists? I'm sure most of them, myself included would love to not need money, but at the moment we have to pay rent and eat. My point is not that this lifestyle is ideal, just that targeting them seems pretty useless.

No, but then again they don't own bars and restaurants or have storefronts. Capitalism has been pushing more and more people into these kinds of jobs to cope with it restructuring itself. These kinds of people weren't targeted, but at the same time they aren't doing something more "revolutionary" in character than the average fast food worker or union laborer. Sure it is survival, but it most certainly is not something to hold up to the mythical degree that some @'s do. In short, self-employment and co-ops are not a way out of capitalism. Although, they might help us continue to survive under it.

- a self-employed prole with an enormous tax debt and a new baby that got his power turned off today.

"In short, self-employment and co-ops are not a way out of capitalism. Although, they might help us continue to survive under it."


But I guess both you and the above poster agree that co-ops and self-employment are roughly on par with any other standard wage-labor method of survival, yeah? If that's the case, I think it should be a given that fucking with those peeps would be as pointless/shitty as, I dunno, slashing the tires on a McDonald's fry cook's car.

Hey, who told you about that?

I agree, they're not a way out of capitalism nor revolutionary. For me, trying not to have a boss or be one only serves my own emotional well being (and ability to trade and barter), I admit that, and is def not some righteous level of proledom. I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who'll be trying to sell that. Incidentally I also have a shit tonne of tax debt and have some pretty tough feast and famine cycles so it's not exactly easy street.

I guess the danger is in someone just washing their hands of the whole thing because they made some small change in their lives (ie. I recycle therefore I'm a green activist). Sadly, people's politics are often pretty tied to their self image, but that's a whole other discussion.

btw the reason I used massage therapist and cobbler is because in my city they do have storefronts but on second thought I'm pretty sure people wouldn't target them.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.