|
OwlFancier posted:That's fairly consistent if your entire method of viewing the world the government is wholly individualistic. America!
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
There is a bit of overlap I think where a lot of the gun nuttery is not so much "I need to fight off the government" as much as it's "I need to fight literally everyone because..." Well the because I don't entirely understand but it ties into the whole property rights obsession. There's some people out there who just really have a boner for murdering people who go anywhere near them. They're the sort that buy all the apocalypse survival poo poo. Just really antisocial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Tias posted:and they jail people for breaking a window or stealing a loaf of bread. Oh, wait. So the red text is supposed to be a quote from you? I assumed you argued that destruction of property was violence and they red texted you with a correction. Because, yeah, it's not violence, no matter how much corporate media tries to create the equation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is a bit of overlap I think where a lot of the gun nuttery is not so much "I need to fight off the government" as much as it's "I need to fight literally everyone because..." Well the because I don't entirely understand but it ties into the whole property rights obsession. There's some people out there who just really have a boner for murdering people who go anywhere near them. They're the sort that buy all the apocalypse survival poo poo. I can understand wanting a gun when worldwide capitalism collapses within the next decade, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Not violence:
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
That's also missing the distinction between private and personal property.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's also missing the distinction between private and personal property. Churches aren't private property? How about a minority owned business?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
I think there's an important point here that burning down a starbucks is different from burning down a locally owned business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Churches aren't private property? How about a minority owned business? A church is not, generally, something used to coerce the extraction of wealth from people. I would normally classify it as communal personal property, something which its congregation voluntarily funds and upkeeps for their collective benefit. A business is private property, but a small business also has an element of personal property to it. If it's a giant corporation where nobody actually has a personal attachment to office block number 3237 or retail outlet 2810 then no, it's not violence to destroy private property. Absenting the obvious logistical problems of doing it without hurting people. But if you, like, I dunno just broke all the windows or something on a wal mart then no that's not violence by any human centric definition of the term. If you do it to the shop that someone lives above, then that's different. Small businesses aren't a problem, really, so if you're doing that it's probably to intimidate a person, not out of anticapitalist sentiment. Personal/private is not, in practice, a perfect separation, but the statement that it isn't violence to destroy private property is correct. The problem is the lack of practical separation between the two. A private chain store has persons in it most of the time, for example. That way of thinking about it still gives you a good method of figuring out why some things are wrong though. Stealing bread from a supermarket because you want to eat it, isn't wrong, the bread is private property and exists to extract wealth from people and will be destroyed by the supermarket if it can't serve that purpose. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A church is not, generally, something used to coerce the extraction of wealth from people. I would normally classify it as communal personal property, something which its congregation voluntarily funds and upkeeps for their collective benefit. A church manipulates people into wealth extraction (tithes, etc), although it does not directly coerce them. The distinction between private/personal property isn't that helpful in all moral cases - would you steal bread from a local baker trying to make ends meet, rather than a supermarket, despite the fact that that baker is the owner of a MoP? I think power/alienation gradients are usually more helpful for making tactical decisions about what to break. Your local businesses may not be great, but they're also basically embedded in the local community and in many cases victims of larger capitalist enterprises. Chains are more alienated from local communities and contribute more to the process of exploitation and therefore can be seen as far more acceptable targets. You can also envisage human-centric violent outcomes from destroying private property. If you destroy a farm or a key piece of infrastructure in a supply chain (water pipe, railroad, etc), you will stop the flow of goods and that could lead to negative material outcomes - like starvation. Take the protests/riots in Ferguson, which destroyed a lot of chain stores people in the community were relying on for jobs and goods. Private/personal falls into the category of a "correct" distinction, but not always a "useful" distinction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Yes the problem of commodification of basically everything in the world nowadays does make it harder to apply the distinction. Though it's still one I apply to help figure stuff out even if it is never perfectly clear cut. Smashing up a wal mart is going to intimidate the people working there even if it isn't your intent, you can't completely separate the personal from the private in real life even if in theory it's quite easy. But someone who conflates burning a synagogue with looting a starbucks is either being deliberately disingenous or has absolutely no understanding whatesoever of even that basic way of looking at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Smashing up a wal mart is going to intimidate the people working there even if it isn't your intent, you can't completely separate the personal from the private in real life even if in theory it's quite easy. I think its more contextual than that. The Wal-Mart or Tyson Foods may be the only employer in town (many small towns in the US have this problem). This is a poo poo situation, but it has an actual communal impact. If you're going to take action against it, you may want to make sure its a popular action... because unless you work there, you're not going to be suffering the material consequences of the result. Basically, I think the Luddites took the best approach (given the circumstances)... smash the poo poo that's specifically unpopular and alienated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
The capitalist conception would go that any destruction of property is violence against the owner. Burning down that church isn't violence against a building or a specific landlord- it's violence against the community who used it and now have had their access to resources removed. Same goes for a Tyson factory. You can absolutely commit violence against the workers by destroying their factory but that's no more violent than Tyson deciding to close the plant themselves, an action that is protected. What is not violence, however, is the workers themselves choosing to tear down the factory, since the victim, Tyson, only uses the plant for rentseeking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
*mic check, mic check, 1, 2* Hello thread, I've heard violence is bae and woke, do any of you have any plans you're putting together you want to share? Maybe I can help, dogg.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:*mic check, mic check, 1, 2* *brandishing mall cop badge* Sir. We can’t let police in here without a warrant. You’ll have to come back in uniform, your teenager costume looks like it came from the ‘80s.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
Tias posted:No, not at all. The Spanish third republic (although you could argue that the bloodshed was fought against a revolution, as the third republic was legitimately elected - I'd say it counts, as a lot of the revolutionary policies were made from the bottom up, ignoring the new government) abolished wage inequality, reformed land and instated freedom of assembly, press and local democracy. man, I sure wish I could get red text advocating correct praxis
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:*mic check, mic check, 1, 2* I plan to consume the Antifa Supersoldier serum and destroy every one of the Starbucks in existence with merely a flex from my soyboy glutes. Then I will establish my own chain called Bread, Roses and Coffee (and maybe also Wine), which will serve a properly-brewed blonde roast.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Oh, wait. So the red text is supposed to be a quote from you? I assumed you argued that destruction of property was violence and they red texted you with a correction. Nah, the burning synagogue is supposed to be a glib put-down illustrating how much us dumb socialists self-own when criticizing state norms of violence :p
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 14:58
|
|
