jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
1,942 points (67% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password
Submit new content
Please remember to read the rules. Thank you!
Submit new content
Please remember to read the rules. Thank you!

Anarchism

subscribeSubscribe!unsubscribeUnsubscribe67,139 readers readers
176 here users here now

Subreddit of the week: /r/SocialistRA (Socialist Rifle Association)

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society without borders, bosses, or rulers where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of themselves and the environment.
If you are not yet familiar with anarchism, check out /r/Anarchy101.
If you want to debate, try /r/DebateAnarchism.
/r/Anarchism is for discussing topics relevant to anarchism. The moderation structure and policies are not intended to be an example of an anarchist society; an internet forum is not a society. If you join the discussion here, we assume that you are an anarchist, an ally, or want to learn more about anarchism. Review the Anti-Oppression Policy to see how you can help make space for marginalized people.
Conversations about moderation, rules, bans, and other meta topics take place in /r/metanarchism (message the mods to get in).
Resourcesclick
Related Subredditsclick
The Moderation Log bot is temporarily down due to a Reddit API change. For now use the Moderation Log RSS and Modmail RSS instead.
Meta & Transparencyclick
  1. New to anarchism?
  2. Debate anarchism
  3. Moderation discussion / meta
  4. Confed. of Anarchist Subreddits
  5. Event Calendar
  6. Support
created by veganbikepunka community for
message the moderators (all posts are public)

MODERATORS

CSS Theme via /r/Naut
1941
1942
1943
top 200 commentsshow all 473
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship[M] [score hidden] - stickied comment (7 children)
Hey, we're not gonna remove this post so you can stop reporting it. Thanks.
[–]Summerspeaker anarcho-transhumanist 76 points77 points78 points  (4 children)
Wow, folks ain't messin' around.
[–]Niyeaux anarcho-syndicalist 302 points303 points304 points  (75 children)
Aren't limos usually just owned by dudes who hire them out, like how taxis are?
[–][deleted]  (51 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points  (0 children)
Driver isn't out of work, owner swiftly sent a new limo. There.
[–][deleted]  (26 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted]  (12 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted]  (10 children)
[removed]
[–]scrappyd anarchist 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
Their job at starbucks isn't that good. The fact that they would treat their employees like that in a time of unemployment insurance shows that the people should definitely look somewhere else for a job. The story that you made up to invoke an emotional response is very reactionary.
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–]Solve_et_Memoria -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
He's probably right. Companies aren't your mommy and daddy trying to make sure you get along okay. They soley exist to turn a profit and you're overly romantic if you can't process why they don't give a shit about employees during "time of unemployment".
Is it a shitty job? Probably... But other factors probably made it work for the employees. Perhaps the proximity to their home or school or family made it worthwhile to them.
Now they have to commute somewhere else... Maybe wake up an hour earlier just to take a longer bus route.
And here you anarchists are posting this photo as if it's an accomplishment... Giving that type of mentality a safe Haven...despite the fact that most of the comments on here are about why this type of thing hurts working class people.
I understand that "riot is the voice of the unheard" -mlk, but this isn't a real riot in the sense... This to me seems like a childish temper tantrum.
[–]scrappyd anarchist 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Starbucks isn't going to abandon a location and force everybody to work hours away from where they were working. If they can't provide you the job that you were hired for then they must approve your unemployment INSURANCE. You know, the stuff that makes it so that the rich people don't have to pay for the things that get broken? Guess what? Insurance is here for me and you too. If poor starbucks can't employ people at the location hired then they have insurance to give their employees. Try reading a book or actually havinga job before going online to argue.
[–]ascasco socialist 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Fair point
[–]luchinocappuccino 84 points85 points86 points  (5 children)
I'll probably get downvoted but this is honestly what bothers me about a lot of Anarchists on this subreddit. While I do not consider myself a pacifist and I understand there is a lot of anger as to how the world operates, I feel that a lot of people just want to start inciting violence as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it leads to shitty results like in the picture here. The last thing we need is for our frustrations to be used against us. See: election of Trump.
[–]benwsapp 8 points9 points10 points  (3 children)
I get where you're coming from. It would be nice to just step back and do our best to ensure all people's lives and livelihoods are safe and sound.
But, when you have a government that is marching, rapidly, towards fascism, disrupting the part of society that is comforting them can't be seen as immoral. Sure, the person that owns this car is just a victim of an exploitative system and now's he's worse off. But, are we going to feel bad when DJT is in prison because all he ever knew was capitalism and we took away his livelihood from him? Fuck that.
Whoever got their limo burnt out should be mad at Trump and friends for pushing people to the point where this reaction was the only rational reaction to express the anxiety people are feeling as they see tyranny unfolding before their eyes.
[–]macgillebride 13 points14 points15 points  (1 child)
Perhaps you should think from the point of view of that person. His car just got burned down by anarchists. I hardly think he'll be supportive of anarchists any time soon.
[–]citizen_kiko 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Not only that but the idea of country descending into fascism "rapidly" has no basis in fact anymore than its assention into communism under Obama.
People need to chillax.
[–]Nocturnalized 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
"Burn a limo"
"Rational reaction"
Pick one.
[–]Hfjwjcbjfksjcj 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
I agree with everything you said in your post.
But "I'm gonna get downvoted for this" was hardly necessary
[–]-Enkara-Reddit is for Cishet White Boys 15 points16 points17 points  (3 children)
Trump is the fucking president, let that sink in a moment and you'll be even more terrified, lol.
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[removed]
[–]benevolinsolence 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
That's really great but not all of us have that luxury.
[–]bryznasty2dot0 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Really makes you think about property rights..
[–]scrappyd anarchist 10 points11 points12 points  (7 children)
If you have the money to buy a limo and start a business you are not some "ordinary dude." Speculating to fit your narrative is how we got our president.
[–]k3vin187 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
I think you're overestimating the means to buy a limo and start a business. Definitely possible with a very small business loan.
[–]foodie69 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
Lol nobody actually ever has the money to buy a business, let alone a limo... Especially if they're the one driving it....That's why there are loans............,,..,,,!.&:8-9.!.6
[–]scrappyd anarchist 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
.....more conjecture.
[–]foodie69 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
You're joking right? What world do you live in where people have enough money to just outright buy a limo or a business?
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[deleted]
[–]foodie69 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Lala land
[–]macgillebride 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Are you joking? Do you believe Anarchism is in anyway an opposition to loans)? Is the fact that the limousine MAY be owned by a capitalist a reason to set it on fire? Should I set your house on fire for the same reason?
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–]TURBOJUGGED 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
Dude. This is probably a write off if not burned all the way to the ground.
[–]-Enkara-Reddit is for Cishet White Boys 13 points14 points15 points  (8 children)
Lol @ this liberal as fuck subreddit, gross.
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–]boilerpunx person of colourRace Baiter 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
Sorry, that is pretty liberal
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[removed]
[–]boilerpunx person of colourRace Baiter 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
How exactly does a smashed window hurt us in the long run? Its liberal to discount historical and viable methods of protest because you don't agree with them.
[–]rleanor_eoosevelt anarcho-communist 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
this thread is getting raided
[–]ParticleCannon 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
.#notmychauffeur
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[removed]
[–]living_in_bad_faith philosophical anarchist- anarchist academic 51 points52 points53 points  (9 children)
Taxis are mostly owned by big companies, not individual drivers. Also, rent-seeking is bourgeois.
[–][deleted]  (8 children)
[removed]
[–]living_in_bad_faith philosophical anarchist- anarchist academic 10 points11 points12 points  (7 children)
I don't care, "small business" is just as bourgeois and exploitative as "big business".
[–]macgillebride -2 points-1 points0 points  (4 children)
Are you actually defending a society without any kind of business? Shouldn't I be allowed to exchange my assets for services or anything for that matter? The root of the criticism against capitalism is based on who owns the means of production, not about doing business on itself.
[–]Ienpw_III 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
Don't conflate the very general phenomenon of exchange with the historically specific social/legal relation of "business". Of course you can exchange. That doesn't mean it'll look anything like a business.
[–]macgillebride -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
Care to explain me what is so exploitative of a worker cooperative for instance? Isn't this a form of business? It is directly related with the ability of exchanging assets and services.
[–]Ienpw_III 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I can't answer that question in some universal sense free of context. Are we presupposing the total abolition of capitalism? If so, it's not exploitative (capitalistically, at least), but we shouldn't expect it to be anything recognisable as a "business". Pre-capitalist industry looked totally different than capitalist industry. People in the 1400s wouldn't recognise what you call a "business" as at all similar to anything in their society. I would expect communist industry to be equally different.
[–]living_in_bad_faith philosophical anarchist- anarchist academic 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
[–]k3vin187 -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
Explain the bourgeoisie to me and how both can big and small businesses (or businesses and not people) can be seen as the same in that regard
[–]living_in_bad_faith philosophical anarchist- anarchist academic 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
[–]killthebillionaires 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
Apparently one that was smashed today was owned by jesse Jackson.
[–]PangaeaGirls whatever 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
He tweeted that no limo was burned. I don't think it was his if he denies the smashing in the first place.
[–]scrappyd anarchist 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Let me tell you about the time I mowed lawns my whole childhood so that I could pull myself up by my bootstraps and start my own limo business. Shut the fuck up you fucking moron. Honestly though even if you had some kind of white bread up bringing and worked hard to have a good credit score you would do something safer than starting your own limo business in D.C.
[–]DeadPresidentJFK anarcho-communist 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Nobody gives a shit, it's a limo! The world is made of symbols, before everything else.
[–]SleepNowintheFire anarchist 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The limo was right in front of two black escalades that were smashed and that revealed grating under the windows securing them. Do with that what you will, I think they may have been government vehicles but they were at least important enough to have reinforced windows.
[–]Brambleshire anarchistLibertarian Socialist -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
I heard it was secret service
[–]jroddie4 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Stretch limos, at least.
[–]stardust_witch Insurrectionist 236 points237 points238 points  (9 children)
But how will we ever form a real movement without all of the people who ride in limousines that we're alienating?
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 85 points86 points87 points  (0 children)
Think of the privileged!
[–]MasterlessMan333 anarcho-sithdicalist 48 points49 points50 points  (2 children)
Don't they know that's a locally owned, family limousine. How will owners ever afford to fix it?
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–]DeadPresidentJFK anarcho-communist 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
Another lost chance of building solidarity with them... (end sarcasm)
[–][deleted]  (3 children)
[removed]
[–]shyeahright99 14 points15 points16 points  (1 child)
And for our next trick, we'll beat down a fax machine with a Louisville slugger. "Damn it feels good to be a gangsta."
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Haha damn right
[–]cowboyphinfan 145 points146 points147 points  (56 children)
Why do people love this so much? Why does this help the movement and what is the movement even trying to achieve, serious question
[–]Elcheatobandito 70 points71 points72 points  (52 children)
I'm going to say this really doesn't help much. A Limo is certainly a symbol of excess, sure, and the idea of private rental is firmly against most leftist ideas, but the destruction is needless and does seem senseless in the eyes of the public, who we should be trying to sway. The graffiti would be fine if the limo wasn't owned by some relatively poor personal owner, but if this graffiti was on the walls of a factory It'd have been better. If instead it was anarchic flyers raining down from rooftops across Washington, and protesters educating the public about what it is anarchism is and stands for, or something more creative, it'd have a bigger impact.
As it stands, this just looks like the chaos and violence that people negatively associate anarchism with. The type of "anarchism" espoused by teenagers smashing mailboxes while sporting circled A's they bought at Hot Topic.
[–]cowboyphinfan 5 points6 points7 points  (30 children)
I may be lost on what anarchism is. Could you please explain?
[–]Elcheatobandito 49 points50 points51 points  (29 children)
I'll try to break it down simply
Anarchism is basically a rejection of state and authoritarian power in favor of a far more self governed sort of system. Anarchy isn't a rejection of all rules, but more so a rejection of authoritarian rules and hierarchies when they aren't shown to be beneficial to a society at large. In an anarchist system, if a group wants to enact a law or a rule, it's their job to prove it useful and the job of the public to deem it necessary.
For example, when a kid asks their parents why they can't do something, like crossing the street without looking both ways, that's an example of anarchic thought. When dad says "Because you'll get hit by a car, just watch". that's an example of a beneficial authoritarian ruling.
Most anarchism is socialist in nature, and this is when we get into talks of what private property is. In a socialist system, private property is unethical, and what socialists mean by private property is land, resources, and other means of production (factories, offices, ect). The reason that private property is considered unethical is because it reinforces social hierarchies (ruling classes, working classes, ect.) and exploitation.
This is different from personal property, which really ought to be protected. Personal property is anything you use personally. Your home, your car, your computer, and so on.
[–]Coconuts_Migrate 8 points9 points10 points  (17 children)
Thanks a lot for that detailed response. What I don't understand, though, is how we will make things like cars or computers to own as personal property if it's not first developed and made by an entity with private property? Would this system require any computers or cars we buy be purchased directly from a person who has to have built it?
[–]remain_calm 27 points28 points29 points  (13 children)
Factories can exist without private property.
[–]Coconuts_Migrate 0 points1 point2 points  (12 children)
So then the factory would be personal property or some third type of property? Sorry, I'm not really getting it.
[–]jman12234 8 points9 points10 points  (10 children)
A basic tenet of socialism is the democratic control of the means of production. The idea of provate property and the phenomema itself has to be destroyed for socialism to come to fruition. The idea and practice of private property wouldn't be a thing in a socialist system. The factory would be owned by everyone who worked there and manufactured products through labor.
Also, for private property(especially the absentee aspect of private property) to exist it must be enforced by state violence and coercion i.e. if the owner is not at the factory what is stopping the workers from simply taking the product of their labor for themselves entirely: the threat of state violence. Since most versions of anarchism are stateless, there would be no stste to enforce private property and thus any property which was privatized would rapidly go back to democratic use.
[–][deleted]  (3 children)
[removed]
[–]jman12234 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
You're conflating the purpose of production under socialism with one under capitalism. If the purpose of production is to generate profit, then your scenario would make sense, but that's antithetical to a socialist mode of production. Cars would be made for the purpose of furnishing people's needs, there wouldn't meed to be excessive production of cars--especially of a product like cars--so one factory would not need to steal the products of another factory. Keep also in mind, that I'm thinking of a psuedo-confederation of production, where certain areas of production develop workers councils fhat coincide and discuss with other worker councils the necessary level of production and what products are necessary to be produced. There is no competition within this system. Any technological advances would be utilized to lessen the amount of hours people need to work and would be distributed accordingly. Even if someone attempted to rob a factory, there's no reasons rhe workers would not be able to defend themselves. People would have the means to defend their lives and their products against injustice and bullying.
Basically, you're still thinking in a capitalist mindset about certain factors within production, where socialism would bring about an entirely new mode of the extraction of labor value and the distribution of products.
[–]Coconuts_Migrate 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
In that case, I don't see a distinction between the aforementioned personal property and private property. The same government that enforces private property as previously defined would be needed to enforce the protection of an individual's personal property. Otherwise who else would stop someone from taking others personal property.
[–]cheeba_inu 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
In that case, I don't see a distinction between the aforementioned personal property and private property.
That was a very good explanation you received, I don't believe this. You're using property theft to willfully throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Otherwise who else would stop someone from taking others personal property.
Social pressure, primarily. I think you'll find that when you greatly narrow the gap between the "have's" and "have-not's" that people behave themselves. Right now we have a very strong "every man for himself" culture, which is sick, and goes against our natural tendencies towards altruism and group cooperation. I think you'd also find that a great deal of crimes (especially property and theft crimes) are drug related, or caused by someone with a severe drug problem. The stigma that we have attached to addiction prevents a lot of people from getting the help they need.
It sounds like you are wanting very specific guidelines on how an anarchist community would behave. But people are dynamic, our cultures are dynamic, our values are dynamic, etc. Get enough people together in a group, take away competition over scraps, and groups generally cooperate together. You don't need an authoritarian class to make that happen.
[–]jman12234 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Personal property holds no social or economic power. Anarchy is against the unequal balance of power between (among other heirarchies) workers and capitalists. Private property is used as a leverage against the proletariat, because value is created through labor being applied to private property and because the surplus of that value(all value after the basic needs of the worker are accounted for) is taken by capitalists, workers are unable to accrue enough wealth to pull them out of their situations. Thus, through the theivery of surplus value and only the basic needs of a worker being accounted for through a wage, the worker becomes enslaved to capital and to the owner of that capital. The major difference between private property and personal property is that private property has that social power. That power is inherently antagonistic to the worker, whereas personal property is not. Because the basis of that relationship is antagonism, the worker, without coercion through force and violence(among other things) by the state, would upend that relationship. It's like you're being given a bad deal, but you have a gun to your head, if you take that gun away then there'd be no reason to uphold/take the deal.
Thievery is part of the ecosystem of capitalism. It is seen as negatie by society at large, but it is so prevalent precisely because it reapportions wealth. If wealth is distributed equally and the driving force of people's lives is not wage labor or profit, then the need to steal is lessened. Socialism comes with a radical revisioning of the interactions between people, wealth, and material objects.
[–]BandarSeriBegawan taoist anarchist/ green anarchist 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
It doesn't have to be anyone's property
[–]Elcheatobandito 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
The factory the computer is made in would be a public entity.
[–]Coconuts_Migrate 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Could you elaborate a bit on that? Would property owned by a public entity be a third type of property akin to personal property because (I assume) everyone owns it? Who would run public entities?
[–]Elcheatobandito 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Property would either be considered public or collective. How all this works is when you start getting into ideological differences even within the anarchic system, but generally speaking, the entities would be run collectively in some way. Workers self management in some form or another.
[–]BlueFireAt 0 points1 point2 points  (10 children)
So wouldn't anarchism simply be a government that operated from the assumption of liberty?
[–]Elcheatobandito 5 points6 points7 points  (9 children)
Well, the original definition of a libertarian would actually be more of what we call a libertarian socialist these days in America. Anarchism is usually included under that banner. That's really not what we think of when we think libertarian anymore, but that's what it was.
[–]BlueFireAt 0 points1 point2 points  (8 children)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if that's the case then what's the point of anarchism specifically?
[–]Elcheatobandito 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
Not sure I follow
[–]BlueFireAt 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
My apologies. I misunderstood and thought you were saying that that was the entirety of anarchism, when you're actually saying that that is only part of anarchism, right? Sorry, I haven't paid much attention to alternate methods of government.
[–]Elcheatobandito 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
Yes. Anarchism is an umbrella term. How it would work is where you get into ideologies like mutualism, social anarchism (which includes libertarian socialism), individualism, and, much to the chagrin of many around here, anarcho-capitalism (what you might think of as libertarianism).
[–]DudeCat 2 points3 points4 points  (19 children)
How are leftist ideas against renting things? Rental and rent-seeking behavior/economic rent are not the same thing.
[–]Elcheatobandito 6 points7 points8 points  (18 children)
Generally, leftists are against the idea of passive incomes.
[–]DudeCat -2 points-1 points0 points  (17 children)
Again, look up the difference between economic rent and renting. A limo isn't a passive income. Renting a car isn't a passive income. Renting an apartment isn't necessarily a passive income either.
[–]SSG_Metal anarchist 9 points10 points11 points  (13 children)
It's still profit extraction through the maintenance of a hierarchical relationship between "owner" and "renter" regardless of details, hence why it's opposed by socialists as a manifestation of capitalist exploitation.
[–]DudeCat -1 points0 points1 point  (12 children)
Except in many cases, such as temporary limo and car rental, the renter has no desire to own the item they are renting. Someone needs to pay for the maintenance and decrease in value of the object being rented. Also, with limo rental, you hire the driver too.
I can acknowledge that in some cases, the rent far exceeds costs to the owners. But only a very simplistic view of socialism (which is popular on Reddit) says renting is a bad thing. Ergo, the need to understand the difference between renting and economic rent.
[–]SSG_Metal anarchist 4 points5 points6 points  (11 children)
The "desire to own" that you speak of is born of a necessity to engage in profit-seeking, which is itself driven by existence under capitalism. Profit motive is the driving force in any form of renting under current conditions. Whether it's desired or not makes no difference as to the existence of an exploitative relationship. Remove the profit motive for exploitation, and some of the impetus for renting out resources and labor goes with it. It should also be noted that the various excesses and overproduction of capitalism within market economies play a role here too. The constant need of a market economy to expand both demand and production leads to a situation where new forms of consumption drive more exploitative relationships. This trend translates to more and more people seeking profit through exploitation. Renting is part of that cycle, hence why it's rejected by some.
The only way in which this isn't true in collectivist or other explicitly non-capitalist communities/societies is if they classify the sharing of wealth, resources and labor as some form of renting. That practice would be left to a democratic consensus rather than economic necessity under a socialist organization. And even then, the remaining profit motive would be driven by that community/society and it's existence within a wider market economy in order to maintain said community/society. Necessity still exists, but it's justifications and goals have shifted drastically from current norms.
[–]DudeCat -2 points-1 points0 points  (10 children)
The "desire to own" that I spoke of related to the fact that if I'm going on a trip to Elbonia, I don't want to own a car in Elbonia. I do want to rent one temporarily. An Elbonian renting me a car isn't necessarily taking advantage of hierarchies in the owner/tenant relationship. He might, he might not. I'm not touch the rest of your comment since you went off the deep end with tons of socialist theory that hasn't been empirically proven.
[–]SSG_Metal anarchist 5 points6 points7 points  (9 children)
Then go back to KiA if your rejection of socialist theory is "but socialism doesn't exist".
[–]Elcheatobandito 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Economic rent is a very broad category, I know. If you're talking about it as, for example, a share of wealth given to landowners because they own the land a leftist would be against that if the landowners are a private entity. The privatization of economic rent is generally what leftists are not for.
[–]DudeCat 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
But leftists would not be necessarily against someone renting in and of itself. Case in point, a limo, which is rented out by the driver, driven by the driver, cleaned by the driver, maintained by the driver, financed by the driver and is the ultimate responsibility of the driver.
This is the perfect example of a blue collar worker owning his means of production and so called socialists cheering for its destruction.
[–]Elcheatobandito 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Yes and no. That being said, at this level, it's not what we should be concerned about in the least. In the system we have in place, it's just damaging to someone we should really be trying to get on our side. So I completely agree, as I posted above, that this doesn't help and everyone cheering about this pic doesn't know their enemy.
[–]LowerLeftist 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
This article might answer your question.
[–]Aikidi 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Well if nothing else a few million people are looking at this picture now and talking about it as it spreads across the internet.
[–]asopio Marxist 119 points120 points121 points  (53 children)
Smashing up property really is the best type of protest.
[–]Luke_I_Am_Your_Otter 29 points30 points31 points  (51 children)
Sorry, I'm new here. Why exactly is that?
[–]Brambleshire anarchistLibertarian Socialist 14 points15 points16 points  (4 children)
The level of disturbance sets the tone of how much resistance there will be from here on out. Even to people that don't approve of broken glass, it reflects the level of anger, outrage, and motivation to take action. It's risky business.
The more unrest there is, the more it reflects on trumps inability to govern. It tarnishes his image as a leader capable of taking care of the people in it.
The best way to fight capital is to damage is bottom line. And government answers to capital more than anyone else. Lost $$$ can go a long way.
It's important to send a message to the country and the world that a sexual assaulting racist piece of shit as president is not acceptable. And will not be accepted as normal.
It's one of the limited ways people can fight back against the wars, mass incarceration, police violence, and other violence of grand scale this country and it's corporations. Ppl don't have the vast resources and military apparatus of the state and its corporate cronies. But we can smash some windows and it drives them fucking nuts >:]
It's just corporate glass. Who cares? Seriously. WHO CARES. It's glass of billion dollar banks and Starbucks. So what. Of all the things to get in a tizzy over. Considering even just the violence of the police, responding with broken glass is relatively pacifist.
[–]newaccount 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
it will drive them nuts
who cares?
Pick one.
[–]Brambleshire anarchistLibertarian Socialist 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
I'm talking about two completely different groups of people with two different interests. Shouldn't that be obvious?
[–]newaccount 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The second one includes the first, fairly obviously.
[–]SSG_Metal anarchist 76 points77 points78 points  (45 children)
That person may be being a bit hyperbolic, but radicals do love our smashy smashy. :)
Jokes aside, there is a serious reason to advocate for the destruction of property from a socialist position. Simply put, private property, and by association profit motive, are intrinsic to capitalism and the oppression and exploitation that it brings. Attacking the bottom line of capital is the best way to disrupt its operation. So from the perspective of attacking manifestations of capitalism, there is a decent justification to attack property. It must also be said that there is a moralistic argument to support this as well. People are more valuable than property or profit, and opposing capitalism is about protecting those people and their future.
Of course, that's just my personal and informal take on the issue. All leftists will have different perspectives and justifications on the issue.
Here's a writeup about the justifications for these actions, anyone interested should give it a read: https://crimethinc.com/2014/12/10/why-break-windows
[–]ImperatorBevo socialist 50 points51 points52 points  (40 children)
As a counterargument, I'm definitely a Socialist and very Leftist, but I'm also relatively well off financially (Not super bourgeoisie rich, I just do ok). I would absolutely not be happy about you or anyone else smashing my personal shit because of that.
Unless by private property you're specifically referring to the assets of businesses. I think individual property should for the most part be respected and left alone, especially if you don't know the political beliefs of the owner.
[–]Dragon9770 socialist 65 points66 points67 points  (9 children)
Its hard to tell when dealing with new people, but you can generally trust that people here use the proper distinction between "private property" and "personal property". If you are not familiar, its private=farms/factories/machines/productive property, while personal=hats/truck/house/things that can generally only be used/consume, not produce value. The only special thing is that the anarchistically-inclined are more willing to go and say "limos, mansions, and excessively overpriced consumer products" may also be rightly destroyed for its political flavor, and outlining class distinctions.
[–]ImperatorBevo socialist 25 points26 points27 points  (0 children)
Thanks for pointing out the private vs personal distinction for me. I agree.
[–]PracticalAnarchy Other: Intentional Communities Are The Future 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
That's a pretty good explanation, thanks. I'm going to use it to explain to others.
[–]Dragon9770 socialist 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
Your welcome. Its a pretty vital distinction to make, but I am honestly surprised how many times I have had to give it on leftist subs. After accusations of gulags, the second thing leftists are accused of are forcing people to share houses and beds (and wives, which is a reactionary retort that extends from the time of the Manifesto to the meme of 'cucking'). Its important for people to know we are not actually "coming for that toothbrush whitey!" :p
[–]PracticalAnarchy Other: Intentional Communities Are The Future 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I understood the distinction, you just phrased it in a way that makes it easy to understand and explain to others.
[–]Aqua_Fractalyne 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
Just as a curiosity, but if private property = items that produce, that would include art supplies (I'm including musical instruments, writing utensils, paint, etc). Would art supplies be shared in anarchism? I could see that it might be desirable to have public studios and supplies, but personally, I feel like sharing my paint and canvases would be stepping over a line in a lot of ways.
[–]I_HUMP_POTATOES 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
Like the other poster said, nobody's answer will be exactly the same, but I think with things like art supplies the distinction would come with how they're used. I have guitars and I write music with them. I think most socialists would agree that that's ok and even encourage it, but if I wanted to pay other people a wage to write music for me that I could sell at a profit, it would become private property rather than just personal property that I use to create art.
[–]Aqua_Fractalyne 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
That makes perfect sense to me
[–]Dragon9770 socialist 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
I guess at supplies are hard to think about, because unlike say a steel factory, the property can not stuff reproduce (a steel press makes the steel that can be used to fix and make steel presses; a train transport's the materials used to make train cars and engines; food products are reproducing plants or animals). Paints, paper, pencils, etc. all seem more like consumables in the grand scheme of things, or at least at the practical level. In FALGSC, the community of artists' prime concern should be about how the production and distribution of pencils is made democratic and available to all aspiring artists. At a certain point, the question in the car is scarcity just devolves into questions of definitions of distributional justice, which is to be determined likely at the level of the community of artists who recieve a lump supply from producers. I would guess Aristotle's policy of "to the best flute player goes the best flute" would most likely result.
Apologies to any creative anarchists here, but while art is food for the soul ("man does not live on bread alone"), I think it does have a fundamentally different relation to it's self reproduction than a bushel of corn does; especially under the conditions of de-alienation basically every leftist arrives for at an implicit philosophical level.
[–]Aqua_Fractalyne 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I really appreciate the thoughtful response. I feel you put to words the feeling I had behind my creative supplies
[–]SSG_Metal anarchist 12 points13 points14 points  (8 children)
This is why the concept of property to many socialists is defined by utilization rather than ownership in the financial sense. Collateral damage also happens, the only way to respond is to counter the anger with an explanation of the justifications for the action and support. This is why I'm a fan of following up radical action in a black bloc with plain clothes distribution of anarchist literature.
It should also be noted that the usual targets for property destruction are those who most obviously profit from exploitation of labor and the environment. Take the DC black bloc, they smashed a Bank of America, Starbucks and a McDonalds as well as some other stuff IIRC. There are plenty of reasons to attack these entities aside from being part of the capitalist class, some of them profit from prison labor for example.
The employees and owners of those franchises might feel slighted or be massively inconvenienced, but the action is supposed to serve as a wakeup call to those people that they're part of a broken system. Much in the same way that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, there are no innocent bystanders. WE ALL cause suffering and oppression in some way, what matters is how we counter it.
[–]BummySanders 7 points8 points9 points  (6 children)
This might fall on deaf ears. I'm a broke kid who has bills to pay but I've been out of work. Let's say I finally get a job at Starbucks and you smash it up. Now I'm out of work for a week and paying rent means I'll be hungry. How do you justify that? You lose nothing, I do, business as usual once repairs are made.
[–]SSG_Metal anarchist 16 points17 points18 points  (2 children)
This is one of the things that illustrates why blind destruction usually isn't the means nor the end for most. Targeted destruction or disruption also doesn't exist in a vacuum. In an ideal scenario, the same people doing the smashing would either support the workers after the fact as an act of solidarity, using that as a springboard for radicalization; or they would avoid the smashing altogether and encourage and support workers to organize directly. Situational differences and overall receptiveness will dictate how that plays out.
Then again, there are no ideal scenarios in the current system. Shit happens, and assuming the scenario you describe is commonplace, then maybe that would be justification for a less antagonistic set of tactics. But honestly, I've only ever seen the situation brought up when it's used as a hypothetical to criticize direct action of the sort we're discussing, not as an actual call for support.
Interestingly, one could also use that situation as an indictment against low wages. As in the situation you describe, if you had been paid a livable wage, missing work would be less of a concern.
[–]BummySanders 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Completely agree on the wage issue. I just want everyone to put away their anarchy boner and organize.
[–]irlcake 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
I'm not an anarchist, but judging by the answers above, it seems like they consider your loss to be eggs broken for omelets
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Thousands of eggs are broken daily for CEOs to increase their companies profits. They might have closed that Starbucks the next day simply because the profits weren't enough.
[–]UnknownReader 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
This was interesting. Although I'm not sure about how people would react to plain clothes distribution of literature justifying the destruction. Still, it has more effect that blind destruction.
[–]Voltairinede -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
As a counterargument, I'm definitely a Socialist and very Leftist, but I'm also relatively well off financially (Not super bourgeoisie rich, I just do ok). I would absolutely not be happy about you or anyone else smashing my personal shit because of that.
idgaf
[–]TJ5897 -13 points-12 points-11 points  (18 children)
How much you make a year?
[–][deleted]  (12 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–]Cryzgnik 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I'm a little confused about the terms private vs personal property in this case: am I right in saying that if this limo was being used for a limo business it's private property, and if it's someone's own personal limo, it's personal property?
Is there a difference between advocating for the destruction of personal and the destruction of private property?
[–]Luke_I_Am_Your_Otter 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
This makes some sense. I think why I'm hesitant to advocate this kind of protest is because I don't believe there should be violence against people and I fear property destruction may lead to that. Not always, many actually have self control, but when the public sees limos on fire it scares them and they fear for their safety.
[–]coweatman 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
"man, this town has the worst valet parking".
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship 22 points23 points24 points  (25 children)
'we the people' tho?
[–]HuntDownFascists 67 points68 points69 points  (23 children)
Sure why not? The words themselves are fine. I think it's very poignant to use a traditionally nativist slogan on an anti capitalist motivated act of property destruction. It reappropriates the phrase and takes it to its logical conclusion.
[–]Vindalfr anarchist without adjectives 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
I'm all about co-opting all aspects of Americana for use as propaganda.
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship -23 points-22 points-21 points  (21 children)
it's some weak left-populist shit
[–]killthebillionaires 20 points21 points22 points  (20 children)
We the people want to burn all the fucking limos.
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship 2 points3 points4 points  (19 children)
who is 'the people'?
[–]PangaeaGirls whatever 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
a spook, i know. 😒
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
Your dad
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
:(
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship 0 points1 point2 points  (13 children)
:(
[–]killthebillionaires 2 points3 points4 points  (12 children)
Why are you sad that your mom is the people?
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship 5 points6 points7 points  (11 children)
I was expecting a serious answer I guess.
[–]AbortusLuciferum- fash sit down or get put down 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
We the people are the worker class.
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 6 points7 points8 points  (3 children)
We the people are the citizens of America, you know, the people who didn't vote for trump by a huge margin.
[–]killthebillionaires 6 points7 points8 points  (5 children)
I was expecting a serious question funnypants
[–]cheeba_inu 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Those who carry the world on their back.
[–]Aikidi 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
The first time those words were invoked here was a pretty violent anti-government movement.
I mean, they created another oppressive government out of it, but still, there's precedent.
[–]AbortusLuciferum- fash sit down or get put down 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I've been sleeping on this album for far too long. Time to take a listen.
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Ooooh fuck yeah, thanks comrade!
[–]8-bitrainbowz anarcho-syndicalist 44 points45 points46 points  (4 children)
I'm glad the american left hit as hard as they did. No capitalist, no racist, no fascist, no homophobe, no sexist will feel safe. Great work comrades, solidarity with you all. <3
[–]skoomacat_88 anarcho-communist 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
It continues tomorrow, comrade. And the day after, and the next. We mustn't get complacent.
[–]barkingnoise communist -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
We mustn't get complacent
Don't run out of the field
[–]590 -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
[deleted]
[–]8-bitrainbowz anarcho-syndicalist 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The whole point was to grab the media's attention to the black bloc, which they did. They could have gone harder, gladly, but they still accomplished what they needed to do. ❤️
[–]Leadfooted_mnky anarchist- Unapologetically 33 points34 points35 points  (0 children)
Loving it
[–]scrappyd anarchist 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
Wow. In the top discussion on this picture one person says that Starbucks will be fine because of insurance and another person says that the owner of the limo is probably some poor sap that can't feed his family, because of insurance. Which one is it? If you are here saying "boo vandalism bad." Then at least have a better reason for it beside the fact that you have been conditioned to take care of all of the rich people's stuff.
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
These people aren't anarchists. They probably saw the post from r/all or some shit.
[–]Demos181 anarcho-transhumanist 56 points57 points58 points  (44 children)
Makes me happy to see comrades out doing good work against the bourgeoisie
[–]HUFFRAID 49 points50 points51 points  (35 children)
Casual lurker here.
I don't understand how this is productive to your agenda.
How is doing personal property damage 'good work'? It's not hard to smash a car window.
Can anyone here walk me through a hypothetical sequence of events that explains how an act like this produces good change? Especially when weighed against how acts like this fuel the other side with rhetoric and images of (what I see as) childish, resentful outbursts?
[–][deleted]  (28 children)
[deleted]
[–]freedom_flower person of colourto burn down the whitehouse 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
anarchist is literally against private properties.
[–]Cascadianarchist2 anarcho-cascadian/queer/wiccan-atheist/socialist/techno-tree-hugger 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
(note that private property is not the same as personal property. The former is used to generate profit by being used by workers but the owner takes a cut regardless of how much or how little labor they put in, so they use private property to steal labor value from workers under the justification that their ownership of the property entitles them to profit indefinitely, while personal property is stuff that only has utility to you, such as the home you live in, the stuff you and your family use for daily life, etc)
Of course, sometimes the smashy smashy hits personal property too, but almost exclusively that which belongs to the owning class, which is to punish them for having that property which they couldn't have gotten without stealing value from workers.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Example: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party Lots of destroyed property, started a revolution. I mean, don't get me wrong, this limo is nothing in comparison, hurting one or two companies, but the thoughts behind it are similar. A class that feels like they aren't heard and the only way to be REALLY heard is to destroy property. Peaceful protest is a useful tool too but if all protests are peaceful they would change nothing at all, since there are no repercussions for simply ignoring it. Just my 2 cents.
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 20 points21 points22 points  (1 child)
Wish I could join them
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–]boilerpunx person of colourRace Baiter 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Removed for being factually untrue. His company sent a replacement limo.
[–]Cnessel27 18 points19 points20 points  (3 children)
Have worked on modern Lincoln limos, they all deserve to burn. Seeing as I worked in a suburb of dc its pleasing to think that this may have been a limo I worked on.
[–]jpoRS anarcho-pacifistbut in a reasonable way 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
How does that work, now that they're not body-on-frame?
[–]Cnessel27 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
They just make unibody extensions and hold it all together with sorcery, and bubble gum.
[–]jpoRS anarcho-pacifistbut in a reasonable way 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
So they ride like shit then? Unless they somehow tune the unavoidable flex that would cause.
[–]Thromocrat 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
Gold spray paint? Bourgeoise fucks...
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Hahaa
[–]NativeRevolution 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Any destruction of private property is good, it helps weaken the rich.
[–]ass1ass1in 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
Aren't limos usually just owned by big companies, not individual drivers.
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
Yes, there even is an interview with the driver where it is stated the owner sent a new limo for him to drive. I don't think this accomplished much but I also don't think it "hurt a poor working class man and invalidated the whole movement" or whatever liberals like to preach here.
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
Here is an article about the driver. His employer sent him a limo to continue driving with, so he is not instantly out of a job because this one was destroyed.
[–][deleted]  (5 children)
[deleted]
[–]Cttam anarcho-syndicalist| anarcho-communist 12 points13 points14 points  (3 children)
A lot of kudos going to the Black Bloc showing up to put fascists in their place, but everyone should also recognize the amazing (and I think far more important) work of the anarchists in DisruptJ20 who were instrumental in organizing other actions of protest and civil disobedience throughout the day.
Edit: uh do you people not want anarchism to be seen as more than anti-fascism? We're not only standing up to the threat, we're offering up an alternative and people should know what that is
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[removed]
[–]Varklai platformist anarchist 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
<3
[–][deleted]  (6 children)
[removed]
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 12 points13 points14 points  (5 children)
True, but it made me feel better haha
[–][deleted]  (3 children)
[deleted]
[–]Hfjwjcbjfksjcj 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
Because this post hit /r/all
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
It did? Good shit
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
[deleted]
[–]jpoRS anarcho-pacifistbut in a reasonable way 17 points18 points19 points  (12 children)
Seriously though, how stupid do you have to be to street park a limo on a day with publicly announced anti-capitalist actions happening?
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–]jpoRS anarcho-pacifistbut in a reasonable way 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
Haha, yeah I guess so.
[–]fngrs 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
it doesn't happen in america enough for most people to notice or know what that means.
[–]jpoRS anarcho-pacifistbut in a reasonable way 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Anywhere else I'd concede the point, but this is DC. This isn't their first rodeo, and locals knew what was coming. Even if "limo fire" was a delightful surprise, it was still poor judgement to not garage that shit.
[–]MoLoLu anarchist 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
People generally arent aware. Demo yesterday (small no smashy kind) shut down the inner city for 1hr and everyone ran headlong into it. Public transport got stuck. Cars piled up. You'd think ppl would know to avoid stuff like this given how often we march here but nope. Most folk just don't even think of it.
[–]TheChristmasFish 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Some kinda borderline insurance fraud?
[–]jpoRS anarcho-pacifistbut in a reasonable way 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
If it was an older model I'd think it was some kind of plant. But that things looks plenty new.
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–]Alequo 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
Is "the man" not people that own things?
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
True, this is nothing for the people who own the limo service.
[–]Kazatudo 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
I just hope it gets worse.
[–]coweatman 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
for that limo? i'm not sure it can.
[–]skoomacat_88 anarcho-communist 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
Yessss. Anyone know what the graffiti says on the advertisements behind it? I can't read it.
[–]stardust_witch Insurrectionist 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
The only one I can make out is "Who do you protect?"
[–]AjmanExpress 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
pretty much how i feel after sanders lost and i saw what choices we had left. What came to mind when i saw this picture
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
👌🏾
[–]Shy_Guy_Money 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
DC native here, I followed you guys for a bit and I even took some broken limo glass to remember.
But I'm curious, how many of you that were in DC actually live here? Did most of you come in from out of town?
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The post is climbing.. it's not too far down on r/all and if it gets anywhere near the top it's basically fucked. That's just how reddit naturally works.
[–][deleted]  (9 children)
[removed]
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 22 points23 points24 points  (7 children)
I know right it's like they feel their voice is unheard and they might have been in a tough spot for their adult life. Shame.
[–][deleted]  (5 children)
[removed]
[–]ProlierThanThou Insurrectionist>blows up social relationship 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
Right? I can't believe there's people actually willing to drive around in these things.
[–][deleted]  (30 children)
[removed]
[–]Cascadianarchist2 anarcho-cascadian/queer/wiccan-atheist/socialist/techno-tree-hugger 35 points36 points37 points  (4 children)
property damage isn't violence.
PROPERTY DAMAGE ISN'T VIOLENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE ISN'T VIOLENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE ISN'T VIOLENCE
Violence is when you physically attack people
Attacking property is not the same as attacking people.
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[removed]
[–]Summerspeaker anarcho-transhumanist 5 points6 points7 points  (10 children)
Sadly, we live in a violent, messy world. Going smashy smashy is like performing an intervention on your addict friend. It's kind of a mean thing to do, but the circumstances warrant it. The status quo is a crisis.
[–][deleted]  (9 children)
[removed]
[–]Summerspeaker anarcho-transhumanist 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
Ideally there wouldn't be any smashing at all because we'd just take all the nice things. Why burn a bank when you could turn it into a community center or whatever? Anarchists smash stuff because it fits with our current limited capacities. If we try to take over space, the cops eventually drive us away, as with Occupy Oakland. We're not powerful enough yet to employ the optimal tactics. And of course we're all flawed human beings. (William Gillis might be AI.)
[–][deleted]  (6 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
What if you smash his drugs and syringes?
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 3 points4 points5 points  (5 children)
This is not an objective statement, but thanks for your perspective.
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
I know what you mean.
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Btw, when I said this wasn't objective, I actually meant the title of the upload.
[–]coweatman 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
that's not violence.
[–]mak02k 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
I don't agree with burning cars in a protest but you gotta admit, this photo looks almost cinematic and would look better without the background photographer and trashcan in the forefront
[–]Cascadianarchist2 anarcho-cascadian/queer/wiccan-atheist/socialist/techno-tree-hugger 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
Here's the thing with car burning: if you only burn cars that are expensive enough, you're attacking the personal property of the owning class. We workers drive older, cheaper cars. The person with a new BMW or Mercedes almost certainly has to have gotten their wealth on the backs of workers. As such, burning that car is a way to get back at them for stealing working class labor value, and deprive them of ill gotten gains.
If you burn working class cars you're an asshole, however.
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
That's all I'm saying
[–]mewdejour 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
So as these pictures climb to r/all are we gonna disappear like r/Leftwithsharpedge?
[–]Cryzgnik 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
That subreddit disappeared because of the attention it got from /r/SROD after being made subreddit of the day.
That being said, I suppose the attention from /r/all could just as easily get this sub reported and taken down, but from the perspective of an outsider's cursory perspective, this subreddit seems slightly less extreme than /r/leftwithsharpedge.
[–]T0xicati0N anarcho-noideaist 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Sorry, what's r/SROD?
[–]T0xicati0N anarcho-noideaist 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I'm dumb.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
If r/anarchism gets taken down while r/altright can operate here.. then fuck this place.
[–]freedom_flower person of colourto burn down the whitehouse 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
come to raddit.me
[–]Hyalinemembrane anarchist without adjectives 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Brings a tear to me eye.
[–]tones2013 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
did this actually happen today or what?
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
[–]boilerpunx person of colourRace Baiter 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Factually untrue. Guy didn't even miss a day of work
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Here you can read about the driver and that his employer swiftly sent him a replacement limo to drive the people who rented it home with.
[–]iPissOnRebelGraves person of colour/ Anarcho-Communist[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Wouldn't really worry about the person who drives it. They'll have time off and get paid for it.
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
[–][deleted]  (7 children)
[removed]
[–][deleted]  (3 children)
[removed]
[–]DeadPresidentJFK anarcho-communist 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Ok, well, now some black blocs got my message apparently. ;-)
[–]insanegorey 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
And so was the guy who worked that glorified taxi cab.
[–][deleted]  (13 children)
[removed]
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2017 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 15721 on app-771 at 2017-01-24 00:08:09.991721+00:00 running e9da7ae country code: NL.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%