So a bunch of anarchists have decided that they should go on smashing a bunch of small businesses in a street called "Locke Street" for no apparent reason other than the street being associated with John Locke. Is there anything particularly bad about John Locke? Sounds like dumb moralism to me, wouldn't he be considered progressive considering the fact that he lived in the fucking 17th century?
Seriously, why do anarchists do this shit? This is literally the worst praxis you could ever come up with, and this is also ironic: People develop dual power and communal interests against the anarchists, because they don't want to see their community vandalized.
I'd like to add, what is with all the BO at the rallies? Hygiene does not start when the power structure changes, it starts today. The rally I attended smelt like weed and ass. For Pete's sake take a shower Holla Forums and wipe at least twice when you shit.
Did it work? Did they raise "awareness"? Fucking hell this is ridiculous.
It was explicitly against gentrification, the small businesses are overpriced hipster shit for the petite bourg middle class fucks that ruin neighborhoods while pretending to improve them. None of the businesses vandalized were things actually used by the locals, they did nothing for the area but drive the asshole to local ratio and property prices up
Canada's shitheel priminister showed up in support for the parasites and ate a $10 donut offered to him by some greasy hipster, that alone should tell you which side is in the right
Honestly though how can anyone really fight gentrification? I don't see how it is possible without revolutionary action. Simply smashing some windows won't do shit.
Gentrification is literally just the result of the law of value applied to urban stratification. Unless you don't actually seize living space from the landlords, you don't fight it. One donut shop made a riot donut" - how much more could you be possibly and literally cucked by capitalism?
I don't really care who is in the right. I care about what works. I also hate Jeff Beezos, Elon Musk and fucking Quentin Tarantino. I'd be in the right to shot them all. Yet, would it do any good for my ideological cause?
I see nothing remotely wrong with this. It's a form of activism that hurts porky more than it hurts the workers.
So anarchist squats made for homeless people don't do squat? So then we should completely dismiss all third world ML movements because they seem inactive and aren't doing much to overthrow the governments they live in?
How the fuck does smashing some windows compare to overthrowing a government? Seems like you apply two different standards there. Also, Maoists seized control over the the state of Nepal, just last month.
Here is the thing, I never see anarchists actually smashing big shit, they always go for some petite bourgeois nobodies, but almost never go for a corporate bank or whatever. The only anarchist group that actually tries to do that are those Greek Stirnerist edgelords from "Conspiracy of the Fire Nuclei" (yes, that's their actual name)
If you just want to piss liberals off, DPRK graffiti would actually help. I don't know man, I'm still not getting it. According to that logic, we should all support ISIS, they've caused millions of dollars of damage and had the police going out in SWAT teams.
Jee willickers, mr. tank, it's almost as if the working class of the first world has problems of its owns and the governments that leftists within them have more resources to overthrow anti-capitalist movements as a whole? I thought the coup in Chile, and the death of Sankara might be allusions to that. Or maybe how the FBI was able to disrupt activities in Occupy Wall Street.
I guess the fact that they're protesting gentrification and not actually declaring an all out people's war might have something to do with it.
Anarchists piss off liberals enough as it is, what with making Dick Spencer crawl back into the shadows from whence he came or making the TWP look like pussies in Michigan.
The thing that you have to understand is that people within the first world have the illusion that we are free, and that our society is just and fair. It's very much a case of the lemmings. The masses as a whole don't have the incentive to go out and start a revolution because the system would still provide for them better than a third world country would. On top of that, they're still cucked by the belief of reform and liberalism. The spectacle is strong with these ones.
True, I'm aware of the Nuclei of fire, but such actions aren't just attributed to them as a whole. Other anarchists help out with distribution of resources as well as providing shelter for refugees.
But I'm getting off track. To say that you will find the same amount or types of activism within different material conditions, along with different governments is bullshit.
Except for the fact that ISIS wants to implement a theocracy and conduct world conquest through Jihad. I doubt that anarchists could be compared with ISIS considering one wants to maintain reactionary policies and commit acts of genocide against other muslims and jews.
You're right, that's basic materialism. But what you are doing is just mental gymnastics. When you basically admit that Third World commies have different tools at their disposal that would never work in the West, how the fuck do you come to the conclusion that smashing petite bourgeoisie shops will? In fact, wouldn't you agree that doing so would actually have better consequences in the Third World, where people are more likely to join armed riots?
The worker's vanguard achieves nothing by doing something which the masses won't join. You've read Lenin and Stalin? Activism, by itself, is just a means to an end, so doing it completely isolated from popular support when in fact your goal is to get popular support, is nonsensical, just like individual acts of terrorism.
Which was completely correct in retrospect, theit fear was that the newly elected nominally communist government would just turn into social democracy or even Dengism, and by forcing the provisional government to the negotiation table they maintained the revolutionary momentum. Now they want to expropriate landlords and Indian porky, which wouldn't have been possible just with the CPN-UML.
Anarchists ARE part of the spectacle. Hardcore. Check G20. It's riot tourism.
Communists also want to conquer the world. I don't think it's very relevant what you want, when in the end, revolution is carried out by the masses. And ISIS has done more to damage capital than anarchists.
Hot water is expensive when you're a poor squatter.
I never said this would start a revolution, but it did achieve results. While being capitalists themselves. By your logic, the US were real anti-capitalists because they caused billions of damage to Germany, Italy and Japan. Your point is moot.
Depends on where they strike. Attacking centres of capital would likely have a better effect as most of those businesses would be foreign as opposed to domestic. Look no further than the EU giving more support to European businesses in Africa.
Which again, as I said, people within the first world aren't as revolutionary due to the spectacle and the belief of liberal democracy. There are a shit ton of lemmings. The second the system fails, or they have little to loose then it's likely they'll adopt a similar anti-capitalist stance that you might see in Greece from 1970 to onwards when anarchists helped overthrow a dictator, or Cuba in its war against US imperialism during the bay of pigs.
So then we should just allow gentrification to go unchallenged and should turn a blind eye to it. No shit it's not a means to an end, but as I said raising awareness of gentrification and noting that people don't buy into it is enough to state that there is an under current of a non-liberal disdain for the system.
Good I have no objections to that. But that still contradicts your point of "Maoists overthrowing the government". Forming a super bloc doesn't make it a overthrow. They were able to achieve that shit in 2006.
t. someone who's never read debord Anarchists make an effort to smash the spectacle, which is why they had the g20 riots. But god Almighty, it's not like capitalists have been able to commodify anti-capitalist imagery and then sell it as part of an integrated spectacle of its own, right?
And you say you've read Read Lenin. Not to sound like some movie villain but We're not conquerors, we're liberators. Not everyone wants to have satellite nations with minimal autonomy like the USSR.
Such as? If I'm going to shit on the street, I don't start a revolution but at least I've achieved something.
How the fuck is ISIS capitalist? I don't support them but not everything anti-capitalist is automatically socialist. NRx is anti-capitalist as well.
No it fucking doesn't, stop squirming. Answer me this: Do you think Third Worlders in Bangladesh smashing a sweatshop have more or less chances of popular support than some middle class kids smashing a boutique in Canada?
Evidence that it challenged it? Did somebody go "oh wow now that this college kid smashed my neighbour's window I really know the mechanism of gentrification now"? You're so fucking delusional it's almost hilarious.
Fucking hilarious coming from someone who equates neoliberal ideology with the spectacle. YOU have never read Debord, and it's painfully obvious. Also, you claim that G20 protests were not part of the spectacle which, again, delusional and dislodged from the real world. Did you ever go to these events yourself? Have you spoked with any of your real life comrades who do these things? Or are you just claiming from your basement that this is some elaborate subversive method to destroy the spectacle?
"Syria’s oil may ostensibly be the militant group’s most profitable resource but even if US, French and Russian planes succeed in trying to bring down its crude production, local revenues like taxes could keep the Isis economy churning. An FT investigation indicates Isis earns at least as much from taxation, extortion and confiscation as oil.
…Isis reaches into nearly every aspect of the economy in its territory, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. After months of interviews with officials, analysts and people on ground, the FT has discovered money from trade, agriculture, and remittances — even salaries paid by the governments that are fighting it — all flowing into the jihadis’ coffers."
I think the point people are pointing out here isn't that is it should go unchallenged, but that the actions committed seem to do very little to address the actual problem presented or combat capital in any meaningful and worthwhile way. Nobody would have a problem if the actions were done out of necessity and practicality with results that spured on continued and propogating revolutionary sentiment or movement but all it appears to be doing is merely reafirming the already held beliefs of those committing the actions, making it somewhat lifestylist and, to a degree, opportunist. The likelihood of anyone observing being inspired or even understanding what was going on is for the most part very slim. Propaganda of the deed doesn't work in this day and age, it died decades ago. Action has to be coordinated and understood, otherwise it becomes just another revel of rightous indignation and expression which fails to carry itself further.
I think the point people are pointing out here isn't that is it should go unchallenged, but that the actions committed seem to do very little to address the actual problem presented or combat capital in any meaningful and worthwhile way.
I would see this as more of a "sign of the times". I too doubt that it is revolutionary, but if it's enough to get politicians anxious about gentrification, as I posted, I would argue that it's leading to something which will lead to an action which will lead to propagating revolutionary sentiment. But this would have to be on top of other accumulating factors. Even though MLs in India are attacking institutions of capital, it hasn't accumulated enough to have the entirety of India on the verge of Marxist revolution.
So what would cause a revolution? One within the first world, the other in the third? I dread to think that Freidrich Fukuyama was right.
I would say that unfortunately, for the most part, revolution will not come as long as people basic needs or fufillments are met on some level. Mere discontent is not the inception of revolution but an expression upon which capital propels it's existence forward. We lack the conditions and strict material scarcity from which expression can be made into revolution, so we consume commodity to make this expression expressed, to give it form which to us is palatable and "real". Only when we lack the means to express by commodity will we be forced to express by revolution. The most we can hope to do is prepare for the moment where such a thing is imminent either by crisis or by harsh scarcity.
Fear not, you poor brown people, whitey is here to save you (from ourselves)!
Gentrification means rising property values kick everyone out of the neighborhood who originally lived there, so driving down property values by making the neighborhood a shitty place to live/run a business is a legitimate tactic to combat it
because anarchy is the bogeyman to keep the taxes flowing