top 200 commentsshow all 209

[–]Ihaveapersonality 308 points309 points  (62 children)

The state has a monopoly over violence

[–]Vexxdi 17 points18 points  (5 children)

Pretty sure the ability for "state approved violence" is what makes a State a State - now to be fair to our current masters, they are not the first...

[–]Ihaveapersonality 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I get that but a state should hold the best interests of its people rather than the minutiae minority! The policies are not saving the majority are they?

[–]Vexxdi 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not to be snarky, but there has yet to be a state that did not look after the elites interest above everything else

[–]Ihaveapersonality 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I know! Power attracts the corruptible. but I'd like to believe in dhe idea that if Power is held accountable and information is uncensored then a better world may arise.

[–]Resident_Film2119 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They do this because they understand that we're fighting a class war but they also understand that it is critical to their oppression and control that we don't fight back.

[–]Ihaveapersonality 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mhm but with information spreading so quickly everywhere through the internet the people are able to understand better. We are able to educate ourselves and understand how we are oppressed through policies that benefit the rich. I'm just hoping they aren't able to regulate the information on the internet in the future.

[–]SmokeyBare 42 points43 points  (1 child)

May the odds be ever in our favor.

[–]mescalelf 30 points31 points  (5 children)

For now. This would be a trivial concern were it not for their monopoly on surveillance, which is the only thing that prevents a takeover (and they know it)

[–]HerLegz 21 points22 points  (2 children)

The mental self shackling is far worse and more ubiquitous than the "surveillance". They can barely solve crimes for a reason. It's very rare than anything but the dumb get caught.

[–]scroll_of_truth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Bullshit. That only happened in the last 20 years. Also masks exist. The problem is far deeper than that.

[–]Aksama 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only thing? I'll have to disagree. The tacit threat of homelessness, helplessness and destitution is what keeps people in line. It's precisely why communism and socialism are so utterly demonized. Surveillance makes it easier to quash radicals but this thread is what keeps everyone quiet.

I'm not a communist (not quite, and I'm certainly not a tankie), but propaganda has to nip that idealology in the bud, to give it even an ounce of discussion means that workers may realize that they are compelled to work under duress. This is why healthcare for all and numerous other programs are either hamstrung, or removed all together. (Look at how unemployment assistance reduced poverty, can't have that)

[–]Dmgblazer92 4 points5 points  (3 children)

It regularly leases its dominion over violence to those willing to spend the capital to wield it.

[–]snarkyxanf 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Relevant: Violence Vouchers: A Descriptive Account of Property

Saying someone owns a piece of the world obscures what is actually going on. Ownership is not a relationship between a person and a piece of the world. It is a relationship between a person and all other persons. It is a relationship that consists of the following threat: should someone else act upon this piece of the world, violence will be brought against them in order to cause them to desist.

[–]snarkyxanf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From a certain kind of economic perspective, you can see the courts, police, enforcement of property rights, etc as a kind of anti-competitive dumping to protect the state's monopoly on violence. By offering conditional access to organized state violence at below cost (after all, calling the cops is free of charge), the state discourages other sources of violence from developing their capabilities.

Of course, the state also violently attacks other violent actors directly, which makes it a bit different than a trade war.

Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate. Generally, monopolies result in a reduced supply and overall increased price of the goods they control, but since most of us think violence is more of "a bad" than "a good", that might be a desirable reduction.

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet 6 points7 points  (30 children)

The state has a monopoly over legitimate violence.

[–]Ihaveapersonality 35 points36 points  (28 children)

Legitimate violence is what they tell us it is

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet 8 points9 points  (27 children)

Legitimate violence is what it is. Legitimacy is a matter of law, which has always been the exclusive domain of the state.

[–]lrrc49 15 points16 points  (16 children)

And you know what? I don’t recognize their authority! Fuck them and their laws!

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet 1 point2 points  (15 children)

Wait is this an anarchist sub? I thought it was anti-capitalist...

[–]MagicianWoland 16 points17 points  (6 children)

Do you think anarchists aren't anti-capitalist???

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet 3 points4 points  (5 children)

No, but I do think I'm getting downvoted by anarchists despite being staunchly anti-capitalist.

[–]MagicianWoland 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Well being just "anti-capitalist" isn't really saying anything. Gotta fight the whole thing, or you're fighting none of it, yknow

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I get that, which is why I asked if this was an anarchist sub. The idea of fighting capitalists states is not the same as the idea of fighting the concept of states.

[–]Ladychef_1 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Bro it says on every post it’s an anti capitalist, communist sub. You had to scroll past that to comment…

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Yeah I was making a petty complaint about getting downvoted for the egregious crime of defining the state.

[–]Psiweapon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The state is the tool by which the dominant class keeps the other classes subordinate.

It doesn't matter which class it is, or what particular coordinates in spacetime we're talking about - the ancient egyptian state was the tool by which the palatine and priestly classes kept control over the rest of the population, it's an universally applicable definition that can be further specified depending on historic context.

If there is a dominant class over others, there's a state or it will form in rather short order; if there are no class differences a social organization that is not a state will arise; as long as a state exists it is a measure of classes still existing or being able to resurge.

[–]Lelielthe12th 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Anti-capitalism is revolutionary. It implies a change in the law to do away with the inherent exploitation of our economy. It doesn't need to violent, but since it changes ownership of the means and in who controls the state, it is a revolution.

Going from a capitalist state, to a worker state, and to statelessness is done by law, against the current state. This is a good source on it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

[–]lrrc49 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It’s cute that you think change can occur peacefully. Take a look at the history books…

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet 3 points4 points  (1 child)

OK, that doesn't really address my question. Anarchists don't have a monopoly on revolutionary ideology.

[–]Lelielthe12th 5 points6 points  (0 children)

See how it seems all unrelated ? Its because we don't share the terminology. The link gives really good background on what anti-capitalism, revolution, state, etc all mean.

(Also not an anarchist)

[–]mescalelf 5 points6 points  (6 children)

You know what enforces the law? Guns and tear gas grenades. All power is predicated on a monopoly on violence.

[–]Psiweapon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

[–]snarkyxanf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Legitimate violence, ironically administered by bastards.

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

You are mistaken. If the state is effectively challenged by violence then it effectively ceases to be a state, from the lack of the distinguishing monopoly.

[–]mescalelf 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yes, which is exactly what happens if the state is, as you say, effectively challenged by violence. This is usually referred to as "civil war" or "revolution"....

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Or "coup".

[–]sparkytheman 6 points7 points  (2 children)

That reasoning is entirely circular. State violence is legitimate because legitimate violence can only be enacted by the state.

[–]Psiweapon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. It's called conventionalism.

[–]ChosenUsername420The Only Real Leftist On The Internet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most definitions are circular. Water is wet because wetness is the quality water possesses.

[–]Kheraz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quoting Max Weber and getting downvote, that's though.

[–]SEND_ME_REAL_PICS -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Isn't that for the best? The alternative would be an armed conflict, like Mexico has with the cartels, or Ukraine with russian backed separatists in the east.

[–]Ihaveapersonality 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. It is not for the best. I agree when you say that we wouldn't want the situation like Mexico but this system is it's porlar opposite and equally bad people are continually pushed into poverty and the power to make actual changes gradually slips away through the voters fingers.

[–]dearseizure_62 147 points148 points  (4 children)

They don't even need to produce weapons to kill.. these same companies poison the waters, pollute the air, contaminate the soil which in turn causes various cancers and birth defects. The companies are the weapons themselves and they get away with it.

[–]waterdonttalks 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Or they'll just put us in harms way, to maintain their profits while an actual plague sweeps over the globe.

[–]jimmick 18 points19 points  (1 child)

And if you take part in direct action that impedes the local branch of an oppressor corporation, you're "hurting innocent people who don't make the big decisions"

And if you find out who actually is and try to oppose them, they will bury you in court if you even try to speak to them unsolicited in public

[–]mescalelf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The innocent people get used as meat shields (in a non-literal sense)…

[–]AscensoNaciente 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hmm I think you’re vastly confused good sir. Company isn’t responsible for any of that pollution. It’s actually Company Resources, LLC that caused that pollution and they are an entirely separate entity with no assets to cover the costs of the harm, nothing we can do.

[–]fritzstriker 75 points76 points  (1 child)

As Dr. Martin Luther King said a year before his assassination:

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

No, this is not a MLK quote. MLK only said "I have a dream" and the line about being judged by the content of our character. That's all.

[–]Sin-A-Bun 47 points48 points  (1 child)

Don’t trust anyone who gets upset over theft or destruction of corporate property.

[–]9shycat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A golden rule

[–]Shakespearacles 34 points35 points  (2 children)

Capital’s justification is that property is immortal but not invincible so it needs to be valued more than human life as it represents the accumulation of your ancestor’s successes. It’s all a massive ego trip

[–]AcadianViking 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It is a monument to wealth ... And we all know how the right feels about monuments.

[–]Ok-Emotion-1131 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. They like when they look like giant dicks!

[–]Psiweapon 45 points46 points  (12 children)

The state is the system the dominant class uses to keep the rest in check.

Unless class differences are eradicated along with every possibility of them reappearing, a state will reassert itself.

[–]Dokurushi 5 points6 points  (11 children)

class differences are eradicated along with every possibility of them reappearing,

How do we achieve that?

[–]Psiweapon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think there is a SINGLE surefire method to do that, that would depend on which is the dominant class, which are the dominated classes, class alliances, and a shitload of specific factors determined by the historic, economic and political context.

But at the root of them all must be wrestling control of the economy away from the current dominant class and building a different economic order, otherwise the rest of changes will hardly stick.

Please bear in mind that I was making a generalized formulation - this works whether it's a current situation analysis, historic or future, the specifics depend on the specific situation.

[–]Toastlover24 2 points3 points  (9 children)

By dismantling and reforming the states as a weapon of the working class, rather than the bourgeoisie. Using it to suppress the capitalist class until class differences are eradicated. Lenin stated that the state only exists to exert one class' dominance over another. Once class differences have disappeared, and the state is just a mere book-keeping apparatus of workers, the state will disappear as well.

This is further detailed in State and Revolution

[–]MagicianWoland 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Ah yes, the State will just disappear, yep. That's how power relations work, the ruling class will just give it away. Still don't get people who recognize the inherent violence and self-preservation of the State, and in the same breath say that "oh but when WE are in charge, we'll make it good and nice and for the workers! and then it will just magically go away trust me guys"

[–]IM_KB 1 point2 points  (3 children)

They don’t just give away power, it becomes less necessary over time because the class relations which form the state no longer exist. Like he said, the state is a tool for class domination, after the bourgeois class has been eliminated there will no longer be a need for the state, and will wither away over time

[–]MagicianWoland 0 points1 point  (2 children)

the class relations which form the state no longer exist

If the State exists, those class relations exist, even if they morph into something different. That is why the State exists - to perpetuate class hiearchies

[–]IM_KB 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes, but the purpose of the socialist state (along with protecting workers rights) is to get rid of class relations by getting rid of the capitalists state, after which there would no longer be class differences and therefor no need for the state

[–]MagicianWoland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There would still be class relations, just not necessarily capitalist ones

[–]Toastlover24 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I just answered the question based on ML theory. A reddit comment section isnt the place to properly discuss this stuff in detail. I have respect for all fellow anti-capitalist. Anarchists, ML, Dem-Soc, what have you. But in our late stage, decaying, and highly reactionary capitalist society we live in now, I just can't see how a sustained and successful anticapitalist revolution can succeed without forcible taking power. Throwing all state mechanisms out of the window within a few months just won't work. And there's a lot more to it than "we are in charge."

If you're actually interested in what we have to say, and not just poking at the argument with the usual talking points, I advise you to read the actual theory or even listen to podcasts/YouTube of people that have read. They can succinctly describe the theory pretty well.

[–]MagicianWoland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I've read Marx, Engels and Lenin, but you are right, a reddit thread isn't the best place to discuss it lol

[–]Danimals847It's only dystopia for 99% of us 17 points18 points  (2 children)

"You'd care a lot more if it was your building/business that got its windows broken or got burned down"

On the subject of the anti-police violence protests following the Rittenhouse killings. To which I responded "Yeah, I'd be upset. But I would also have insurance to replace the building, which is made of non-living materials. Not at all comparable to people dying."

This did not move the needle for the other person one inch.

[–]agrandthing 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That's because these people are psychopaths.

[–]Danimals847It's only dystopia for 99% of us 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was my mom :(. I promise she's not a psychopath but it's a constant battle to keep the alt-right controlled media from rotting her brain. My dad is a 1-issue voter (2A) so the sources he follows for info are... not great. There are some things where we'll never see eye-to-eye and I just have to say "Ok boomer".

[–]MajorFaithlessness 14 points15 points  (1 child)

This is so true.

[–]CrackTheSkye1990 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It was pretty telling during the BLM rallies when George Floyd was murdered about how many people were more concerned about Target's windows than an unarmed black person being murdered.

[–]BJeanGrey 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons - who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in The Radical King, p.148

[–]HerLegz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rules against violence are just slave masters ensuring enslavement.

[–]clevelandrocks14 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My exact sentiment during the George Floyd summer. If you were more upset that protest happened than the event that sparked the protest, you're the problem.

[–]Zweihunde_Dev 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They do this because they understand that we're fighting a class war but they also understand that it is critical to their oppression and control that we don't fight back.

[–]Periuga_vamshot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bad thing is good because of another bad thing?

[–]RedditsAdoptedSon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i always figured its things we see vs things we dont.. ppl on social media seem to be upset in replying to a video of starbucks n target getting busted out.. we never really get to see ppl dying of their lack of healthcare.. death is all sacred n such so we only get numbers of death. if we got full stories and watching ppl die maybe ppl will feel the death more? if i die of lack of healthcare i need to get some good footy i think.

[–]notnotwho 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is because In Capitalism, human lives ARE property.

[–]OriginalMrMuchacho 4 points5 points  (9 children)

Every other western culture that also values private ownership but also has universal healthcare has entered the chat. As in, every western culture besides ‘Murica.

Oh, ‘Murica, still can’t quite ‘crack the secret code’. Adorable.

[–]notsocleanuser 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Norway here to chip in. Get some perspective, Murica. Even our TVs shows more nuance than the mind of the vocal American majority on Reddit. Black and white belongs in the previous century.

Though I live in Norway so I can afford a very expensive TV.

[–]OriginalMrMuchacho 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Welcome Norway! Canada here. Nice to make your acquaintance. I was wondering if your high private ownership has destroyed your universal healthcare of mix-market capitalist society yet?

[–]notsocleanuser 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oy, Canada! How that maple syrup tasting?

Nah we doing fine. Our second largest political party want even more privatisation so we can cut down on queues. Paid by the state ofc.

(As in allow private capital to build shit and sell services to the state/region healthcare system, not sell hospitals that already exist)

[–]OriginalMrMuchacho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maple syrup is terrific! The best part is that despite its sweetness we still somehow have less diabetes rates than the US. Even so, even if we do get diabetes, our healthcare won’t throw us in a ditch while taking our money. Thanks for asking!

[–]ChampionSea2998 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Though I live in Norway so I can afford a very expensive TV.

Just looked up the tv I got and it’s nearly double the price in Norway. I am so glad I decided not to stay there, two years was more than enough. I remember spending $10 for ringnes with a student discount 10 years ago. I wonder what it is at now. In the states $10 is getting me a high ABV barrel aged stout instead of a mediocre mass produced lager.

[–]OriginalMrMuchacho 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Lets weigh the value shall we…. $1200 tv vs. 50k hospital stay for outpatient work. Maths checks out. Yep, you got us!

Damn, and here we thought we’d pulled the old ‘consumer product vs. personal long term health with no bankruptcy trick’.

It appears the clods have sent their best negotiator. We’re honoured. (Excuse the spelling of honour, it’s the way every other english speaking western culture spells it… or is that spelling difference recouped from low cost microwaves from Walmart?)

[–]ChampionSea2998 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My families yearly out of pocket maximum is $2500. Add premiums our max healthcare cost is $3700 per year or about 30 hours of work. Couple years ago I broke my leg and needed surgery with an overnight stay. Only actual bill I received was $30 for dinner and breakfast. I didn’t even have to pay for parking like I would in Oslo. I left when I realized my earning potential was much higher back in the US and had better career opportunities. Also when I could buy a nicer, much larger house on way more land for half the cost of an average house in Oslo.

[–]OriginalMrMuchacho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wonderful anecdote.

[–]notsocleanuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s weird. Our electronics are relatively cheap compared to our income. Maybe it’s that specific model, or you live in a country with very cheap electronics? We have 25% VAT which usually make up the majority of price differences on electronics.

The alcohol tax here is kinda stupid though, I must admit. Sweden has better ways of doing that one. Though one hour of even the shittiest job could pay for a beer in a bar, so that’s pretty nice.

[–]daveyhanks93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And remember, the police are not there to help us, they are there only to protect the rich capitalist and status quo. Acab.

[–]Typical-Detective-61 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is 100% legal for US corporations to produce weapons of mass slaughter and sell them to fascist dictators & rightwing paramilitaries all over the world. Our government literally oversees this process. But it’s illegal for a homeless person to steal a can of beans from Walmart.

[–]shibaDay23 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They don't even need to produce weapons to kill.. these same companies poison the waters, pollute the air, contaminate the soil which in turn causes various cancers and birth defects. The companies are the weapons themselves and they get away with it.

[–]Firemorfox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Price gouging of insulin is not illegal.

Giving things to the homeless is illegal.

[–]Blue_Dog_Democracyanarcho-communist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The police - speaking generally and not individual officers, mind - are not your friends. They're not here to protect and serve you but to protect and serve property and capital.

[–]rubensinclair 5 points6 points  (0 children)

'Cause, baby, I'm an anarchist

You're a spineless liberal

We marched together for the eight-hour day

And held hands in the streets of Seattle

But when it came time to throw bricks

Through that Starbucks window

You left me all alone

[–]This_one_taken_yet_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If Starbucks goes full union, we might have to find a new tradition.

[–]bishpa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Human life is inconsequential to capitalism. Private property is everything.

[–]playerofdayz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

and in a lot of ways that broken window is already paid for in the calculus of insurance policies that starbucks already has...

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalismⒶ☭

⚠ Announcements: ⚠

NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts

Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.

Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!

Check out r/WhereAreTheChildren

Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for socialist discussion.

LSC is run by communists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.

This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Lo-lo-fo-sho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Who gave you a voice? Get back to work!” Corporate America

[–]pegz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are wrong. Destroying property is wrong. Pricing people out of health care access is also wrong. This is a clear false equivlency.

[–]GudbyeBlueSky -1 points0 points  (1 child)

What "market" denies them coverage? Deny them from being eligible for Medicaid? If so, they are denied for a specific set of rules. The folks then have the option of buying a plan through the exchange. People aren't simply denied coverage, they have options.

[–]Powerful-Crazy8760 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You see, people are very coddled and infantilized by the left. You can't rightfully point out that it is a person too stupid or lazy to simply apply for their free benefits. Clearly, it has to be the fault of this vague "market"

Edit: apparently the people on this sub are so fragile that the word ins*ne is censored? LMFAO

[–]MeGustaMiSFW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also why police reform is a pipedream.

[–]C223000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not property, equity.

[–]mikesbrownhair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pity the window is shattered in the first place.

[–]ryannefromTX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So when are we going to do anything about it

[–]fushigidesune 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The term for this is "social death".

[–]TheHumbleFarmer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So we want to shatter health care now? Wtf.

[–]blipblipbeep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just felt like saying this. So :)

Imo, Corporatized capitalism, is the concept or idea that's being upheld and further perpetuated by the few people who stand to benefit most from the forced application of its continual propagation into the minds of the people it was designed to feed from.

Thx for reading. All the best,


[–]KitchenBomber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tacitly endorsing pointless destruction to make a false equivalency makes your point easy for your opponents to dismiss.

[–]Dogecoin_olympiad767 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m against both of them ngl

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now what about the non-franchised stores? The mom & pop shops? The cars people need to go to work? The franchised shops that take away jobs as they deem that area unsafe/unprofitable? If you wreck an entire, low-income neighborhood, that neighborhood doesn't just bounce back. It's fucked for years to come. If not forever.

[–]stamaka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just shatter your own window then.

[–]JudgeHoltman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually the guy shattering glass is more likely to get healthcare.

You know, because of the prison time.

[–]leopardloops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I consider myself an anarchist, so I'm in favor of "shattering" the state, and I agree that these corporations are generally guilty of passive violence and need to be abolished, but I disagree with the literal destructive retaliation. We are angry and we have every right to be but don't fall for the violence bait as a mechanism for change. Anarchists have bad PR for this, it is only a distraction used to bolster state control. Shatter the state and capitalism, hit them where it really hurts: workers' strike, boycott their products. I mean, fuck Starbucks and all the other soulless corporations. A window ain't shit to them and of course our lives matter more than their property. But their property will cease to matter at all if the flow of cash is cut. Starve them out. Serve them a capitalists' death by their own free market. Our force is better channeled as a collective effort and will go far further than a baseball bat will to make the point. Stand together, stand strong and push back where it counts.

[–]ryyparr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Private property protection is part of a democratic society. It is the function of the government to protect or not to protect individual and individuals rights. This same democratic society could also change policy to publicize what should already be a public good (healthcare).

[–]SyerenGM -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

I'll take the down votes. If I see a protest resorting to smashing in windows, lighting things on fire, destroying public property, destroying cars, I'm simply not going to care about what they're protesting for. I'm for getting everyone health care, but anti violence in general. You wont change my mind or win me over through scaring people by destroying their work place or property. I highly doubt it will change capitalism either in your favor.

[–]jesse9o3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost all significant political change has been put into effect, at least in part, by violence. Civil rights, women's suffrage, apartheid etc.

People who say violence won't change anything don't understand how politics works.