Riot in Oakland, CA over man executed by cops

Has there actually been a riot over this?

I would imagine that if there hasn't yet, the most likely spark would depend on the trial of the officer who shot him...

They probably think they can get away with more in Oakland than in the rest of the bay. They'll probably pull out the LAPD rule book for this one so people should be prepared.

Some riot porn here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5361rUgc-Fg

[self deleted]

trolling deleted, troll and returning incarnation banned

This is a resolution passed by the Bay Area IWW last night. As far as I know we are the only union, among other things, to call a murder a murder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the Murder on BART:
The Irrational Brutality of the Police Reflects the Brutal Irrationality of Capitalism

The cameraphone videos which have surfaced on YouTube seem like a scene out of some futuristic movie. But the cold-blooded murder is all-too real, and is one more tragic body in the capitalist carnage that is already hundreds of years old.
Police brutality and racism are just as much parts of capitalism as the real estate brutality that we are all facing. The ruthlessness and seeming irrationality of the BART murder is no different that that of a broker who evicts a family that can't pay their mortgage. Capitalism is the only social system that sees overproduction as a problem – when too many people have homes, they must be evicted until houses become profitable again. It is the same with us the workers, who have to sell our labor to live and can only live as long as we can sell our labor. Capitalism has always seen us, not as human beings, but just as one more thing to be bought and sold. This is why it has been starving the workers, especially those from ethnic minorities, in all the industrial cities of America for the last thirty years. It is the same kind of “market adjustment” that is happening with houses right now. They are both done with the same ruthlessness and they both require armed thugs called police.
The capitalist media will claim that this is a case of particularly bad cops, just as they claim that the economic crisis comes from bad bankers. But bad cops and bad bankers will always exist as long as there are cops and bankers, and there will always be cops and bankers as long as we allow ourselves to be robbed at work, as long as those who rob us need men in ties to invest their stolen wealth and thugs to protect it. Also, since our exploiters are only a tiny minority of society, they must divide up the majority. In the US, this , this means racism first and foremost. As Malcolm X said, “You can't have capitalism without racism.”
To get rid of a system that relies on murderers, the workers of Oakland and the entire world have to develop a revolutionary form of unionism, one that recognizes the inherent opposition between workers and bosses and which wants to end exploitation. The Oakland General Strike of 1946, and the workers occupation of Republic Windows in 2008 both give us a glimpse of how powerful we really are.
We want to express our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Oscar Grant, and on the issue of this police execution, we call for the immediate arrest of the police involved on charges of first-degree murder.

For those interested in the sad history of cop killings and antipolice riots, here's one you may not know about (with video):
http://cia.bzzz.net/11th_anniversary_of_schoolboy_killing

Jesus I hadn't seen any of the news coverage of this, I'm surprised there hasn't been more.
Some really fucked up shit.

Well I did see a little bit of coverage on CNN. They even showed video of the riots and the shooting, and the anchor emphasized that the guy was defenseless and was shot in cold blood (but not in those words, obviously). I was really surprised by that.

The BBC had a bit on it too, but probably for less than a day.

It needs to be pointed out that the police department are still "thinking about" whether or not to file charges against the killer cop.

They apparently are not so indecisive about demonstrators.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/10/MND8156MDK.DTL

As someone that was apart of the march that became the "riot " it is simply sickening to see the way that the media has chosen to depict said event. I have seen, since Wednesday night, many clips of flaming trash cans, burning cars, smashed windows (none of which, other than the destruction done to city and police property was warranted nor necessary) but I have seen absolutely no images of the peaceful (though enraged) protest that marched in solidarity from Fruitvale BART to downtown. But the media outlets wish only to enrage the public that chooses to believe everything they see on TV, so that they might ignore the true importance and necessity of our pursuit of justice. The news showed no images of the police brutality that occurred during and after the rally to the protesters (and to those who weren't protesting: when I attended a protest the next day, a man showed me a huge welt on his back from a rubber bullet the police had shot him with as he was riding his bike late during the riots) or the countless threats some cops issued: "Oh don't worry, we'll see you on BART, bitch" they said to one young man. Police brutality is an all too familiar occurrence that we cannot continue to accept; Oscar Grant is not the first, but we will march until he is the last. It has been 10 days since the death of Oscar Grant and Johannes Mehserle, and the other accomplices that helped him execute Grant are still free. We cannot accept a resignation. We cannot accept his silence. We can accept no less than justice.

What the hell does "justice" mean in the context of marching to end standard police operations? Don't be ridiculous.

Of course some rioters will wind up getting heavier sentences than the cop. Haven't even interviewed him yet.
About media hysteria in relation to damage:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11438699

I read that a few dozen were arrested. I also read that the cop was also busted and will be charged with murder.

But a question: somewhere, I think on Indymedia, I read last week some person complaining about anarchists busting windows. I have no idea who it is but what do you think: tight-ass legalists, legitimate complaint or provocation?

I think the Dellinger thing was on TV like 40 years ago... If there was something written, I don't recall it and don't think it's likely to be on the internet. But I recall that he did criticize the riot police, so maybe there was something written.

But a question: somewhere, I think on Indymedia, I read last week some person complaining about anarchists busting windows. I have no idea who it is but what do you think: tight-ass legalists, legitimate complaint or provocation?

My sense from the field, and maybe i'm just getting old, was that the destruction of cars and small businesses was unnecessary. This is mostly pragmatic, though I think destroying other working class peoples shit is just generally stupid. Everything started well, with a powerful vigil and then taking out some cop cars, but things quickly took a turn for the indiscriminate.
I say this largely because, as things heat up, not just with this action but in a number of other ways, militancy is on the rise. This is a good thing generally, as long as it is counterbalanced by a sense of what forms the struggle should take.

In the bay area, in terms of street fighting, we have recently seen a small but militant response to the recent events in Greece, along with these actions. In both, a caricature-like display of anarchism has been present where rioters seem drunk off their own bravado and streetfighter asthetic . For the most part, this tendency typically plays the role of cop magnet, their actions and appearance simply signal to the police when and where to clamp down.

While very inspiring, the Greek riots demonstrated the limitations of rioting quite clearly. Even with occupations and some mass mobilizations, if your dominant manifestation is large street scuffles and cat 'n mouse with the cops you're gonna shoot your wad pretty quickly.

There's pretty regular updates here from one guy who's involved and then there's a blog here: http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/

joselito

My sense from the field, and maybe i'm just getting old, was that the destruction of cars and small businesses was unnecessary. This is mostly pragmatic, though I think destroying other working class peoples shit is just generally stupid. Everything started well, with a powerful vigil and then taking out some cop cars, but things quickly took a turn for the indiscriminate.

i'd scarcely call that 'getting old'. random sporting violence is beyond stupid.

this story made it into the Guardian today.

I read the Dave Dellinger essay in a book years ago, some anthology of his writings. "Revolutionary Non-violence" I think?

On the other hand he also criticized the pacifists who were critical of the NLF because they were "doing something", so...

On second thought, these events, the initial riot and the later 'die in' , were pretty affective at getting the DA to finally snatch the killer and charge him. A good argument for limited and strategic rioting perhaps.

joselito

On second thought, these events, the initial riot and the later 'die in' , were pretty affective at getting the DA to finally snatch the killer and charge him. A good argument for limited and strategic rioting perhaps.

This is a strange thing to read on a communist forum. Rioting is a good tactic because it forces the state to enforce the law? Talk about a contradiction.

The rioters make a mistake if their purpose lies in an appeal to something which should be their enemy.

The DA made it clear in his press conference that the riots and public clamor had little to do with his decision. He'd already gone on record saying that he would have to wait for the BART investigation to be finished and delivered to his office before he issued any warrants or indictments or charges; he initially talked about up to three weeks after the event. As it turned out BART hurried their investigation and the DA issued the arrest warrant about ten days earlier than his initial estimation. Big deal. I'm sure he was probably pressured behind closed doors by the mayor not to drag his feet, and his statement that the riot had nothing to do with his decision rings hollow, but the idea that the rioters were breaking windows and torching cars to get the DA to press charges against the cop is absurd. That's the left-liberal-pretending-to-be-an-anarchist line that protests, demonstrations, die-ins, lock-downs, and window-breaking is the logical extension of petitioning the government for redress of injustices--that is, mediated action. If the professionals of protest (you know, the same creeps who showed up last Wednesday with their orange vests, creating a barrier between outraged non-politicals and the windows they eventually broke) had their way, it would always look like that, and direct action would be completely devoid of meaning.

BillJ

joselito

On second thought, these events, the initial riot and the later 'die in' , were pretty affective at getting the DA to finally snatch the killer and charge him. A good argument for limited and strategic rioting perhaps.

This is a strange thing to read on a communist forum. Rioting is a good tactic because it forces the state to enforce the law? Talk about a contradiction.

The rioters make a mistake if their purpose lies in an appeal to something which should be their enemy.

I guess I realized that wouldn't be too popular.

While many of those on the street may have demanded that the killer be 'brought to justice' or some such, the riots were impressive as an expression of generalized anger not only against the cops and police brutality, but against the extreme precariousness of present conditions. The fact that the state may have felt compelled to act swiftly and arrest the cop so as to temper the rage is simply a sign that a slight opening had been created. In this case, the opening was expressed in the form of a riot followed by, in my opinion, an even stronger action in which some degree of parity was felt between the cops and those on the street. If it is at all true, and I am suggesting that it is highly likely, that the state felt threatened and this pig will be tried for murder because of it, I think it can be seen as a moderate, short term victory.

I don't think anyone was appealing to their enemies in this case, it is simply a power struggle, and these actions created a real, though perhaps ephemeral sense of power.

If you're saying, who gives a fuck, the state enforced it's laws, folks got their jollies, now everybody will go home and be quiet, I think your wrong. My sense was that these actions seemed to catalyze a dangerous and growing frustration, and in particular exposed some cracks in the Obama facade.

joselito

If it is at all true, and I am suggesting that it is highly likely, that the state felt threatened and this pig will be tried for murder because of it, I think it can be seen as a moderate, short term victory.

Sure, it is a victory in the sense that the protesters were clamoring for this guy's arrest and the state responded to their requests (if what you are saying is right). But for a communist (or anarchist, etc.) to be a partisan for this type of victory, instead of criticizing it, is odd to me. This demand is simply an affirmation of the bourgeois legal system and the proper use thereof by the state.

joselito

If you're saying, who gives a fuck, the state enforced it's laws, folks got their jollies, now everybody will go home and be quiet, I think your wrong. My sense was that these actions seemed to catalyze a dangerous and growing frustration, and in particular exposed some cracks in the Obama facade.

Well no I didn't say that but that is exactly what will/has happen(ed). What happens to this supposed "dangerous and growing frustration" will prove me right.

All I am saying is: that rioters should not align themselves with the state. To do this is a mistake for reasons I hope I shouldn't have to explain. The fact that an individual was killed by an armed force of the state is a reason for them to organize against it, not to demand of it that it carry out its functions properly.

But for a communist (or anarchist, etc.) to be a partisan for this type of victory, instead of criticizing it, is odd to me. This demand is simply an affirmation of the bourgeois legal system and the proper use thereof by the state.

I am a partisan of the fact that these actions galvanized enough anger, at the state, and at the general conditions of life, that the state felt threatened and compelled to take some action. I never said that this was the primary 'demand' of the people there, in fact, I saw very few people making demands, the whole thing thus far has been an amorphous expression of discontent. In fact, it was that expression that forced the hand of the state, not any explicit legal demands. The action that the DA took is, for sure, a legal action, granted as a concession, but I'm not so sure how much it affirms the bourgeois legal system and the proper use of the state in this case. What I think has been affirmed here is something a bit larger, that things are heating up on a number of fronts (housing being a big one) and the political situation is a little more dynamic because of it. In these times, the state will have a tougher time managing austerity, and will be forced to yield at times. If yielding means enforcing it own laws, that is not an all together bad thing, it is just one consequence.

All I am saying is: that rioters should not align themselves with the state. To do this is a mistake for reasons I hope I shouldn't have to explain. The fact that an individual was killed by an armed force of the state is a reason for them to organize against it, not to demand of it that it carry out its functions properly.

Here your putting a lot of words in my mouth, who said we should align with the state? What's wrong with prosecuting this guy? Are you advocating some other punishment? What happens in an anarchist utopia when someone is killed anyway?

What I believe is happening here is that my comments don't fit neatly into a black and white, smash the state Anarkyism. There is some nuance here, it is a power struggle, it is about mobilizing enough strength to be able to bear down on Capital and the State, these things can happen both incrementally and with sudden lurches.My sense is that there is some incremental movement right now and it is not towards aligning with the state necessarily. Perhaps, I am waxing hyperbolic in my portrayal of these events, but only because they were youthful, energetic, multiracial, full of solidarity, very anti-Obama, and somewhat effective.

I am a partisan of the fact that these actions galvanized enough anger, at the state, and at the general conditions of life, that the state felt threatened and compelled to take some action. I never said that this was the primary 'demand' of the people there, in fact, I saw very few people making demands, the whole thing thus far has been an amorphous expression of discontent. In fact, it was that expression that forced the hand of the state, not any explicit legal demands.

This is what I originally responded to:

On second thought, these events, the initial riot and the later 'die in' , were pretty affective at getting the DA to finally snatch the killer and charge him. A good argument for limited and strategic rioting perhaps.

So, if you say these tactics were effective at accomplishing something, this gives the impression that this something was their goal. Otherwise, it could not have been effective. Also, from the footage and audio that I have seen and heard, there seemed to be a lot of people making this demand. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but your original post didn't give a different impression.

The action that the DA took is, for sure, a legal action, granted as a concession, but I'm not so sure how much it affirms the bourgeois legal system and the proper use of the state in this case. What I think has been affirmed here is something a bit larger, that things are heating up on a number of fronts (housing being a big one) and the political situation is a little more dynamic because of it. In these times, the state will have a tougher time managing austerity, and will be forced to yield at times. If yielding means enforcing it own laws, that is not an all together bad thing, it is just one consequence.

Except that the state enforcing its own laws is not a yield/concession at all.

Here your putting a lot of words in my mouth, who said we should align with the state?

I never said that you stated that we should align with the state. This is clear from my posts. What I said was the the rioters should not align with something that should be their enemy (and objectively speaking, already is). If they make demands on the state to carry out its functions properly, this is an alignment with the state or at least their ideal of what the state should do. You are now saying this is not what happened. I am pretty skeptical about that but whatever.

What's wrong with prosecuting this guy? Are you advocating some other punishment? What happens in an anarchist utopia when someone is killed anyway?

Are you serious? If you find nothing undesirable about the bourgeois legal system, then I guess there's nothing wrong with prosecuting him. I'm not a fan, however.

I do not "advocate" different types of punishment for criminals in this society. To do this would be to make an appeal for an improvement of the bourgeois legal system instead of its abolition.

As for what happens when someone gets killed in an anarchist utopia (blegh), I don't know. I'm sure it would depend upon the situation among other things. If it is the same thing that happens in this society, then I think I'd rather not live in this utopia. Are you seriously suggesting that in an anarchist society the way these types of things are dealt with would not be different?

What I believe is happening here is that my comments don't fit neatly into a black and white, smash the state Anarkyism. There is some nuance here, it is a power struggle, it is about mobilizing enough strength to be able to bear down on Capital and the State, these things can happen both incrementally and with sudden lurches.My sense is that there is some incremental movement right now and it is not towards aligning with the state necessarily. Perhaps, I am waxing hyperbolic in my portrayal of these events, but only because they were youthful, energetic, multiracial, full of solidarity, very anti-Obama, and somewhat effective.

There is so much meaningless rhetoric in here I seriously don't know how to respond. But if what you say is true, so be it. Great. I really doubt it, though.

So, if you say these tactics were effective at accomplishing something, this gives the impression that this something was their goal. Otherwise, it could not have been effective.

Though the word effective can refer to producing a desired result, it often, and just as commonly, refers to producing a result or having an effect. I thought I made fairly clear above, that the DA prosecution has been an effect of these actions. I guess we could debate further about whether or not it was the singular desired effect, but we simply seem to differ.

Except that the state enforcing its own laws is not a yield/concession at all.

I disagree. You seem to be intent on wedging me into some kind of position whereby what I've said upholds a play-by-the-rules, if-we-could-just-get-the-state-to-enforce-all-its-just-laws, liberal bourgeois orientation. No thanks, I'm in no way advocating that, read what I've said. Just because the states actions in this case match up with the law doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened. Ideally, a mass movement could impose its will on the state, but in the absence of that, there are definitely some cases where it useful to have recourse to formal limitations on what the state or capitalists can do.The state and capital don't necessarily enjoy enforcing laws on the books, labor law comes quickly to mind. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying hire a lawyer. That's the point here, it is a question of process, how is it that we can force the state or capitals hand. That is what I was arguing for in this thread, the type of power that was displayed on the street those few days, not any kind of allegiance to the legal system, for god's sake.

Are you serious? If you find nothing undesirable about the bourgeois legal system, then I guess there's nothing wrong with prosecuting him. I'm not a fan, however.

So, what are you saying? there should be no punishment? By accepting somekind of punishment we are swallowing whole the state, its entire legal system and ideology?Is that what they call Anarky these days.....

Though the word effective can refer to producing a desired result, it often, and just as commonly, refers to producing a result or having an effect. I thought I made fairly clear above, that the DA prosecution has been an effect of these actions. I guess we could debate further about whether or not it was the singular desired effect, but we simply seem to differ.

Yes, you did say it was an effect. You also said that the riots were "effective":

On second thought, these events, the initial riot and the later 'die in' , were pretty affective at getting the DA to finally snatch the killer and charge him. A good argument for limited and strategic rioting perhaps.

If you are seriously saying that the fact that rioting is a cause which produces an effect (any effect at all, I suppose) is a good argument for it, then okay. But that is pretty silly. That something produces an effect is not a good argument for it. For that, the effect would have to be a desired one. For example, you could just as well say that the policemen was effective because he produced an effect, is that a good argument for this guy? I really want to be clear here: what you are saying implies that just because something produces an effect it is a good thing. This is beyond ridiculous and I'm sure you don't agree with it at all. I think what has happened here is that you've switched your meaning of effective.

You seem to be intent on wedging me into some kind of position whereby what I've said upholds a play-by-the-rules, if-we-could-just-get-the-state-to-enforce-all-its-just-laws, liberal bourgeois orientation. No thanks, I'm in no way advocating that, read what I've said. Just because the states actions in this case match up with the law doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened. Ideally, a mass movement could impose its will on the state, but in the absence of that, there are definitely some cases where it useful to have recourse to formal limitations on what the state or capitalists can do.The state and capital don't necessarily enjoy enforcing laws on the books, labor law comes quickly to mind. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying hire a lawyer. That's the point here, it is a question of process, how is it that we can force the state or capitals hand. That is what I was arguing for in this thread, the type of power that was displayed on the street those few days, not any kind of allegiance to the legal system, for god's sake.

Just because it is more comfortable to live in a society of laws which apply to capitalists and the state as well as the rest of us, doesn't mean one should become a partisan for these laws.

If the rioters (or you) call for an individual to be punished by the state it is an objective allegiance to the state and its laws. Is this really so difficult to understand?

So, what are you saying? there should be no punishment? By accepting somekind of punishment we are swallowing whole the state, its entire legal system and ideology?Is that what they call Anarky these days.....

I do not advocate punishment or lack thereof. I am not a partisan of this society and so therefore do not take up its problems and questions for my own. If you "accept" punishment, if you accept the way the state deals with people who have breached its laws, if you call forth for the state to punish individuals who have broken its laws, if you are a partisan for the state's punishment of criminals through jails and executions, then, yes, you have certainly swallowed something.

This was my original question which you have not answered for some reason: Are you seriously suggesting that in an anarchist society the way these types of things are dealt with would not be different?

If you think it would be different, then as an anarchist why advocate the punishment of this society?

I really want to be clear here: what you are saying implies that just because something produces an effect it is a good thing.

I agree to creating some confusion about the use of the word effective, let's accept your analysis above that in order to use the word with any utility here we must assume that the effect is a desired one

Besides a very different interpretation of the events, I think where we differ most is your assumption here:

If they make demands on the state to carry out its functions properly, this is an alignment with the state or at least their ideal of what the state should do.

Any radical scenario will require making demands on the state, I see little way around this, in fact I see this as critical to amassing power. Ideally these demands would be more than simple law and order demands, but I think, at times, these can be worth pursuing, especially in the case of murder, or say, in demanding overtime pay due to you for instance. The question here for me is one of process. If we were to pursue the proper functioning of the state through its means than yes, I would say its a waste of time and implies a level of ideological acceptance of the state apparatus (alignment in your words). In this particular case the states hand was forced as a result of events occuring outside of its proper functioning and outside of its control. It was the nature of those actions, in conjunction with the present political climate that forced immediate action by the state. that's all.

You seem to be able to skirt around the whole issue of making demands on the state by claiming to inhabit some space outside of normal society:

I am not a partisan of this society and so therefore do not take up its problems and questions for my own. If you "accept" punishment, if you accept the way the state deals with people who have breached its laws, if you call forth for the state to punish individuals who have broken its laws, if you are a partisan for the state's punishment of criminals through jails and executions, then, yes, you have certainly swallowed something.

Whoever said you had to be a partisan of this society in order to engage the questions and problems created by it. This is lifestylist poppycock in my mind. It is this disengagement that allows you to than consider any interaction with the state as 'alignment'. So, if you don't take up the problems and questions of this society, what do you do? You must take up the problems and questions of some other world, or I imagine you would get bored having nothing to consider. So again, in your world, how are things like murder handled, come on, pretend it happened in your society, not this society, if that helps?

Any radical scenario will require making demands on the state, I see little way around this, in fact I see this as critical to amassing power. Ideally these demands would be more than simple law and order demands, but I think, at times, these can be worth pursuing, especially in the case of murder, or say, in demanding overtime pay due to you for instance. The question here for me is one of process.

I have not made any arguments against making demands on the state per se. I have argued against making this specific demand, i.e. that a person who has infringed against the law be brought to justice. Making what you call "law and order demands" is a mistake because it does not recognize the fact that law and order is imposed on people by the state and is not at all a favor to them given out of good will. It forces them to respect private property and power, a respect necessary for the continuation of capitalist society. It is something opposed to their interests, therefore they should recognize this and fight against the political power which enforces it, often through killing people, mistakenly or otherwise.

Again, I am not against making demands on the state. I understand that not all demands can be "abolish the wages system." But the fact that one might need to use the state to force their employer to simply pay them their wages is a good argument for getting rid of the system of wage-labor. This is what I would communicate to workers making this demand. And what I said above is what I would say to the people making the above demand.

If we were to pursue the proper functioning of the state through its means than yes, I would say its a waste of time and implies a level of ideological acceptance of the state apparatus (alignment in your words). In this particular case the states hand was forced as a result of events occuring outside of its proper functioning and outside of its control. It was the nature of those actions, in conjunction with the present political climate that forced immediate action by the state. that's all.

I am not against forcing the state to do something through riots or other tactics if possible. I don't really think this is what happened here but we covered this already. But, to say that getting the state to do its self-appointed job through other-than-legal means is good simply because of the means used makes no sense to me. It ignores the fact that means are always a means to an end and celebrates the radicality of the means themselves.

You seem to be able to skirt around the whole issue of making demands on the state by claiming to inhabit some space outside of normal society:

The lie that I have claimed to "inhabit some space outside of normal society" is not at all verified through the quote of mine you use to support it, which is:

BillJ

I am not a partisan of this society and so therefore do not take up its problems and questions for my own. If you "accept" punishment, if you accept the way the state deals with people who have breached its laws, if you call forth for the state to punish individuals who have broken its laws, if you are a partisan for the state's punishment of criminals through jails and executions, then, yes, you have certainly swallowed something.

Nothing in what I said in the above quote states that I am outside of bourgeois society. But obviously it is not clear to you what I mean, so perhaps this will clarify: the problems of this society are not mine because they are more often that not determined by this form of society itself. War, unemployment, police shootings, poverty, crises, hunger, etc. These are certainly awful things and that is why I am against the society which produces them and also concerned with explaining why they exist. But this is different than asking myself "How do I solve these problems?" My purpose is the abolition of the society that produces them at all. So, when someone is shot by a policemen and I find it quite nasty, I do not try to figure out what type of prison sentence he should have. For me, it merely furnishes another proof of why the state needs to be abolished. This is what I would say in this situation and not "punish the bastard!"

Whoever said you had to be a partisan of this society in order to engage the questions and problems created by it. This is lifestylist poppycock in my mind. It is this disengagement that allows you to than consider any interaction with the state as 'alignment'. So, if you don't take up the problems and questions of this society, what do you do? You must take up the problems and questions of some other world, or I imagine you would get bored having nothing to consider.

See above. Let me know if further clarification is needed. Also, this has nothing to do with living a certain lifestyle within capitalist society. Unless it is lifestylist to say what I think.

So again, in your world, how are things like murder handled, come on, pretend it happened in your society, not this society, if that helps?

This is quite funny. Here is how I originally responded to this same question:

BillJ

As for what happens when someone gets killed in an anarchist utopia (blegh), I don't know. I'm sure it would depend upon the situation among other things. If it is the same thing that happens in this society, then I think I'd rather not live in this utopia. Are you seriously suggesting that in an anarchist society the way these types of things are dealt with would not be different?

You have yet to answer my question here even though I have reiterated once. Why haven't you answered it?

But, on to the question, again: I don't know, but then again it is not up to only me. This type of thing would be up for discussion and would not be imposed on people as a set of laws set by the state which if breached gain a certain punishment. The contents and reasons of the action would have to be considered.

If you're asking if I think a random selection of 12 people would be called on to find a person guilty or not guilty, at which point a judge would define the sentence (prison or otherwise) in accordance with his own interpretation of what the law dictates, then no, I don't think this is how a communist society would deal with anti-social behavior such as killings, etc. Sorry to break it to you.

Now, again: do you really think it would not be different?

Are you seriously suggesting that in an anarchist society the way these types of things are dealt with would not be different?

You have yet to answer my question here even though I have reiterated once. Why haven't you answered it?

Excuse me for not answering your question. When did I suggest that things would not be handled differently in an 'anarchist society'?

I don't have much to offer on how this would work itself out, but I do think that certain actions like murder, rape, robbery would require punishments, or some form of social ostracization, etc.

Excuse me for not answering your question. When did I suggest that things would not be handled differently in an 'anarchist society'?

Explicitly, you didn't. I asked the question of whether or not you thought anti-social behavior would be dealt with with differently in a communist society than in this one. I assumed the answer would be yes. I then asked, if the answer is yes, then why advocate the punishment of bourgeois law? I think having a critique of these things implies that we don't support or advocate them. Kind of like not taking sides in wars.

I don't have much to offer on how this would work itself out, but I do think that certain actions like murder, rape, robbery would require punishments, or some form of social ostracization, etc.

I have not argued against this.

I came across this paragraph in a journal called PILLS the other week, and it seemed relevant to the situation in Oakland:

...the state's recuperation of its own crimes through the manipulation of recognition and inclusion is one of the ways in which it manages, on behalf of capital, our rebellions and desires for liberation. In this analysis, the struggle for redress, recognition, and apology are moments of "recomposition". Japanese Canadians, the families of head tax payers, the survivors of residential schools, and other group, organize themselves against marginalizing and poisonous identities thrust upon them by ther state, and assert a preferred identity, the truth of their experience of history, and their demand for justice. This is a potential threat to the power of the state because its crimes are exposed, its version of history is shown to be distorted, its subjects find their autonomous agency - in short, the illusion of fairness and representation the state requires to govern is threatened. To restore the illusion the state accepts responsibility for its crimes, showing that it is capable of acknowledging mistakes, and, as Miki shows, thereby proves itself to be capable of justice and fairness, legitimating future exercises of power, buying time, faith, and trust for the crimes it will need to commit later on the bodies of new groups of people. In this way, the state "decomposes" the threat to its legitimacy certain groups posed to its legitimacy by the unredressed, unapologized-to condition of certain groups. I do not mean to question the importance of recognition and apology for the groups who have struggled so hard for it, nor do I want to suggest that they should remain victims. Ineed, the new identity formations Miki claims are made possible by redress and recognition can themselves be "recompositions" against the state. I mean that in apology and recognition the state has found a discourse that allows it to continue to vicitimize and exploit, to manage race, difference, and citizenship on behalf of capital.