Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ShadesPath wrote

Ehhhh I don't really think shooting anyone just to steal something is justifiable even under an illegalist framework. Dude should have dropped the shit and got out of dodge instead of pulling a gun out for what is now a set of items that are worth way less than the effort and consequences of taking them and goes against the principle of hurting the haves and not the have nots as Walmart is far less hurt by the death of a LP than the family of said LP. I just think you should only use violence to meet force with equal force.

Of course, the LP should have just let dude go. In fact, I thought it was protocol for LPs to not engage violently with lifters because of cases like this one. I guess Walmart didn't get the memo.

6

lastfutures wrote

The early illegalists shot all kinds of people during their robberies. Almost all cops are among the have-nots.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

Indeed. In this case, the killing of loss prevention officers could discourage the kind of brutality regularly visited on lifters and those incorrectly suspected to be lifting. There is clearly a justification for killing loss prevention if it can be concretely tied to the reduction of violence committed by LP, it's just not one of individual self-defense but rather collective safety.

https://youtu.be/nbpbRa6tZs8?t=144

3

ShadesPath wrote (edited )

I know they've shot people before but I was under the impression that they did so with certain principles in mind. And while cops are among the have nots, I assumed they didn't mess with them unless certain circumstances were met. For example, I assumed bank robberies done by illegalists tried to use very little amounts of violence against people so you wouldn't have, say, the murdering of bank employees.

Also I don't put cops and LPs on the same level. LPs work under worse conditions than cops since they are basically just regular employees with certain privileges given so shooting one doesn't have the same ability to be justified that shooting a cop would.

2

lastfutures wrote (edited )

The Bonnot gang murdered bank employees during every one of their robberies. When burglarizing some capitalist's house, they killed both him & his maid. Individualist illegalists did not give a fuck.

Most of those illegalists would put any person defending the system, or not actively fighting it, on the same level, uniform or not. They didn't see the working class as some beautiful downtrodden revolutionary force in waiting, but the obedient masses willfully maintaining capitalism & the state.

2

ShadesPath wrote

But then illegalists can't be considered anarchists if the simple principle of respecting people's individuality and autonomy can't be maintained in their practice. While I highly agree with the removal of the notion of the working class being agents of "The Revolution", you can't have anarchism and willful murder in the same headspace and most definitely can't have individualism and "obedient masses" in your view of people simultaneously. Hell, equating people who are just living under capitalism to those who are actively trying to maintain it is completely against even the most basic of individualist approach to people who aren't you.

Like, for real, you just gave off some bad red flags: Dehumanization, othering, death penalties for casual existing... Either you're framing this very very terribly or illegalist praxis and thought has the same roots and problems as fascism. I'm going to assume the former because otherwise illegalism doesn't have any legitimacy as a branch of individualist thought if "oh you don't actively fight against capitalism then you deserve death" is an actual belief held by the majority of illegalists.

5

lastfutures wrote (edited )

People have made that argument many times. There's a reason they were accused of elitism, they literally called themselves anarchist aristocrats. I'm framing this better than they often did.

I think there's an argument to be made - from their Stirnerite position - that respecting people's individuality also means believing them when they declare themselves an enemy. If capitalism & the state is a social relation, those norms & power is dispersed throughout society. People trying to live outside & against the social order - with illegalism - are going to run into a whole lot of enemies who aren't wearing a uniform. Does respecting someone's individuality really mean just saying "they know not what they do"? Seems condescending & attributing socialist beliefs to them that they likely don't hold.

To the broke person being shuffled around this prison society, trying to survive, being constantly treated like shit by those defending property, is the LPO - or the bank teller not handing over the money - really a fellow exploited worker? Or have they declared themselves an enemy with their actions? They are on the side of this society.

But I'm more of a nihilist and think all this talk of principles, morals, & justifications is a bit silly & uninteresting. Pointing out this suspect as a bad man not complying with anarchist principles - or worse, supporting the cops - is absurd. It's more likely a story of desperation, consequences, and survival in civilization - and in those stories I tend to sympathize with the anti-social and I'm certainly not going to stand up in defense of the law & good morals or whatever.

edit: There are also more interesting conversations to be had about egoist illegalists than whether they were moral or not.

3

ShadesPath wrote

You assume wrongly that this is about morals. It isn't. It's about the consequences of what we think and do. The logic, actions, and consequences of murder and violence are inherently antithetical to individualist anarchists because they are violations of autonomy, create harmful relations between people, are inherently hierarchical, and worsen conditions for everyone. The precedent that murder sets only ends up adding to and legitimizing the harm that legal systems of any society do to people. This is can be seen by the fact that after the Bonnot gang caught, killed, and the surviving members executed, an anti-anarchist campaign was created. Police saw their funds increase and anarchists were met with a new wave of resistance as they became further affiliated with criminals. The Bonnots violence made them enemies of themselves and everyone around them.

Putting this in personal perspective, to think like them would mean to dehumanize me and find murdering me permissible. That line of thinking is a threat to me and in order to secure my safety, I would have to take action to limit one's ability to hurt me. This means I can't find solidarity with you. If you and I agree in the abolition of law for the mere sake that law brings with it rule that we find no reason to abide by yet you feel my death desirable, you and the law become the same to me: an enemy. Yet to relate to you in such a way is ridiculous! Why have enemies? Why be enemies? Why must death, murder, violence, even be on the table? If you so wish to see your will through then those things only make you an enemy to yourself, a slave to your own self-preservation as you try to avoid the repercussions of your actions. I find such an existence abhorrent as I already find my current state of affairs so. But is that the long con of the illegalist? To commit crime after crime until the State ultimately catches up to you? To end the way of the Bonnots? I don't think so. The Bonnots were a tragedy, as it seems, and one we find no truth of illegalism within other than that to murder is begging for one's own death. I find it saddening to think that "Damn the master, damn the slave, and damn me!" were ever anyone's last words before killing themselves off so that the cops wouldn't get to them.

As far as I see it, illegalism, much like pacifism, and individualism, is a natural evolution of anarchism if you allow yourself to continue down its natural course. You can't have anarchism with laws. In this regard, I would gladly have a great number of conversations about illegalist thought and practice BUT that conversation does not precede the one that must be had about the possibility that someone is a threat to me because of the circumstances I exist in and have to live with and if one is a threat to me then ultimately they are a threat to others and I can't find myself tolerating that because, as stated before, that shit backfires on everyone which circles back to me. How quickly that conversation ends so we can get to the good stuff depends on how quickly we can agree that killing maids, workers, and clerks for being maids, workers, and clerks, at the very least, doesn't amount to anything positive for anyone in the long run and should probably be avoided.

In the spirit of sparking a more interesting conversation, I have an infatuation with gentleman thieves, pirates, hackers, and guerrilla activism as I find how illegalism manifests in each of their practices rather fascinating. My favorite little tidbit of illegalist practice is guerilla gardening because "Fuck your property and your law, I'm planting flowers!" Is just really wholesome. I also think the idea of illegalism being a means of tearing down structures and social relations such that people can build those relationships on their own terms is worthy of way more discussion than it seems to garner.

2

icycoldblackhandofdeath OP wrote

I think Wal-Mart LP is allowed to block the exit or grab your bag as long as they don't touch you.

I agree it was excessive force. I think a lot of us here would agree that wearing a blue suit and badge is all the reason you need to shoot someone, if you so desire, and it's very easy to think of security guards, LP, and the like as an extension of police, but they are private citizens, and the context of the situation applies more than it would to someone who consciously decided to make a profession out of violating other people's rights.

I would have either dropped the bag or flashed my gun. There was really no need for violence here. If the bag was really important enough to escalate the situation to armed robbery, a warning would have sufficed. LP will always disengage as soon as they see a weapon.

2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

I mean I don’t like LPs but that’s just fucked up. Glad the cops caught the guy, people can’t just go around shooting others who are just trying to make a living.

−4

BigThief wrote

Comes with the territory.

I sure as shit don't want to get shot, bombed or knifed. Thus, I will never sign up to be a cop, soldier, or LP. All of those positions should know they have the potential to die on any shift. If you work outside that field and act as any of those positions you again open yourself up for whatever happens.

4

lastfutures wrote

booo

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Yeah real anarchists love random walmart workers getting shot over nothing

−6

lastfutures wrote (edited )

Don't be a cop, people won't shoot you. You wanna be a hero, well there ya go. Sometimes someone at the end of their rope snaps on one of these upstanding citizen douchebags.

Not that I expect anything else from a tankie. Don't know why you're speaking about what real anarchists think.

6

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I can’t believe anarchists would ever bend over backwards to defend senseless murder, but hey why not it is 2020 after all. Ridiculous

−5

lastfutures wrote (edited )

I can't believe tankies would support cops and defend private property. Oh wait, I can, cause they've been doing it since anarchists defended shit like this over a century ago.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Being opposed to random assholes murdering innocent dudes means supporting cops and defending private property? Ok, guess I understand why anarchists murdered those kids in “chaz”

−3

lastfutures wrote

The way you did it? Yes absolutely it's a defense of cops & property. It should probably bother you that your reaction was the exact same as any right wing conservative.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

It doesn’t bother me at all actually. I don’t change my opinions based on who I sound like. I’m not a radlib obsessed with aesthetics and edgy virtue signaling.

−3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Even if the whole damn store was in the bag it wouldn’t justify senselessly killing an innocent person

−1