In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil

This post has 42 comments with rating of 2.9/542

• 
  BobdeNassty
  October 18th, 2020
  

  Want to bet it wasn’t Vicky Osterweil’s stuff being looted…?

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caxaxe
  October 18th, 2020
  

  Lol literal liberal trash justifying looting. But hey we are reasonable people unlike leftists so we’ll let this be available.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  cklem420
  October 18th, 2020
  

  

  Keep protesting people.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  cklem420
  October 18th, 2020
  

  

  Beobdnastymcnasty
  Isn’t it though? You stupid ass bootlicker.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  AndyBook
  October 18th, 2020
  

  Thou shall not steal.

  The death of religion has led to a moral collapse.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  jonwb
  October 19th, 2020
  

  I could see defending the burning of stuff, looting is just stealing.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  nsjordan
  October 19th, 2020
  

  Funny site for you to be on then, innit, AndyBook?

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  roeyrboat
  October 19th, 2020
  

  Well armed and watching — don’t loot here or you will have an unwanted result.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  QDaddy
  October 19th, 2020
  

  Bring it…. we shoot looters in TN.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  ghiaurov321
  October 19th, 2020
  

  I agree with nsjordan. Hypocritical that people on a site designed to loot the audiobooks others should complain about the contents of this book. How is looting these audiobooks any different?

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  durkadurr
  October 19th, 2020
  

  If looting was more like stealing a tv on a shop by copying it into yours and other passerby’s hands, then yes, it would be an accurate comparison.
  Rather “stealing” this book on the website is more ironic than anything else. What gets people upset and rightly so is small business owners suffering from loothing, but i much doubt there are any physical loothers reading such books if any at all here. Also, all things considered, religious values have little or nothing to do with this phenomenon. My two cents, actually let me take those back, I’ll need them.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  erouting
  October 19th, 2020
  

  Author misses the fact that most looting is directed against people within the community who are not responsible for the problems of the community. It’s not really useful wealth redistribution until looters figure out a way to loot the swiss bank accounts of the rich jagoffs who contribute to the looters poverty by forcing through political policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  skay
  October 19th, 2020
  

  

  This young white person’s dismissal and denial of the effects of the massive nonviolent Black Civil Rights Movement (in NPR Code Switch interview) is profoundly ignorant, deeply insulting, and arguably (probably) racist.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  skay
  October 19th, 2020
  

  

  Also, is she unaware of the studies documenting long-lasting economic damage experienced by areas where rioting and looting has happened on a large scale? My own experience in the D.C. “riot core” proved unforgettable — the desolation of that area, filled with residents, but bereft of any stores, meant that beers and cigarettes were sold individually on the street for highly-inflated prices, and the only other business activity was the selling of cocaine and heroin, and prostitution of women. The nearest store I knew of was surrrounded on all sides by a perimeter of heavy-duty plywood, and, when it wasnt padlocked, goods were all behind the counter which was behind more plywood and heavy-duty metal fencing. The author, I am quite sure, has only engaged in looting; she has not had to endure to effects of it on her own community. And those effects endure far longer than most people would imagine.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 19th, 2020
  

  Difficult to know whether it’s a harsh satire of mindless extremism, or an honest representation thereof; these are, after all, effectively one and the same phenomenon.

  The author refers to such extreme violence as the “experience of pleasure, joy, and freedom.”
  “Kraft durch Freude” anyone? Kristallnacht? That’s the pathological mindset, in embryo.

  Knowing the history, as we do, this effort consequently has the contours of severe mental illness.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  mikkins
  October 19th, 2020
  

  I bow to you caesar963!
  You succinctly broke this book down for what it is.
  Their rendition of Kristallnacht did not go over as well as they intended and this “book” is just another poor attempt by a leftist scribbler to try and justify the unjustifiable.
  Further proof a college diploma is no substitute for common sense.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  edbroadway
  October 19th, 2020
  

  

  @caesar963 always the voice of reason in eloquence. ‘Tis true it does bare ‘contours’ of mental illness, but those (Remembering my Freud, and Psychology major) are also the ‘trigger catalyst’ that do 1 of 2 things: Give cover to the mindset that is already given to such uncivil behavior as looting, and are NOT part of any protest or ideology thereof. They are vultures, opportunist who found a cloak…albeit at the price of the real/true protestors and their Protestation, as we all have seen in videos of those individuals being caught and reprimanded by a True Protestor, for graffiti writing and property damage.
  The second triggered mindset is that of one where this behavior lies dormant, it is latent in that individual and the combination of certain factors bring it from latent to salient.
  Those whom are truly there for the cause for which they protest, you will notice (even by FBI clever profiling standards) Never wear anything that will conceal their identities, because this will be contradictory to any protest’s aim, and means. You want to be seen & heard; acknowledged. That is key if not the Major element. Those doing the looting & damage are 9 times out 10 with face fully concealed, given to wearing all black clothing,sometimes with a gender-hiding baggy fit etc.
  It never ceases to amaze me the severe deficiency in either memory or more than likely in education, specifically history, that I see in comments like some on this thread and voiced ones. Did we forget how it was this nation came to be? The series of protests, damage to public and private properties, killings, and all other similar conduct that took place under what we now call The American Revolution? Some ppl on here must have read or taught the ‘Sanitized’ version or never learned it at all. I mean where was this outrage when Corp. America asked the gov to loot us, the people to save their companies from destruction they themselves inflicted on themselves…How can one discredit the true protestors and what they are protesting: the unjustified killings, in scary disproportionate numbers, of unarmed men and women by those whom they by way of taxation, pay their salary? The insanity is further proven by more outrage shown over property damage and looting (all which can & will be replaced by the insurance all properties must have), over the outrage that SHOULD be felt over the taking of a fellow HUMAN BEING’s life: of 12 year olds,young women, and unarmed men of color by Law enforcement agents, despite visual evidence on recorded videos stating that this or that officer acted in excess and this happens too often to the demographically-same people.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  brassy
  October 19th, 2020
  

  That is not even remotely what Caesar said.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  edbroadway
  October 19th, 2020
  

  You can replace broken windows, filched merchandise but you can’t replace the life of 12 year old black child who just had his chest and head blown off by some Psychotically overzealous police officer. Shame on anyone showing more anger at a graffitied wall and filched sneakers all which will be replaced by that establishment’s insurance company followed by a stipend courtesy of the Gov., and not feel seething anger over an irreplaceable human life taken so casually. It says something deep, dark, and disturbing about that fringe’s mindset and mental health. All over the world we are known as the country of Hate, Violence & “crazy people.”

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  edbroadway
  October 19th, 2020
  

  @brassy that’s why there is a “but” in there at the top. Right before I expound on my perception to Caesar’s observation and take. I was also acknowledging his articulative elegance, with zero indication that I claiming to restate what Caesar said. Perhaps you may need a bit of brushing up on your reading skills, and take short break from audio. Also let Caesar speak for Caesar, he needs no ventriloquist, he can express himself far more eloquently than you can. You doing so, is already admitting Caesar misread, disagrees with what I wrote. Umm we really should leave such things to be expressed by the party addressed. Respectfully, Thank you.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 19th, 2020
  

  We certainly shouldn’t confuse the mindless rioters and looters with peaceful protestors, who are exercising a lawful right. Aquinas said that the authority of unjust human laws is null & void. This was later correctly echoed by MLK. In this context, peaceful protest is not only legitimate, but enormously effective. Revolution against a genuine oppressor, where there is no other political/democratic alternative, can be not only ethically legitimate, but necessary.

  In Northern Ireland, when the peaceful civil rights protestors were supplanted by militant terrorists, it put any progress towards an actual solution in lifeless suspension - for decades - and only served to entrench all of the existing problems, injustices and bitterness. Quite apart from vital moral considerations, it doesn’t work.

  There are truly great exemplars of peaceful protest and progress, for whom this author sees fit to express ignorant derision.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  edbroadway
  October 19th, 2020
  

  @Caesar I agree there are great exemplars of peaceful protest (not many, insofar as achieving their aim) that do not deserve derision, no one does who tries peace first especially when none has been shown to them. But what happens when peace gets’ you an assassin’s bullet or poisoned? To use two quick examples: Lovely Ireland & my beloved America. MLK expounded on peace being the word of the day, everyday in years of protests. Along with love. The change promised was all lip service which was what made him say that now famous quote “For years now I have heard the word Wait! … to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” He and protestors got trained dogs unleashed on them, fireman hosed down, citizenry was allowed to dump food on their heads and beat them, without penalty of law. Peace in protest continues, grows gains traction then boom the King of Peace & Love has a bullet in his head.The country is set ablaze with angry protest then and only then does Pres. Johnson expedites the process of Civil Rights Act. Ireland same with Charles Parnell, plays clean keeps balance and peace skillfully uses the Parliamentary Procedures to the advantage of the goal towards HOME RULE. What did he get? Set-up with forged letters that he intended to assassinate British dignitaries and linked to the Phoenix Park killings. Then adultery etc. See where I am goin with this? Home Rule would’ve been achieved without violence had they played clean and fair as he did. The Gov did not, instead you get decades of bloodshed. Then the change comes. What message is Gov. then sending?

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 19th, 2020
  

  However, MLK and his movement succeeded. The Civil Rights Act was passed four years before his murder. You can’t kill an idea, in America or Ireland (that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems). Ghandi was successful against the British. In Northern Ireland, John Hume’s peaceful, democratic means eventually won out. With the help & support of America, I might add.

  When constitutional, peaceful mechanisms are available, they are what works. Part of this book’s stupidity is that violence and “bludgeoning” do not work - they clearly make everything far worse. Especially for disadvantaged people.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  GordonCoon
  October 19th, 2020
  

  

  If there were ever to be a person that needed doxxing, it would be the person praising the destruction of black people’s businesses and homes as some sort of civil rights achievement.

  Maybe once they’ve robbed her home, she’ll feel differently? If not, then at least the rest of us will have had a good laugh.

  BLM is for bozos. That’s pretty much all there is to this.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  KnowPiracy
  October 20th, 2020
  

  Download was good, but the book was bad. I actually wanted to criticize the right-leaning people here, but the book is legitimately bad. The arguments are bad. The evidence is bad. It’s just bad.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 20th, 2020
  

  @KnowPiracy - Intellectual honesty! We’re going to have to put you in a nature reserve. One proviso: I don’t think such criticism is a left/right issue, in the American sphere, or elsewhere; it’s more along the lines of logic & reason vs absurdity & hateful extremism. What works against what doesn’t. Strengthening deprived communities and representation, as opposed to incinerating and impoverishing them still further.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 22nd, 2020
  

  Great point KnowPiracy. I’m so grateful for this precious insight carefully explained

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 22nd, 2020
  

  where does ‘absurd’, ‘hateful’ extremism come from, caesar963? You post all over this site but very vaguely, and seem to lack a good theory for how this stuff comes about.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 22nd, 2020
  

  This absurdity and hatred come from the extremes of left & right, which, as demonstrated in the present case, hold to the hateful, extremist “idea” that “might is right” - that force, violence, and brutal coercion are acceptable means towards yet more evil ends. There’s nothing vague about them, the factual, historical record reveal them in all of their repulsive, genocidal hatred.

  Consequently, it becomes difficult for rational centrists to distinguish between the successive brands of extremism. They’re fascist one minute, Marxist the next, but their victims all end up the same, of course. It’s all part of the same insane continuum. They hate liberal democracy because it does not give them what they want, which is, as stated, the immediate “experience of pleasure, joy, and freedom” through savage acts of extreme violence and destruction. All the better, it would seem, if they can make the lives of the poor even more intolerable in the barbaric process.

  It’s precisely as mindless as it sounds. They usually dissemble these urges to orgasmic fulfilment behind fatuous, failed ideological doctrines (youthful indiscretions) - but here it seems to be very much on the surface. This novel sales pitch does give it something of an unintended satirical edge.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 23rd, 2020
  

  So you have the same explanation for hatred arising as ancients had for the sun rising “it just does”. Not very edifying.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 23rd, 2020
  

  You’ve made another category error. The discussion here is on the book, remember. Thus hatred & absurdity arising from mindless, extremist political ideology. As for moral evil, that’s a completely different conversation, concerning human nature and environmental influences. Where the will becomes distorted towards evil ends.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 23rd, 2020
  

  The book is about how some acts, which are defined as illegal as suits the ruling class, can still be used to effect positive social change.

  A liberal outlook like yours requires large blindspots because liberal democracy has shown itself unable to resist corruption and unable to fix inequality and social crimes like poverty & hunger.

  For you to remain comfortable in your worldview you must define opposition to your broken system as irrational.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 23rd, 2020
  

  Liberal or conservative or whatever it is, more or less same-same

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 23rd, 2020
  

  However, fascism & Marxism, in their ever-increasing expansion of State power, and diminishment of the individual - essential rights & liberties - can be said to be part of the same appalling continuum. Broken, failed systems, in all of their repulsive iterations, as we know.

  Illegal acts, like manifest harms against other human beings, their persons & properties. That’s not mere positive law, it is primarily natural law, as enshrined in the doctrine of human rights. These dignified rights are not in the slightest bit new or recent.

  The deprived communities which were impacted & destroyed - where investment & services will be withdrawn as a result of the risk of violence - in these areas, the ruling class are not being further deprived. Look past those silly ideological categories, which have only led to disaster & suffering. Clearly no positive social change in evidence.

  All systems will be flawed. Merely reflect on the rejection of liberal democracy during the last century. The enormous abuses & corruption which resulted in such dystopias. The inabilty of such systems to fix inequality and social crimes like poverty & hunger. Indeed, the unprecedented forced famines and oppression which such nightmarish systems generate.

  The complete absence of any coherent, sequential, logical thought is indeed objectively irrational. And in order to effect change, you must be capable of persuading the rational centre of any society, with balanced, reasoned arguments. Stability and effective, realistic policies will be favoured over absurd ideology.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 24th, 2020
  

  Many questions begged. Property law is not natural law, as can be seen from the many cultures that (mostly historically, now) did not settle on property-obsession, like the native peoples of North America and — in present day — Inuit peoples.

  Most of the most significant manifest harms against people are NOT illegal. In America you will die very quickly when sick, if you do not have money. It will not be illegal for your insurance company to refuse treatment if they decide it is too costly. Currently, employers can quite legally push poor meatpackers and carmakers back to work despite the high risk of dying from covid-19. Look closely at the ‘harmful’ acts which ARE deemed illegal. It’s very telling.

  The act of defining human rights in law is also not natural as, historically and prehistorically, caring for those around you came more naturally. We would not be where we are otherwise. Now human rights are clearly defined mostly for the sake of selling them off. I give up my right to free speech when I go to work because honest criticism of the boss is completely off the table.

  Many communities where riots have taken place have already been abandoned by the ruling elites. It is a defining characteristic of our times that ‘disposable’ populations are being fenced off. Think of Kashmir, Palestine and Flint, Michigan. These people cannot anticipate improvements. It is false to claim they ever had great prospects. Smashing windows has not significantly worsened their condition.

  As for your paragraph about all systems being flawed — you again speak too vaguely to address this seriously.

  I imagine you are referring to what Michael Parenti calls ’seige socialism’ — as in the USSR — where strong centralisation was required to 1) push back a defacto invasion of the Soviet republic by imperialist capitalist nations after the revolution. Stalin then accurately observed that Russia had ten years to develop what Britain had developed in 100 years. Indeed, the USSR needed to be ready to defeat Nazism by the end of the 1930s.

  Socialism has never existed without the US and the imperial states of Europe snapping at its heels. Unfortunately this shaped the character of socialism in the 20th century. But this was a response to aggression, not because of aggression imanent in socialist ideas.

  Meanwhile, in Liberal ‘democracies’ we see the interests of the wealthiest continually advanced over the interests of the general population. People have not voted to destroy the planet through continuing commitment to fossil fuels. People have not voted for wholesale privatisation and dismantling of public services. People have not voted for deeper poverty after years of either Republican or Democratic governments. Any clear-sighted observer will recognise that what we call liberal democracy is in fact a dictatorship of capital.

  Logical thought is there to be seen in violent protests — those with nothing to lose lose their fear of state violence (which exists BEFORE violent protests take place). Speaking from a place of comfort, and lacking empathy for such vulnerable people, their actions may appear irrational.

  I suspect you have not read Marx but there is no encouragement of authoritarianism in his words. The incredibly hostile environment created by the US in the 20th century required a centralised, authoritarian response. You are an unserious person if you cannot acknowledge this. Future iterations of socialism WILL need to address the potential for aggressive people to take control of a system that is not predicated on violent force. We must hope this conundrum can be addressed.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 24th, 2020
  

  No encouragement of authoritarianism in his words?! “There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Come now, you reveal your lack of knowledge of Marx & Marxism, and your substitution of it with a mendaciously comforting fairy tale. The imposition of concentrated terror is there in the programme of the originator, and has predictably always played out in each blood-soaked iteration.

  Property is of course intrinsic to Natural Law. From the dignified bodily person, actual human life, rights, obligations, and extending outwards to other species of personal and real property. It is a seamless garment. You are yourself a physical rights-bearer, this is your most essential property, which precedes all else. It’s not just about your iPhone and your Miley Cyrus albums.

  Violence against the person and their property, as we have seen, is of course wholly illegal & immoral. Very revealing how you consistently seek to dodge this. As stated: the deprived communities which were impacted & destroyed will have investment & services withdrawn as a result of the risk of violence. Still no positive social change in evidence.

  We pay our taxes for social services, welfare, education - how is this not “caring for those around you”? We also care for others by not attacking, beating or killing them. By not stealing or destroying what they’ve worked a lifetime to build up, in order to care for their own families. In turn, we hope that others will respect us in a similar manner. Fairly basic, natural stuff. “Now human rights are clearly defined mostly for the sake of selling them off”! Really? That’s how human rights are defined? That’s how the ECHR now defines human rights, is it?

  If you find yourself devoid of rights at work, you must not live & work in the EU. If you do live here, seek urgent advice on employment law, because you’ll find that you have extensive employment rights, and your boss is considerably circumscribed by legislation, statute law, case law & precedent.

  “Many communities where riots have taken place have already been abandoned by the ruling elites.” Yeah. So, driving these people further into the ground constitutes a material improvement of their condition, does it?
  “Smashing windows has not significantly worsened their condition.” Oh, dear. And trivialising people’s suffering helps? The fact that the harms inflicted have been orders of magnitude greater than you contrive to depict won’t slow you down at all. The less a person has, the more they feel the harms done to them. It has a disproportionate effect upon them. Or, you could just continue to maintain that their lives do not matter.

  Any system we contrive is flawed. How is that not clear? We are flawed, and this is always reflected in our institutions. But then, there’s flawed, and there’s hopelessly, extremely flawed (Stalin apologist, now?!). The Russian Revolution was the seizure of power by a brutal, minority ideology. The fact that everyone was not “okay” with this was possibly indicated by the fact that there followed a civil war - where Russians wanted & needed the help of other nations. More’s the pity that they failed. They could have prevented the forced famine, and the murder of so many millions, by the Marxist Empire.

  Let’s have a look at Stalin’s “accurate observation, shall we? And how he needed to be ready to defeat Nazism by the end of the 1930s. After he had purged most of society (the “Great Purge”) he purged huge numbers of the military. Effectively chopping the head off the army, y’know, just so they’d be ready. Subsequently, after the fascists & Marxists had invaded & subjugated Poland in a joint operation, Stalin’s appeasement of Hitler continued with a large increase in deliveries to Germany of grain, fuel, cotton, metals and rubber purchased in south-east Asia, circumventing the British blockade.

  During the period of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union had provided 26,000 tons of chromium, used in metal alloys, 140,000 tons of manganese and more than two millions tons of oil to the Reich. Despite having received well over eighty clear indications of a German invasion – indeed probably more than a hundred–Stalin seemed more concerned with “the security problem along our north-west frontier” which meant the Baltic states. On the night of 14th June, a week before the German invasion, 60,000 Estonians, 34,000 Latvians and 38,000 Lithuanians were forced on to cattle trucks for deportation to camps in the distant interior of the Soviet Union. Stalin remained unconvinced even when, during the last week before the invasion, German ships rapidly left Soviet ports and embassy staff were evacuated (always a dead giveaway, I find).

  Between Oct 1940 and Feb 1942, in spite of the ongoing German attack on the Soviet Union from June 1941, the Red Army, in particular the Soviet Air Force, as well as Soviet military-related industries were subjected to purges by Stalin.
  Of course, he also needed enormous amounts of materiel from the other imperialist nations.

  Socialism has been tried on multiple occasions, all across the globe. It’s clear what happened. Also, didn’t market capitalism have Socialism/Marxism snapping at its heels? Quite a good deal of aggression from that quarter, as we know. A third of the world’s population were enslaved under such systems, remember, and those subject people were often killed as they tried to escape to the hated “capitalist” countries.

  Whatever, about liberal democracy’s flaws, how exactly would I have gone about voting Stalin (or any of the other savage toerags) out of power? How would I have exercised any rights whatsoever in such a system (human, civil, political, property, expression, etc.)? How could any legal proceeding have been fair and transparent? Could I have made an application for habeas corpus from the empire of gulags? Can the Uyghurs do that right now?

  “Logical thought is there to be seen in violent protests” - I’ll just leave that exactly as it is, it really doesn’t need any gloss. As to “state violence” - we must always be vigilant where state power and abuses are concerned. Simply observe the unprecedented violence of the Socialist, fascist & Marxist States; the victimisation & powerlessness of their enslaved populations. We certainly shouldn’t lack empathy for these vulnerable people, as symbolised in books like this, where violence against the weakest in society is ecstatically celebrated and encouraged.

  If an idea consistently fails in the most genocidal manner - a 100% failure rate - how many more chances should it be afforded? If it facilitates untold barbarism, because it has barbarism baked into its social antagonism paradigm? The incredibly hostile environment created during the 20th century did require a response from civilised people. You must acknowledge the way in which Marxist States made war upon their subject civilian populations in gruesomely contrived slave states, if you ever wish to be regarded as a serious, ethically conscientious person. Cheerleading for violent authoritarianism and human rights abuses scarcely represents a good start.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 24th, 2020
  

  The line you have taken from a quotes website is about revolution, not the regime that follows. Marx understood the violence that opponents to capitalism could expect — the modern state is built only on violence. To acknowledge that a revolution will require violence is not the same as endorsing terror.

  “The line you have taken from a quotes website is about revolution, not the regime that follows. Marx understood the violence that opponents to capitalism could expect — the modern state is built only on violence. To acknowledge that a revolution will require violence is not the same as endorsing terror.” —– I’m staggered that you do not see this is merely a platitude and not an objective truth.

  The rest of what you write — what point are you making? You would have preferred the Soviets did not defeat Nazism? Yes, I understand many liberals probably carry this wish unspoken in their hearts. The world owes the Soviets a debt of gratitude.

  Socialism has not continuously failed, it has been continuously DEFEATED by one of the most violent regime that has ever existed — the hypercapitalist United States. Why did the US not embark on a debating tour in the 20th century instead of visiting coups & destruction on every country that sought a post-independence path which was not aligned with explicit US interests?

  This is my last message in this exchange because it seems you are unaware of the platitudinous manner in which you speak. You mistake pragmatic assessment of the actions of ’siege socialism’ with cheerleading — or you conflate the two deliberately. I now understand why your 1000s of posts on this site are so vague and pompous; you have imbibed propaganda for too long.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  FatKepler
  October 24th, 2020
  

  *endorsing authoritarianism, not terror. The terror of the bourgeoisie is to be welcomed — they rely on a world of slums and labour camps for their blithe comfort.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  caesar963
  October 24th, 2020
  

  The “bourgeoisie” - oh crikey! It must be 1850 all over again. Concentrated, brutal terror is how the authoritarian regime not only takes, but also holds power. It doesn’t stop. Consult the factual historical record, not just the ideological tracts. Or websites. “The modern state is built only on violence” - “only?” Not consent of the governed, then? Are you living in China? (”People’s Republic of” - the nomenclature is always profoundly ironic)

  “To acknowledge that a revolution will require violence is not the same as endorsing terror” - so we blame the victims of concentrated terror & brutal violence? Again? (That also is historically, factually accurate)

  “I’m staggered that you do not see this is merely a platitude and not an objective truth” - whaaa? The “only…way” is concentrated terror?! And this is merely a platitude? Do join us when that shuttle finally lands.

  The rest of what I wrote concerned the actual history of Stalin, his catastrophic administration (or “leadership” as you might say), Russia, and the war - as opposed to your sycophantic praise of Stalin, in which fantasy you depicted the “efficiency” of authoritarian centralisation. Or don’t you remember what you said? He was also wholly indifferent to the enormous waste of human life, because it suited his purposes. I thought the stated point of the project was valuing the lives of the humble workers? More nonsense, of course.

  This appalling leadership & barbaric system (detailed above) defeated the Nazis, with unbelievable waste of Russian lives. And the end result - after the Soviet cooperation with the Nazis, their joint invasion of Poland and their support of the Nazis had come first - the peoples of Eastern Europe exchanged one brutal, evil system for another. One which they desperately desired escape from. And the Marxist mincing machine was consolidated in its nefarious power.

  Socialism/Marxism is self-defeating, as we have seen. People cannot wait to be rid of such failed doctrines. They had one-third of the Earth’s population. If it was at all viable & self-sustaining, this critical mass would be sufficient. You attribute altogether too much efficiency to a succession of different (often chaotic, unstable & at odds) American administrations.

  How do you embark on a debating tour in a despotic system which denies freedom of expression - and every other human right, up to and including the right to life? Also, recall that, in addition to the US actively interfering, peoples around the world appealed for assistance against violent Marxism. On balance, people would rather live, and live freely, determining their own course in life. Without centrally planned gulags.

  So, here we go: America is “one of the most violent regimes that has ever existed”? Not Mao’s China (over 70 million murdered in a couple of decades) or Soviet Russia (almost 30 million slaughtered by the state, not inclusive of the many millions of human lives wasted in wars, and the death toll from epidemics)? To say nothing of all the other mindless Marxist regimes?

  This is where simple cognitive dissonance becomes something far more sinister and disturbing. Shaped by something even worse than toxic propaganda. There’s nothing pragmatic about it.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  Jiminy Cricket
  October 29th, 2020
  

  Russia is meddling in America’s elections, hoping for a collapse. China is in eager anticipation of the same. No need to mention Iran and Venezuela, we all know they will jump at the chance. Between the demons within and the demons without, it is only a matter of time. A kingdom divided cannot stand. The collapse of America will not serve as to better any US citizen any more than their current options happen to afford, unless perhaps they consider their self a Mad Max. There are already ex-military bands waiting to take over after the pretty boys are finished looting and burning the cities. Either way their comfortable lives will be short lived. Imagine how many people of ages past who died over as little as tooth decay. Good luck, with your revolution.

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  nassir_amit
  October 29th, 2020
  

  

  Absolute trash. As an arab, as the son of traders and merchants istand with the roof koreans, any looters will be shot like dogs

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil
• 
  el_lissitzky
  November 20th, 2020
  

  

  you best start believing in class struggle, you’re in it lmao

  In Defense of Looting A Riotous History of Uncivil Action - Vicky Osterweil

Add a comment (please log in before commenting)