NationStates Jolt Archive

Police stand aside as anarchists raid Italian supermarkets (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/05/wrome05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/05/ixworld.html)
By Bruce Johnston in Rome
(Filed: 05/12/2004)

When 300 "shoppers" poured into a busy Rome supermarket and loaded their trolleys with fine wine and food, it was not because there were any special offers.

Instead the crowd, led by anarchist protesters who swigged champagne as they swept down the aisles, demanded a 70 per cent "discount" on everything they wanted.

They ignored the manager's refusal and police, who feared a riot, stood by as the protesters wheeled trolleys laden with goods past the tills and on to the street, to distribute their contents to anyone who would take them.

The raid on the giant Panorama supermarket, on the eastern outskirts of Rome, was the most spectacular of 40 similar swoops on Italian stores in recent weeks by mobs claiming they were "reappropriating" the goods. There is considerable sympathy for the protesters among Italians who are fed up with high unemployment and economic austerity.

One pensioner who witnessed the Panorama raid, complained that after paying his rent he only had €250 (£173) a month to live on. "There's nothing wrong with what they're doing," he said. "Bravo," said a woman. "I can only go shopping once a month, and when the money runs out I have to tighten my belt."

The first supermarket raid was launched by activists in Milan protesting at the conditions of part-time workers, but the idea was hijacked as a publicity vehicle by anarchists.

Nor are supermarkets the only target. Last week anarchists extracted autoreduzioni, or "self-imposed discounts", of 60 per cent from bookshops in Bologna and Florence.

Da Celeste restaurant in Volpago del Montello, a town near Venice, was also hit. A group of 44 people ate a €2,000 dinner then walked out without paying. They left an €82 tip and a written message, informing the astonished owner that the unpaid bill was the price he must pay for agreeing to cater for a recent Nato meeting in Venice.

Celeste Tolon, the proprietor, said: "The appropriations are unfair to honest, hard-working people like myself. They should have picked on someone else."

ROFLMAO, the Italians are too lazy to fight anarchy.

Except for the Italian anarchists

ROFLMAO, the Italians are too lazy to fight anarchy.

Except for the Italian anarchists

well, the fascists will probably get around to doing something about it eventually. probably in the form of killing a few people, which the cops working with those fascists will then try to blame on the radical left.

italy is an... interesting place.

How great is that? We need more of that goodwill here. I just wish that the stores would give stuff away without help from anarchists.

Damn thieves...It's not their stuff. They have no right to do that.

If I were in charge of the police, I'd have those people arrested for shoplifting.

Stealing other people's stuff is not a form of protest.

I am disgusted.

Stealing other people's stuff is not a form of protest.

it's not exactly entirely a protest. its more like direct action to deal with a certain situation. besides, all those goods ought to be socially owned and distributed in the first place.

Every single one of them should be charged with shoplifting, and the organizers of it with a little extra on top of it (depending on Italian law).

That's so stupid. What they are doing is wrong.

The policemen that just stood idly by and let them do it should all be fired as well.

it's not exactly entirely a protest. its more like direct action to deal with a certain situation. besides, all those goods ought to be socially owned and distributed in the first place.
Why?

Every single one of them should be charged with shoplifting, and the organizers of it with a little extra on top of it (depending on Italian law).

That's so stupid. What they are doing is wrong.

The policemen that just stood idly by and let them do it should all be fired as well.
They let them do it because they were afraid of a riot. The weighed the consequences of their actions, and decided what course of action was best.

Why?

because they were socially created

Didn't you post this thing before?

Don't you realize that the only people who will be hurt are the folks actually working there?

because they were socially created


Were they made in a comune?

Although, I'm not sure that means they were "socially created", with that being a term you invented and all.

They let them do it because they were afraid of a riot. The weighed the consequences of their actions, and decided what course of action was best.

If there were like 1 or 2 policemen there or something, then yes I understand, however if they did not call for back up, or if there were actually sufficient police there to stop the looters (that's what they are), then they should have.

If they were capable of stopping them, I don't see how allowing them to raid the shops is any better.

because they were socially created
They were voluntarily created by a group of people trying to better their lives by making money. The goods were then sold voluntarily to the grocery store, and they were then voluntarily put on sale to the general public.

What is this about stuff being created socially? For something to be created socially, all of society has to be involved.

If there were like 1 or 2 policemen there or something, then yes I understand, however if they did not call for back up, or if there were actually sufficient police there to stop the looters (that's what they are), then they should have.

If they were capable of stopping them, I don't see how allowing them to raid the shops is any better.


SOP for riot control. Contain the delinquents, pull the innocent bystanders out, and let the riot burn itself out.

ROFLMAO, the Italians are too lazy to fight anarchy.

Does the name Carlo Guiliani ring any bells?

it was only a matter of time before someone rioted and/or protested capitalism. capitalism is all about turning a profit, no matter who you step on, or how many families you destroy. if it wasnt for the unions this country would be a corporate fascist state (some would call them republicans). its all about human rights and civil liberties. everyone should get a piece of the pie. its a human right.

everyone should get a piece of the pie. its a human right.

Uh-huh. From whence come these human rights?

everyone should get a piece of the pie. its a human right.
First of all, capitalism certainly has its bright points. Second of all, human right is what rights humans were given to it by nature. Socialism is not a natural concept, survival of the fittest is.

How great is that? We need more of that goodwill here. I just wish that the stores would give stuff away without help from anarchists.

An old tactic of the Dutch Provo group in the late 60s was, come Christmas time, to dress up as Santa Claus, and then hand out toys from the shelves of shops to children. The intervention as the police confiscated the presents from screaming and crying children made for interesting publicity.

Wasn't this posted a while back? Eh. It's still funny :p

An old tactic of the Dutch Provo group in the late 60s was, come Christmas time, to dress up as Santa Claus, and then hand out toys from the shelves of shops to children. The intervention as the police confiscated the presents from screaming and crying children made for interesting publicity.

Haha :)

it was only a matter of time before someone rioted and/or protested capitalism. capitalism is all about turning a profit, no matter who you step on, or how many families you destroy. if it wasnt for the unions this country would be a corporate fascist state (some would call them republicans). its all about human rights and civil liberties. everyone should get a piece of the pie. its a human right.
First, no one is arguing that we should let capitalism run loose, and that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want. We are saying that people have a right to form a corporation to make their own lives better using their knowledge, ideas and individual resources. That neither government or the population in general has a claim to all of the fruits of their creations. These thieves are saying that this isn't so.

Second, if you failed to have a unique enough idea, or work hard enough, or possess some valuable bit of knowledge that allows you to make a living. If you were too lazy to graduate high school, or go to college or a trade school, you clearly deserve less of a piece than people who did so. You get just as much as you put in.

If you were too lazy to graduate high school, or go to college or a trade school, you clearly deserve less of a piece than people who did so. You get just as much as you put in.
But the other side of the coin is that without the people who do the lower, grungy work, then the higher up managers would have nothing to manage. In some ways, everyone's work, assuming they work, is pretty much just as hard. Some require more intellectual work, but overall everyone's workload is fairly equal.

It just goes to prove, Communists are incapable of functioning in normal society. Much like the entire foundation of their movement, they are lying, cheating, theiving little rats; all they ever will be.... They are irresponsible little children, who have no concern what-so-ever for the damage they do. It is absolutely disgusting.

But the other side of the coin is that without the people who do the lower, grungy work, then the higher up managers would have nothing to manage. In some ways, everyone's work, assuming they work, is pretty much just as hard. Some require more intellectual work, but overall everyone's workload is fairly equal.
It's how in demand someone's skills are. Anyone can use a broom. Very few people can run a company and keep it afloat. Skills that they learned.

No, that is not even remotly true. While I'm sure the vast majority of people do their best at their job, to say that all work is the same is completly false.

Are you telling me that the guy who fixes my cable is contributing the same to society as my doctor?

It's how in demand someone's skills are. Anyone can use a broom. Very few people can run a company and keep it afloat.
Such as the current U.S. president ;) .

But seriously, I do see both points. It may take more skill to manage, but without the "lower" people, there wouldn't be anything to manage. To speak truthfully, I think that communism is a good social system, and capitalism a good economic system. I wish that communism would work, but history has proven it won't work on any large scale. The biggest qualms I have with capitalism is that the environment is getting hurt because of it, thought that might've happened anyways, and that it seems to be making the rich richer and the poor poorer. There's going to be hell to pay if the U.S. doesn't do something about that before it's too late.

Such as the current U.S. president ;) .

A perfect example of the Peter Principle in action. He got placed out of his league, and he's just not competent. His league is probably...a mid-level office job.

That's a given. If we only had another Bill Clinton...I'd be very happy to have Bill back. He proved through his ability to rise from the bottom to the top of the social ladder to be a good leader.

First of all, capitalism certainly has its bright points. Second of all, human right is what rights humans were given to it by nature. Socialism is not a natural concept, survival of the fittest is.

First of all, so did nazi germany. saying that something isn't absolutely devoid of good points is a piss-poor defense.

second of all, i'd actually say rights are the freedoms people steal back from the institutions of power. but if you want to go the "natural" route:

applying survival of the fittest to human interaction is the social darwinist perspective, which has been discounted for the last 100 years or so. again, old, dumb argument. read kropotkin's Mutual Aid (brief synopsis: it's "natural," and totally in keeping with natural selection, for a species to aid each other, and in fact such structures for mutual aid are if anything more adaptive and more likely to be passed on than dog-eat-dog self-destruction. ever actually READ darwin? he doesn't say that piranahs would evolve more successfully if they ate each other.)


p.s. ooh! Andaluciae! i just noticed you're now reasserting the inherent inequality of human beings! well done! now we're back to 400 year old arguments which actually predate the socioeconomic system you're trying to defend!

bravo. really.

Wasn't this posted a while back? Eh. It's still funny :p

different incident - its becoming a sort of hobby in italy it seems. much like how fire bombing banks and cop cars is one for the greek anarchists.

different incident - its becoming a sort of hobby in italy it seems. much like how fire bombing banks and cop cars is one for the greek anarchists.

Awesome. Now I have to start up a trend down here. :D

I'm arguing that some people deserve more than others because they put a greater investment into themselves than others. Is that wrong?

DEATH TO ANARCHY! long live governement??? :confused:

It just goes to prove, Communists are incapable of functioning in normal society. Much like the entire foundation of their movement, they are lying, cheating, theiving little rats; all they ever will be.... They are irresponsible little children, who have no concern what-so-ever for the damage they do. It is absolutely disgusting.

It's impossible to be a cheating anarchist. Cheating depends on rules being followed by everyone else.
And you can have a society that works just fine with anarchy and communism.
You just can't have a civilization.

DEATH TO ANARCHY! long live governement??? :confused:

Sounds wrong, doesn't it? :D

It's impossible to be a cheating anarchist. Cheating depends on rules being followed by everyone else.
And you can have a society that works just fine with anarchy and communism.
You just can't have a civilization.

Ah, yes, but rules exist, even if one chooses not to follow them.

Those who ate at the resturant without paying, for example, broke rules. They stole from the resturant, and showed disrespect to the people that bought and prepared that food, by stealing from them. Simple fact, if you cannot see the inherant problem with that; you are not a person, and have no rights, and should be removed from society, because Anarchy HAS NO SOCIETY... With rights come responsibilities.... Anarchists want rights without responsibility..... It is a childishness.

Anarchists want rights without responsibility

incorrect

Does the name Carlo Guiliani ring any bells?

wasn't he the mayor of new york?

Anyone who eats 2000 euros worth of food, food that someone else payed for, to which someone else prepared, and then does not equally compensate for said food; shows an active desire to not live up to their responsibilities.

They felt they had a right to eat there, appearantly though their own actions; but then show they do not want the responsibilities resulting from their eating from there... It's a childish act, showing a lack of maturity and growth.

First of all, capitalism certainly has its bright points. Second of all, human right is what rights humans were given to it by nature. Socialism is not a natural concept, survival of the fittest is.

Attempts to equate capitalism with darwinism are faulty and shows a lack of knowledge in Darwin's theory (even beyond the fact that it was meant in strict biological terms). Remember - selection works on individuals but survival is by species. If "survival of the fittest" were to work on individuals, no organism that wasn't self-sufficient at birth would survive.

"Come on. Let's go eat sushi and not pay."

Repoman - I keep forgetting to include this one on the favorite movie threads, but applicable to this thread.

Anyone who eats 2000 euros worth of food, food that someone else payed for, to which someone else prepared, and then does not equally compensate for said food; shows an active desire to not live up to their responsibilities.

depends on the justification for their action, if you ask me. the mere fact that they offered one shows that they felt that they were living up to their social responsibilities.

remember, anarchists and other radicals seek a radical restructuring of society, including a reordering of social relatonships and responsibilities. they are much like the old enlightenment revolutionaries in this respect, who claimed that many old social relationships and responsibilities were inherently unjust in principle and ought be abolished. not respecting the old rights and privileges of the nobility didn't mean that they were against all social responsibilities.

Anyone who eats 2000 euros worth of food, food that someone else payed for, to which someone else prepared, and then does not equally compensate for said food; shows an active desire to not live up to their responsibilities.

They felt they had a right to eat there, appearantly though their own actions; but then show they do not want the responsibilities resulting from their eating from there... It's a childish act, showing a lack of maturity and growth.

I think the idea is that they were making a political statement by doing it, because the owner hosted some NATO meeting or something. They didn't just eat the meal and then run off giggling because they didn't pay for the meal.
In fact, I think you would find it less offensive if their reason for not paying was purely for "a bit of a laugh".

depends on the justification for their action, if you ask me. the mere fact that they offered one shows that they felt that they were living up to their social responsibilities.

remember, anarchists and other radicals seek a radical restructuring of society, including a reordering of social relatonships and responsibilities. they are much like the old enlightenment revolutionaries in this respect, who claimed that many old social relationships and responsibilities were inherently unjust in principle and ought be abolished. not respecting the old rights and privileges of the nobility didn't mean that they were against all social responsibilities.

What they seek is not the issue... There are many things I seek to change in society, but that does not mean I refuse to live up to my existing social responsibilities in the interim. They provied an 82 euro payment when they owed 2000 euros, which would not even have covered the time the chef and prep cooks spent on their meal, let alone the cost of the food, nor the service their waiter/waitress provided.... Literally they provided a direct insult to the SERVICE WORKERS of the resturant.... I personally find this of no surprise... Anarchists and Communists, when given power, are shown to be liars of their own self-proclaimes cause... which is the towards the "people" that is the workers benefit... In reality, whenever they have gained power and influence, they have themselves formed a new class of elite which then seek to oppress workers.... It is an inherant lie to the system, because communism is in itself a false ideology that exists counter to the nature of humans, and lives of it's conceptual counterism to decieve the masses into its support. When they talk about "the people" they are not actually reffering to "THE PEOPLE" of a society, but rather themselves as a state once they have seized control. The actual people because "THE PEOPLE" (that is the state's) property. This is what always happens, regardless of what they preach, because despite their talk of "general humanity" and "open society" they are still people, with groups of yes-men, who once handed power, corrupt, and the more power they gain, the more they corrupt. As nice as its concept exists in ideology, it is inherantly defeated through its own deception of the self.

First, no one is arguing that we should let capitalism run loose, and that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want. We are saying that people have a right to form a corporation to make their own lives better using their knowledge, ideas and individual resources. That neither government or the population in general has a claim to all of the fruits of their creations. These thieves are saying that this isn't so.

Second, if you failed to have a unique enough idea, or work hard enough, or possess some valuable bit of knowledge that allows you to make a living. If you were too lazy to graduate high school, or go to college or a trade school, you clearly deserve less of a piece than people who did so. You get just as much as you put in.

AND

I'm arguing that some people deserve more than others because they put a greater investment into themselves than others. Is that wrong?

What you doing is equating this mythical "self-investment" and "amount of investment in society" with the monetary value assigned to specific tasks, and asserting that human activities, as necessary and as worthwhile as they may be to society decrease in actual worth as the income value assigned to them decreases, and become in essence "worthless" if there is no capitalistic income value assigned to them.

Would doctors be able do their job properly if it wasn't for the manufacturing labor that goes into the creation of medicines and medical equipment? The cold hard fact of capitalist history is that the salary of doctors has risen in dircect proportion to the amount of labor it takes to provide them with the standard tools in order to make them succesful at what they do.

Think about the huge pool of labor it takes to produce and market the "product" that high paid entertainers make and then think about how much someone like Paris Hilton actually contributes to society. Now compare that to the salary and contributions that educators make.

In your system, stay at home parents are "worthless" and are contributing nothing to society since they do not have a "job." If it were not for a form of voluntary communism (family) or enforced communism (alimony and child support) then child-care, THE most necessary form of labor for society and the species would recieve no material reward at all.

So basically, you think that communism is a good concept, but it is foiled because once people get into power they become corrupt?

It just goes to prove, Communists are incapable of functioning in normal society. Much like the entire foundation of their movement, they are lying, cheating, theiving little rats; all they ever will be.... They are irresponsible little children, who have no concern what-so-ever for the damage they do. It is absolutely disgusting.

No.. it just goes to show that communists are incapable of functioning legally in a capitalistic society. In a communist sociey a capitalist would be the "lying, cheating, theiving, rat" by taking a greater portion of wealth and goods than he needs and thus depriving society as a whole of those resources.

If anything, the biggest flaw with communism is that it may be too idealistic and would require each individual to practice a great deal of responsibility at the sacrifice of his own selfishness towards society.

So basically, you think that communism is a good concept, but it is foiled because once people get into power they become corrupt?

Half-way. The other problem is that it takes strong coercive measures to force people who are socialized otherwise to share (and as communism is supposed to be a stateless, non-coercive system....)

For communism to ever truly work a widespread and deeply reaching philosophical revolution would have to preceed changes. In reality a switch to communism would have to be *extremely* gradual. All the existing regimes which have tried to move towards communism have forced as much change as possible as fast as possible, with the result being far from the ideals of actual communism.

Oil, land and water are not the product of hard work. They are natural resources. Everyone should be granted access to natural resources, no matter how much hard work they do.

Sorry, I was referring to Tekania's post, which seemed to suggest that people just aren't fit to govern at all, though I may have interpreted it wrong.

ANARCHY! Whoo!

All this stuff about "well, they're only hurting the employees; the checkout operators and the people who prepared the food" is rot.

Are they not going to get paid because someone appropriated a load of overpriced food? No.
The people who lose out are the companies, the companies who pay their employees* £4.50 an hour and make £200 profit from the products of their labour!


*I'm going to have to do this in British money-- apologies!

All this stuff about "well, they're only hurting the employees; the checkout operators and the people who prepared the food" is rot.

Are they not going to get paid because someone appropriated a load of overpriced food? No.
The people who lose out are the companies, the companies who pay their employees* £4.50 an hour and make £200 profit from the products of their labour!


*I'm going to have to do this in British money-- apologies!

No problem. Whatever currency you consider it in, it still sucks.

Actually, you're more or less right, people generally are not fit to govern. The human race is a selfish, bigoted little twerp that seeks power and control at every turn it can get.

Communism is self defeating, they deny a state, yet, the state, is in and of itself a unit of society, so the first thing formed in a "stateless" society is a state, inherantly defeating the goal. It is a wonderful idea, but man is incapable as a race of actually doing it; we're hunter/gathers, with feirce independent streaks.....

In all reality there is no such thing as "perfect" human government, because merely in lieu that it is human, it is prone to corruption, the same goes with society in general. So it's an argument of which is the less likely to corrupt, and has the longest survivability characteristics (Personally I go for lassiez-faire capitalism with a Republic form of government). And as a Libertarian, I am more concerned with fierce individual rights and liberties, as opposed to general social good.

Damn thieves...It's not their stuff. They have no right to do that.

If I were in charge of the police, I'd have those people arrested for shoplifting.

Stealing other people's stuff is not a form of protest.

I am disgusted.

wht use is 100 cops in hospital?

laissez-faire capitalism is an oxymoron.
The idea that the human race is doomed to capitalism is wrong. People said that feudalism was the only possible system and they were proven wrong.
Then they said that all economic activity would stop if we introduced minimum wages, that it could not function without child labor and that it would colapse if we introduced the 48 hour working week.
The end of history is still far away.

Damn thieves...It's not their stuff. They have no right to do that

It's their stuff now :P

In all reality there is no such thing as "perfect" human government, because merely in lieu that it is human, it is prone to corruption, the same goes with society in general. So it's an argument of which is the less likely to corrupt, and has the longest survivability characteristics (Personally I go for lassiez-faire capitalism with a Republic form of government). And as a Libertarian, I am more concerned with fierce individual rights and liberties, as opposed to general social good.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the most corruptable human government there is.

it was only a matter of time before someone rioted and/or protested capitalism. capitalism is all about turning a profit, no matter who you step on, or how many families you destroy. if it wasnt for the unions this country would be a corporate fascist state (some would call them republicans). its all about human rights and civil liberties. everyone should get a piece of the pie. its a human right.
The problem is that the unions have for the most part turned into corporations of their own with the people at the top being by far the biggest benefactors.

laissez-faire capitalism is an oxymoron.
The idea that the human race is doomed to capitalism is wrong. People said that feudalism was the only possible system and they were proven wrong.
Then they said that all economic activity would stop if we introduced minimum wages, that it could not function without child labor and that it would colapse if we introduced the 48 hour working week.
The end of history is still far away.
While economic activity has not been stopped by the minimum wage is has been harmed by it. The reason for this is that raising the minimum wage has almost the same if a lesser effect than the rising price of oil. It makes most things more expensive. The more people working minimum wage that come in contact with a product that is sold or is used to sell another product etc.. etc.. the higher it's price will become or in the case of quite a few retail stores less workers will be hired.

While economic activity has not been stopped by the minimum wage is has been harmed by it. The reason for this is that raising the minimum wage has almost the same if a lesser effect than the rising price of oil. It makes most things more expensive. The more people working minimum wage that come in contact with a product that is sold or is used to sell another product etc.. etc.. the higher it's price will become or in the case of quite a few retail stores less workers will be hired.
That's wrong. Introducing minimum wages does not make the prices go up, because it creates more demand. It does actually improve the economy. You don't realize that without socialist policies, cars would be so expensive that it would only be for a few.

The problem is that the unions have for the most part turned into corporations of their own with the people at the top being by far the biggest benefactors.
Except they don't make a profit.

wasn't he the mayor of new york?

While we're on the subject of names and Italian anarchists, is the Luther Blissett movement still going strong down there?

Horray for freedom!

Horray for freedom!

Redistribution of goods under capitalism by using the same cheating and corrupt methods that the anarchists accuse the capitalists of utilising != freedom.

See also "We don't want a bigger slice of the pie, we want the whole fucking bakery."

Redistribution of goods under capitalism by using the same cheating and corrupt methods that the anarchists accuse the capitalists of utilising != freedom.[/i]

Eh, how exactly is free distribution the same methods that capitalists use?

Vas.

Eh, how exactly is free distribution the same methods that capitalists use?

Vas.

Anarchists complain that not only is capitalism inherently unjust, but also that one of its major faults is that cpaitalists don't play fair by the rules of their own system (see Enron and similar cases): here what we see is not* the transfer of the means of production into the hands of those who believe they should belong to the masses, but instead the petty pilfering which is just the same as the corrupt methods of the capitalists.

In other words: stealing from those who steal from you is hardly the way to build a new society.


* word missing prior to edit.

So let me get this correct they protest overall economic problems by stealing other peoples food/livelihood

How does that help things? I mean the immediate problem with food but how is that honestly “standing up for your principals” which was the attempt. Probably put some poor old owners store or someone just barely making it in the economic environment (I know it is probably a franchise but usually individual owners of that specific store is going to have to play the consequences)

I don’t see the point. All they managed to do was hurt someone else while “protesting” (note I would be more sympathetic if this was all about just getting some food … the little old lady’s quote through things off a bit but she was just agreeing because she thought food was expensive … not cause she believed in their cause)

Come on it was a giant Panorama supermarket, not a local store.

Come on it was a giant Panorama supermarket, not a local store.

Precisely. Giant national chains *harm* economies and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. Once they drive the local stores out of business they no longer have any incentive for keeping lower prices and the number of people able to make a decent wage decreases while the cost of living remains the same or rises.

Wow, some of you scare the living shiat out of me.

A few points that I believe have been made which are at least partially false:

1) Minimum wage laws ARE socially inefficient. Anyone who has made it through Econ 101 and accepts that supply and demand exist and that prices have a natural origin at the point where consumers are willing to purchase what the producers are willing to sell, needs to understand that "minimum wage" is a prop, just like a decree that oranges will be sold for no less than $2 each.

Both have the same consequences of reducing consumption, whether it is of labor or of oranges. There are people who will be unemployed but willing to work for less than minimum wage.

2) Some of you need to admit that you're communists. Then you ought to try to figure out where you can go and make your little communes without trying to inflict your beliefs on everyone else.

3) When you don't pay for dinner, you're hurting people besides the owners. Start with the dishwashers, the soux chefs, and the backwaiters, all of whom are not dependent on tips, but rather on hourly for the vast bulk of their wage.

1) Minimum wage laws ARE socially inefficient. Anyone who has made it through Econ 101 and accepts that supply and demand exist and that prices have a natural origin at the point where consumers are willing to purchase what the producers are willing to sell, needs to understand that "minimum wage" is a prop, just like a decree that oranges will be sold for no less than $2 each.

Both have the same consequences of reducing consumption, whether it is of labor or of oranges. There are people who will be unemployed but willing to work for less than minimum wage.It doesn't work like that. Labor is not the same as orange, it is unlimited.

2) Some of you need to admit that you're communists. Then you ought to try to figure out where you can go and make your little communes without trying to inflict your beliefs on everyone else.
In order to have a commune, you have to expropriate the bourgeois. You can't free the slaves without expropriating the masters.

That's wrong. Introducing minimum wages does not make the prices go up, because it creates more demand. It does actually improve the economy. You don't realize that without socialist policies, cars would be so expensive that it would only be for a few.
I'm not against all regulatory (you call them socialist) policies. Some are very important. Namely the minimum wage, worker safety standards, etc. The reason is capitalism with a mild infusion of socialism to ensure no one is being actively harmed is the best system, in which people are protected, but free.

You can't free the slaves without expropriating the masters.
Use the real word.
"You can't free the slaves without ROBBING the masters"

I'm not against all regulatory (you call them socialist) policies. Some are very important. Namely the minimum wage, worker safety standards, etc. The reason is capitalism with a mild infusion of socialism to ensure no one is being actively harmed is the best system, in which people are protected, but free.
Protection includes guaranteed access to food, water, medecine and housing in my opinion.

Use the real word.
"You can't free the slaves without ROBBING the masters"If you prefer that word, feel free to use it I don't see what difference it makes.

Putting a complex word on a bad thing doesn't make it any less bad. It's like the time a guy in my dorm got drunk, he pissed on a girls laptop and told the police "I may have been inebriated, but I can assuage the officers concerns by telling him I did not urinate on a portable computer."

Putting a complex word on a bad thing doesn't make it any less bad. It's like the time a guy in my dorm got drunk, he pissed on a girls laptop and told the police "I may have been inebriated, but I can assuage the officers concerns by telling him I did not urinate on a portable computer."
I did not intent to change the meaning of the word sorry. It was just the first word which came out of my mind. I'm not a native english speacker BTW.
But what I meant is clear I hope. Anyway, the world is not good and bad.

Protection includes guaranteed access to food, water, medecine and housing in my opinion.
How does that protect people from active aggression? Do big capitalists just sit in a room rubbing their hands together saying "today we're going to figure out a plan to deny the workers housing." No, they don't. The job of the government is to ensure that the workers are paid enough to be able to purchase those things voluntarily. Not to supply them those things out-right. If I don't want healthcare, then I should be able to spend the money that would go towards that on something else, maybe a new car, or television.

I did not intent to change the meaning of the word sorry. It was just the first word which came out of my mind. I'm not a native english speacker BTW. Anyway, the world is not good and bad.
Ah, I understand. I shall ignore any word oddities, just the use of expropriate seemed to be like a propaganda word to cover a meaning. I understand.

Every single one of them should be charged with shoplifting, and the organizers of it with a little extra on top of it (depending on Italian law).

That's so stupid. What they are doing is wrong.

The policemen that just stood idly by and let them do it should all be fired as well.

I agree. after all, is the shop owner the cause of their ecconomic desperation? should he be forced to pay for it? what about his lively hood that these theives are walking out with, while the authorities that are supposed to protect him stand by and do nothing?

These people are theives, pure and simple. If they really had any conviction, and weren't just looking for an excuse to help themselves to what ever they want, they would be protesting and staging demonstrations to help change their situation. not just spreading their missery on to innocent shop owners simply because they are more fortunate than them (how dare they :rolleyes: )

don't take my absence as running away, but the fact that I've got a final exam in 13 minuts, see you all. If the debate is still raging when I get back, I might jump back in.

How does that protect people from active aggression? Do big capitalists just sit in a room rubbing their hands together saying "today we're going to figure out a plan to deny the workers housing." No, they don't.No they don't but the effect is the same. The intend does not matter. They sit in a room rubbing their hands together saying "today we're going to figure out a plan to buy as much land and housing as possible and to get maximum return on this". In effect, they deny housing to the lower class.

Come on it was a giant Panorama supermarket, not a local store.
Even so (and note my comment about big stores still being owned by one individual who is liable for most things ... even if they are part of a franchise)

How was it the stores fault that they were in this situation ... how did sacking it "get back" at the people who did this

Even so (and note my comment about big stores still being owned by one individual who is liable for most things ... even if they are part of a franchise)

How was it the stores fault that they were in this situation ... how did sacking it "get back" at the people who did this
It's not about getting back at people, it is about direct action aimed at changing the rules. Anyway, only the share holders are hurt.

laissez-faire capitalism is an oxymoron.
The idea that the human race is doomed to capitalism is wrong. People said that feudalism was the only possible system and they were proven wrong.
Then they said that all economic activity would stop if we introduced minimum wages, that it could not function without child labor and that it would colapse if we introduced the 48 hour working week.
The end of history is still far away.

That's about right.... I preffer to reffer to the concept as "free-market" and opposed to the general concept of the statistic capitalist forms usually imployed by most self-proclaimed "capitalizt" (which does little but border upon feudalism). But, in all truth to the core of the principle of lassiez-faire, "free-market economics" is the most central tenet of pure capitalism... Which, after a brief glimpse around the world, just goes to show you further, that neither side of the coin have views which exist in purity of operation, because of the inherant nature of man to corrupt in the presence of power...

In the end, regardless of form, you end up with a few honest sincere holders, a huge body of ignorant yes-men, with a small elitist power-block in control... (Boy, you can tell I have so much respect for my species).

That's about right.... I preffer to reffer to the concept as "free-market" and opposed to the general concept of the statistic capitalist forms usually imployed by most self-proclaimed "capitalizt" (which does little but border upon feudalism). But, in all truth to the core of the principle of lassiez-faire, "free-market economics" is the most central tenet of pure capitalism... Which, after a brief glimpse around the world, just goes to show you further, that neither side of the coin have views which exist in purity of operation, because of the inherant nature of man to corrupt in the presence of power...

In the end, regardless of form, you end up with a few honest sincere holders, a huge body of ignorant yes-men, with a small elitist power-block in control... (Boy, you can tell I have so much respect for my species).
I believe capitalism is opposed to free-market economics, because the private ownership of resources is a monopoly. In my opinion, the market of capital and the market of goods and services can not be both free at the same time.

1) Minimum wage laws ARE socially inefficient. Anyone who has made it through Econ 101

You see, some of us know a little bit more about economics than... what do you yanks call it... grade school level?

Use the real word.
"You can't free the slaves without ROBBING the masters"

Think about what you're saying. If someone is a slave (and you accept their slave status), then their liberty is being stolen by the masters. The word is neither robbing, nor expropriating, it's liberating. It's not theft to take that which has been stolen.

Capitalism is theft - food is grown on land. Land is a common possession, property is theft, thus all food is the profit of a crime. As a result, it is not theft to take back that which should belong to all of us.

Use the real word.
"You can't free the slaves without ROBBING the masters"

if that is the word that belongs there (and it certainly has a claim to it), that merely shows that not all things that are defined by the status quo as 'robbery' are bad, and in fact that some of them are outright good things to do. which is close enough for me.

I agree. after all, is the shop owner the cause of their ecconomic desperation? should he be forced to pay for it? what about his lively hood that these theives are walking out with, while the authorities that are supposed to protect him stand by and do nothing?

These people are theives, pure and simple. If they really had any conviction, and weren't just looking for an excuse to help themselves to what ever they want, they would be protesting and staging demonstrations to help change their situation. not just spreading their missery on to innocent shop owners simply because they are more fortunate than them (how dare they :rolleyes: )

If they were helping *themselves* they wouldn't have handed out the goods from the grocery store, now would they?

How does that protect people from active aggression? Do big capitalists just sit in a room rubbing their hands together saying "today we're going to figure out a plan to deny the workers housing." No, they don't. The job of the government is to ensure that the workers are paid enough to be able to purchase those things voluntarily. Not to supply them those things out-right. If I don't want healthcare, then I should be able to spend the money that would go towards that on something else, maybe a new car, or television.

The government is not doing that job. Enviornmental regulations are being relaxed so much that in many places corporately bottled water is becoming more and more of a necessity. Low cost prison "contract labor" is taking over many of the medium wage jobs at the same time the government is pushing mandatory minimum sentencing and increasing the range or what is a jailable offense. There is a shrinking in the amount of mid-priced housing. It is either expensive or in the bad neighborhoods (putting more and more people in touch with the criminal element in an attempt to lure them into committing a jailable offense). Corporations are being bailed out at the same time that they are denying pensions and other benefits to their workers (such as more and more are dropping health insurance) and moving more and more jobs overseas. Over-time pay laws have just been relaxed. Funding to public schools is beings slashed and a in an effort to push the idea "vouchers" and the privatization of schools - meaning the poor will be less able to afford education to better themselves. Just look at the rate that the gap in wealth has been growing. In a very few generations there will be very few people left with anything worth "robbing." It will be back to feudal lord and peasant unless action is taken and the people reclaim the rights and the properties that were stolen from them in the first place.