- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Excerpt:
Banksy isn’t happy with Guess’ latest collaboration.
The legendary anonymous graffiti artist had a directive for his followers on Friday, encouraging them—possibly tongue in cheek, possibly not—to visit the Regent Street Guess store in London and steal the brand’s new collection that features his artwork.
“Attention all shoplifters. Please go to Guess on Regents Street. They’ve helped themselves to my artwork without asking, how can it be wrong for you to do the same to their clothes?”
You must log in or register to comment.
Nov 18, 2022
Does anyone have a follow up story of this?
Guess panicked and shut it all down. Brandalized, the graffiti commercializers, had a predictable shit take.
That myartbroker site is the weirdest thing I’ve seen today. Ending with a “no commercial use is allowed” banner but featuring many “buy Banksy” links intermixed with the article.
Almost as dumb as Brandalized’s reply to Banksy calling for a justified raid.
Adblockers are killing information industry profits. You can help.
I have an adblocker, they’re ads for the company themselves so they’re not being picked up by Ublock.
Wow, this old shit has been posted in multiple places.
Lol why the fuck is there a shoplifting community on here
If you really want to know, you should read Abby Hoffman’s “Steal This Book”.
Brief and lazy summary: capitalism is at war with the poor, capitalism is structural violence against the poor, business owners are part of the machine of capitalism and foot soldiers in that war, and shoplifting is a non-violent way for the poor to fight back.
Businesses make profit by exploiting the labor of the working class. Shoplifting reclaims that profit for the working class.
All property is theft and property rights are bullshit.
And that’s why a socialist instance dedicated to environmental utopia hosts a shoplifting community.
Not saying I agree with it but there it is.
All property is theft and property rights are bullshit.
Do you mean that no one should own anything?
The word ‘Property’ has a particular meaning in Socialist theory, and it makes a distinction between personal property (stuff that you own for your own use) and private property, which includes things like the means of production (think factories), natural resources, etc.
Long version:
In a private property system, property rules are organized around the idea that various contested resources are assigned to the decisional authority of particular individuals (or families or firms). Thomas Merrill (2012) calls this ‘the property strategy’ and contrasts it with bureaucratic governance or the management of resources through group consensus. In a system of private property, the person to whom a given object is assigned (e.g., the person who found it or made it) has control over the object: it is for her to decide what should be done with it. In exercising this authority, she is not understood to be acting as an agent or official of the society. She may act on her own initiative without giving anyone else an explanation, or she may enter into cooperative arrangements with others, just as she likes. She may even transfer this right of decision to someone else, in which case that person acquires the same rights she had. In general the right of a proprietor to decide as she pleases about the resource that she owns applies whether or not others are affected by her decision. If Jennifer owns a steel factory, it is for her to decide (in her own interest) whether to close it or to keep the plant operating, even though a decision to close may have the gravest impact on her employees and on the prosperity of the local community.
Though private property is a system of individual decision-making, it is still a system of social rules. The owner is not required to rely on her own strength to vindicate her right to make self-interested decisions about the object assigned to her: if Jennifer’s employees occupy the steel factory to keep it operating despite her wishes, she can call the police and have them evicted; she does not have to do this herself or even pay for it herself. So private property is continually in need of public justification—first, because it empowers individuals to make decisions about the use of scarce resource in a way that is not necessarily sensitive to others’ needs or the public good; and second, because it does not merely permit that but deploys public force at public expense to uphold it.
Thanks for this.
You’re quite welcome. ^^
Yeah, but the person in the replies said “All property is theft”, they didn’t make any distinction (not sure whether that is their actual view, or whether they were just trying to explain this community, but that’s besides the point). And nobody is going to shoplift factories or natural resources, so that distinction doesn’t seem to play a major (or at least direct) role in the context of OP’s question about why this community exists here.
But I have a genuine question about your post, how does personal property differ from the explanation given for private property?
In a system of private property, the person to whom a given object is assigned (e.g., the person who found it or made it) has control over the object: it is for her to decide what should be done with it. In exercising this authority, she is not understood to be acting as an agent or official of the society. She may act on her own initiative without giving anyone else an explanation, or she may enter into cooperative arrangements with others, just as she likes.
Wouldn’t that apply completely to personal property as well? I always thought that private property was just a special class of things being treated as personal property, when it shouldn’t due to their importance to society. So someone treating a factory the same way they treat a teapot they have in their house, where the former is private and the latter is personal because the former affects the lives of others in a significant way. Or have I got it wrong?
Taken from a reddit post on the subject that I think did a good job of explaining it:
I like to link the word “private” with “privation” or “deprivation”. Private property is easily identifiable by its effects on others, specifically, it’s deprivation. There are hundreds of thousands of hammers. Having one doesn’t deprive anyone of anything. At most only one person can use the hammer.
A house is usable by an entire family, and if I own it but don’t use it myself, my ownership deprives an entire family of its use. That scales to apartment buildings pretty easily. Then there’s farms where basically it’s impossible for one person to do all of the work on a farm or eat all of the products of a farm, but my ownership has the effect of depriving anyone the right to work there or the right to consume its products. A factory is truly impossible for one person to use, but my ownership of it allows me to deprive everyone of its products unless they meet my price demands and also allows me to deprive everyone of use of the factory to make anything at all.
Private property entails a deprivation of society of socially necessary commodities.
In the case of a grocery store, the argument could be made that the owners of the grocery store chain are exploiting their employees with low wages, and selling the products of other owners who are exploiting their employees as well with their private property, thus justifying ‘taking back’ what was deprived.
On the flip side, It would be very difficult to morally justify shoplifting from a co-op grocery store that sells products from other cooperatives, as at that point no one would be being exploited.
As the person ranting in the replies about how all property is theft, I was explaining why some strains of socialist thought support shoplifting as a form of redistribution from capital to labor, so, yes, you can presume I’m using a socialist definition of property. 😆
It never hurts to specify, presumptions are a shortcut to misunderstandings.
Does anyone stop at “reclaiming profits for the working class” and not go all the way to removing property rights entirely? Owning my own home would be nice…
I’m enough of a hippie environmentalist to believe that land cannot be owned, and the very concept is insulting to the planet itself, but let’s leave that aside and talk socialism and economics.
I think the “American dream of home ownership” is, frankly, based on fear.
People are afraid if they lose their jobs or get old or sick and can’t pay rent their landlords will evict them.
People are afraid their landlord will harass them, or demand extra money from them, or otherwise extort them under the threat of eviction.
People are afraid if they have a medical crisis or extended period of unemployment they’ll end up broke, and want equity in a home as insurance against poverty.
And people are afraid their children will be broke or homeless or living in a slum and want to leave their children equity in a home to protect them as well.
And this is all a result of capitalism. This is because we treat basic shelter as a privilege the poor have to earn by working instead of a basic human right. And we don’t trust government to provide us with the basic right to housing, and we don’t trust government to protect us from abuses by landlords, and we don’t trust ourselves to be able to pay constantly increasing rent if we get fired or get sick, so owning our own home is the only way to protect ourselves from homelessness.
And American capitalism, in particular, enforces the fear of homelessness by abusing and brutalizing and dehumanizing people experiencing homelessness, so that the average American believes homelessness is one of the worst fates someone in America can endure. And it is. Because we make it that way.
Anyone who doesn’t own their own home in the US is at far greater risk of homelessness than someone who does. And the fear of homelessness is the fundamental drive behind American idealization of home ownership. And that is sick and wrong and unfair.
In a socialist society where housing is a human right and guaranteed to all, where people have no fear of losing their homes because they trust their government to ensure their basic right to shelter, where people don’t fear landlords abusing their power because apartment buildings and housing complexes aren’t owned, but managed, by committees which themselves are monitored by government to prevent abuses, I think home ownership would be not only unnecessary but irrelevant.
Because what does owning a home represent, in America, except shelter and security and protection? And if all that is guaranteed to you by right, what need is there for personal ownership?
In a perfect world, owning land would be as unnecessary and foolish as owning the air we breathe or the water we drink.
I want my own space.
You can absolutely have your own house. Your own personal dwelling is not Private Property, it would be Personal Property. See my comment here to see the distinction between the two.
Long winded, smelling your own farts way of saying, “I’m pissed that minimum wage isn’t enough to get a single family building in downtown Los Angeles”. You’re right dude, Mao would have given us great living conditions for free.
Most of the things you’re attributing to capitalism could be solved in a capitalism society, but the real cause is just because survival is hard. We probably agree that too much land is private (I wont go so far to say it shouldn’t be owned), but even when people could find some space in the wilderness and make a home, it was a constant struggle just to survive. Not saying it was worse than modern society for some people, but it wasn’t easy for anyone.
And I’m not saying capitalism is a “good” system, but using American capitalism as an example of the problems with the theoretical implementation of capitalism is as misleading as using China as an example of communism. Both are flawed and corrupt, both have the issues you pointed out, and both could solve them in their own ways. If the upper class wasn’t constantly attacking workers’ rights, most of the problems you listed either wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t be nearly as bad.
The difference is that the ideal form of capitalism as defined by its advocates doesn’t even attempt to solve these issues. A theoretically pure free market capitalist society would still have homeless.
That’s not to say that solutions to homelessness can’t be implemented within a larger capitalist society—clearly they can and I would argue should be. But those solutions will not really be compatible with the ideology of pure capitalism.
Socialist theory makes a distinction between personal property and private property (which is what is being referenced there),
Personal property, you own it to use it.
Private property, you own it to extract value by owning it, necessarily this means you are using your ownership of this thing to exploit others.
Example: your house is personal property if you live in it but is private property if you rent it to someone else. You can see from this that things can change from personal property to private and vice versa.
Owning your own home and having your own space is perfectly reasonable within socialism.
Interesting, that’s definitely not the definition of “private” that I was thinking of when I read that post. Still not sure I completely agree, but it sounds reasonable enough.
But I sincerely doubt that this community is thinking only about poor who steal from the rich in order to survive. Since this is a community for celebrating shoplifting, kids who feel they’re entitled to everything are based, actual examples are just taking what you want without paying and the pinned post explaining what this community is about ends with “let’s steal some shit”.
This community looks like it’s just about stealing what you want, while using the plight of the poor as an excuse to steal nail polish.
This community looks like it’s just about stealing what you want, while using the plight of the poor as an excuse to steal nail polish.
I think you are disingenuous here. You are using arguments and motivations from different people and just mix them together because they where posted in the same online space.
My opinion as the mod and the one that started the community does not represent everyone participating here.
I need to steal funko pops to feed my children
There’s like one guy and you’re only hurting yourself, you’re not supporting a cause in an incredibly stupid way.
this is the dumbest take I’ve ever read. I can get behind some anti capitalism but you all taking this seriously have a lot of issues. No way you’re living a stable life taking this all in.
Its for the shoplifters.
Right, of course
deleted by creator
Policy in most chains is to document and tabulate. It’s not worth it to prosecute until they have documentation that the amount you’ve stolen has reached the threshold of felony theft. Check the statutes in your area, the dollar value isn’t indexed to inflation, so the threat of incarceration to people just trying to get by grows every year.
They used to be on reddit but they got banned lol
Removed by mod
Real hypocritical from the dude who ripped off Blek Le Rat lol.
*without paying
