about the break away
by john Sunday January 19, 2003 at 08:00 AM
I took part in the break away march and had a great time taking back are streets and fucking up what we could. Violence against people i think is to much but violence against property really harms no one especially when its starbucks or citibank or anyone of the other places we hit up. The rest of us don't feel like sitting around and waiting for the bad things to happen we set out to outright stop them. Sorry you may not like or methods but we will be back...as none of us even got arrested or even any major media coverage....
Free Speech Reclaimed
by [Another] Realist Sunday January 19, 2003 at 06:19 AM
Time for corporate speech to wither. In a once-beautiful city, now scarred with the scourge of "naming rights" and endless advertising. Corporate speech has taken over SF. Graffitti on the towers of the corporate oppressors is not only fair turnabout, it's free speech reclaimed!
by redsam Sunday January 19, 2003 at 02:28 PM
I took part in the break away march, and it wasn't some mindless action of property destruction. It targetted institutions which are directly involved in the exploitation and suffering of the world population. The destruction of the front of the INS building, over the yells of "no more borders!" was fucking BRILLIANT, and I think will send a great message of solidarity to those families whose members have been "disappeared" by the capitalist state. In fact, as we marched through the financial district, there were many cheers from sympathizers. The only negative thing I could say about the march was that few instances of graffiti on parked cars, but for the most part all property vandalism was targetted at the banks which profit from war and exploitation, and the INS building which has been involved in deportation and dententions of thousands of proletarian immigrants. As long as these direct actions maintain coherent political messages, targeting the basis of capitalist power, then I support them completely and will participate in them.
Yes on Diversity of Tactics!
by Singer Sunday January 19, 2003 at 06:00 PM
Ok. I'm not the type to break windows. It's just not my thing. But I saw that this happened, and where 5 years ago I might have also been just like some of these other comments I've seen -- "HOW CAN YOU PREACH NON-VIOLENCE WHILE DOING THIS!". I gotta say that my heart was actually pretty happy. I fully agree that we need a diversity of tactics. And I fully support targeted property destruction.
Those of you freaking out in disbelief sound like you havn't been doing this that long. If you had, you'd be fully aware of the endless debate within the "movement" about violence and non-violence, especially in relation to property. The actions of those being targeted inflict violence on human beings worldwide on a daily basis.
This is not about showing up for a march, singing a few songs and going home and having tea. Things are really bad out there for a lot of people. Extreme circumstances require extreme action sometimes.
Yeah, MLK himself might not have supported property damage. But with all due respect to the man himself, the Civil Rights Movement was not just MLK.
In diversity is stability. I believe that artful, targeted property damage (the cars yesterday, that was way not cool) is just as important as peaceful marches. And I respect those willing to take the risk.
why not cars?
by jj Sunday January 19, 2003 at 06:19 PM
why not write on suvs?
suvs = oil = war
SUV's WOULD be a good idea
by Jordan Sunday January 19, 2003 at 06:39 PM
Yes, they may be working class, but just because they get minimum wage doesn't mean they shouldn't be targeted for the terrorism SUV's promote. Not-to-mention SUV's are expensive, so they probably get a little more than working class conditions. SUV's are a HUGE reason for this war, and the people who drive them have been told time and time again the dangers of SUV's, but they refuse to accept, as driving a bigger and better car is worth any price, be it human lives or global warming. Not to mention, you could be saving a life by destroying an SUV (they are significantly more likely to flip over from hitting a SINGLE CURVE than a regular car)
by lips Sunday January 19, 2003 at 07:21 PM
As someone already stated, suvs do cost more than many working class folk can afford.
But, even if it is working class folk who own a suv, so what? Just because youre working class youre allowed to do something that people always condemn yuppies for doing? Yeah right. I don't care what class youre in, if youre going around destroying the environment (of course that's not the only reason suvs suck, but its my personal favorite) you should have your suv tagged.
Also, if in fact these suvs were owned by working class folk (which I doubt, its much more typical to see a rich yuppie in downtown san francisco driving and suv than someone whos working class) it was just some paint. Maybe their cars wont look as great (arnt all cars ugly though?) but they still run and function perfectly. I didn't see anyone breaking any suv windows or anything that would stop the suv from working.