community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Oakland's New Starbucks... remember when?
by bugg
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 7:42 PM
Pictures from the property destruction action taken against the new Starbucks at Forbes and Craig in Oakland.
p1010203.jpg, image/jpeg, 636x494
Although up and open for business today, it was just a few weeks ago when a group of people broke the windows and spraypainted their mind at the Starbucks-To-Be on Craig and Forbes.
Starbucks has come up short on its "commitment" to fair trade, and has enviornmental practices that are equally upsetting. What's more, this Starbucks is opening up right across the street from locally owned Kiva Han. Indeed, this area of Oakland has become a microcosm of our society: locally owned businesses being bullied out by large, multinational, bullies.
Photo courtesy Idris Atsu Robinson.
Good looking sign. But wait, where's our window?
by bugg
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 7:42 PM
p1010202.jpg, image/jpeg, 670x536
Photo courtesy Idris Atsu Robinson.
Closeup on window
by bugg
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 7:42 PM
p1010201.jpg, image/jpeg, 784x588
Photo courtesy Idris Atsu Robinson.
Sidewalks agree... No To Starbucks!
by bugg
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 7:42 PM
p1010199.jpg, image/jpeg, 784x588
Photo courtesy Idris Atsu Robinson.
No, they still aren't welcome.
by bugg
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003 at 7:42 PM
Photo courtesy Idris Atsu Robinson.
hate mongering
by dutin
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 2:48 PM
this is all just a bunch of hate. i don't understand vandalism nor care to. it's just plain wrong. i don't like the starbucks on craig street. you won't find me smashing windows or anything of the sort. i just won't go in there. kivahan has a great customer base and i haven't seen even a slight reduction in hte number of people in the store since starbucks opened across the street. and quite honestly it's better than the ugly empty storefront that was there. don't like it? don't go there. i even work for starbucks and you won't catch me dead inside that store. i'll stick to drinking kiva han coffee and tipping well when i'm in oakland.
I agree.
by Malik
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 3:14 PM
Vandalism doesn't do anything but alienate people and harm the progressive cause.
I agree.
by Malik
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 3:15 PM
Vandalism (in most cases) doesn't do anything but alienate people and harm the progressive cause.
be cautious
by ----
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 3:43 PM
Please be aware these boards are very monitored by folks who don't have a very good purpose.
It often seems that comments are made to bait people into responding or taking positions on things like property damage. While dialogue is necessary to change minds, Indymedia has ceased being much of a vehicle for productive dialogue. What can be gained by arguing back and forth over a specific incident of property damage?
Just one persons opinion.
good job
by pr0t3s7
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 3:48 PM
to respond to dustin's post:
Your statement that "it's [vandalism's] just plain wrong" is entirely moralistic and baseless. I arrived at this conclusion because you failed to provide any objective evidence to support your claim, you simply decided that vandalism is "wrong" for no other reason than the fact that it simply is.
The comment that if you "don't like it? don't go in there" is also rather ridiculous. Would you show logical consistency and also profess that if one doesn't like racism one simply should not be racist? Such a conjecture is utterly asonine as it fails to address the fact that inaction does absolutely nothing, and that concerned people are not "wrong" simply because they choose to act. Would you oppose an unpermitted protest against the KKK because anti-racists should simply abstain from joining the organization?
The fact that KivaHan doesn't appear to be losing a significant amount of business is because of the fact that the starbucks' has only been open for, at the most, a matter of weeks. Naturally, it will take some time before KivaHan begins struggling (and hopefully this will not happen, however, realistically, this is a strong possibility).
Now, to Malik, your statement that "vandalism doesn't do anything but alienate people and harm the progressive cause" is overly simplistic and incorrect. Is your statement based on something empirical, or is it a simple subjective rant, predicated upon nothing but your own reactionary emotions? I feel that the latter is the case.
Property destruction can be a legitimate method of political action, especially when directed against a malevolent company like Starbucks'. Let's not forget the economic violence this company has exercised against much of the world's impoverished communites.
I will not shed a tear for broken glass, and perhaps your anger should be directed towards Starbuck's for it's irresponsible economic practices, not towards those who utilize property destruction to combat the corporation.
ok i'll elaborate
by dutin
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 5:42 PM
{Your statement that "it's [vandalism's] just plain wrong" is entirely moralistic and baseless. I arrived at this conclusion because you failed to provide any objective evidence to support your claim, you simply decided that vandalism is "wrong" for no other reason than the fact that it simply is.}
ok. here goes...
vandalism causes undue hardship on proprietors of business, and to the community. it also wastes MY tax dollars.(i only sy my because i have no idea if you or anyone else pays taxes necesarilly)
and yes it is a moral issue here. if you vandalize you are destroying something that is not yours.
so is it right to waste my money and damage someone elses things? no. show me how vandalism is right and good if you want to play some retarded and childish semantics game.
{The comment that if you "don't like it? don't go in there" is also rather ridiculous. Would you show logical consistency and also profess that if one doesn't like racism one simply should not be racist? Such a conjecture is utterly asonine as it fails to address the fact that inaction does absolutely nothing, and that concerned people are not "wrong" simply because they choose to act. Would you oppose an unpermitted protest against the KKK because anti-racists should simply abstain from joining the organization?}
yes. i'm not a racist because i don't beleive in un-equality. and as far as starbucks and hurting people goes, two COMPLETELY different things. also destruction of property and protesting are not the same thing. not even remotely close. and the KKK has every right to hate. i don't hate them. i just don't agree with them. and as long as they don't destroy let them alone.
{The fact that KivaHan doesn't appear to be losing a significant amount of business is because of the fact that the starbucks' has only been open for, at the most, a matter of weeks. Naturally, it will take some time before KivaHan begins struggling (and hopefully this will not happen, however, realistically, this is a strong possibility).}
actually i've seen people look at starbucks then turn around and goto kiva han. they also opened the food section. which puts them in a different category of store all together. kivahan will very unlikely loose any business to starbucks. and if you are worried they will. just goto kivahan more and telll others how good it is.
{Property destruction can be a legitimate method of political action, especially when directed against a malevolent company like Starbucks'. Let's not forget the economic violence this company has exercised against much of the world's impoverished communites.}
i'm so sure this is entirely starbucks and not just where coffee happens to be grown. so how is kiva han's coffee not hurting people and starbucks is exactly? my favorite quote from today:
"and I doubt kiva han buys their beans from magical ranches in columbia where everybody lives on clouds and isn't hassled by the junta"
the real problems lie in the countries themselves.
{I will not shed a tear for broken glass, and perhaps your anger should be directed towards Starbuck's for it's irresponsible economic practices, not towards those who utilize property destruction to combat the corporation.}
did you miss the fact that i work for starbucks? and what is so wrong about a sucessful company that's OLDER than kiva han? maybe starbucks is just consistantly good coffee that's everywhere. kiva han won't dry up and be no more just because there's a starbucks next door. just won't happen.
that store created jobs for people. what's wrong with giving people JOBS. those things you do so you can put food on the table? last time i checked it's a tough market out there.
and finally. you like vandalism so much? maybe i should come to your home and smash your windows... it's JUST a window after all. but i bet you wouldn't like it if that were done to you. ther are many MANY more peaceful alternatives. like protesting outside the store. but i imagine that takes eal effort where smashing windows takes all of 3 seconds.
....
by .....
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 6:06 PM
During the �90s, Starbucks set the model for putting local businesses out of business. Through a process of saturation, it clusters several outlets in an area already well served by coffee shops. That creates a cannibalizing effect, where all the coffee shops, even the Starbucks outlets, witness a loss of business. The Starbucks outlets can weather that storm. The local businesses cannot.
As for dubious corporate morals, Starbucks has been represented on many lists of the worst offenders. It is accused of closing down distribution plants that have unionized, maintaining supposedly flexible working hours that serve to deny employees of any real benefits and contributing to the appalling treatment of coffee farmers in the Third World. Their Corporate Social Responsibility Annual Report has all the appearance of superficial window dressing disguising their overriding mission: to make money.
For Starbucks, the way for its business to profit is, in the words of Scott Bedbury, then vice president of marketing, to "establish emotional ties" through the "Starbucks Experience." Drinking coffee at Starbucks is about "the romance of the coffee experience, the feeling of warmth and community people get in Starbucks stores," according to chairman Howard Schultz.
no way...
by dutin
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 6:14 PM
"...superficial window dressing disguising their overriding mission: to make money."
woah! moeny! who would have thought! i pretend to be really nice while at work so i too can *gasp* make money.
welcome to a capitalist society. i don't like it that money makes the world go round, but when in rome...
...
by ...
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 6:18 PM
"but when in rome"... work for one of the most exploitative corporations instead of finding work somewhere that minimizes the amount of damage you're doing to the world?
The good old I need money to survive therefore not matter what I do for money is excusable!
Response
by Malik
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 7:41 PM
First, I should say that I'm not shedding any tears over broken glass either. I have no desire to protect Starbucks. Nor do I have any "anger" to direct at the people who committed this act. Indeed, I regard them as welcome friends and comrades in the struggle. The vitriolic tone of your response was completely unwarranted.
However, any and all tactics should be subject to critique. Only through an open evaluation of all these kinds of actions can we find what works best.
And that's what concerns me -- what works best. It is my contention that in this situation, direct action in the form of property destruction is *not* what works best.
A few hundred dollars (at most) worth of damage was done. So what? Insurance will cover it. And even if insurance didn't cover it, what's a loss of a few hundred dollars to a corporation worth hundreds of millions of dollars? You're throwing pebbles at giants. Ultimately, such actions are purely symbolic.
This action did not in any way substantially harm Starbucks. It may, in fact, serve to protect Starbucks' interests.
The corporate media will use this act to smear the global justice movement, and by association, the anti-war movement.
More importantly, it has great potential to alienate much of the working population. Most people don't know *why* Starbucks is bad. They certainly aren't prepared to support property destruction directed against Starbucks.
Such acts also tend to create enmity between the targeted business and that business's workers.
What would be more effective -- breaking a Starbucks window or organizing Starbucks workers? Spraying slogans on a Starbucks wall or organizing a initiating a Starbucks boycott?
I believe that any action needs to be well planned and have clear, concrete goals and expectations. In planning actions, groups need to take into account what effect their actions will have. Actions involving property destruction (more often than not) do not. There are exceptions, of course.
To reiterate: this has nothing to do with protecting Starbucks. I dislike Starbucks as much as the next lefty. I'm only concerned with taking that course of action which is most effective.
Open debate is an integral part of any political community. My intention is not to dismiss anyone's ideas or to second-guess anyone's (undoubtedly positive) intentions. I'm just posting my critique. And I invite everyone to critique my critique! :-)
Your response to dustin...
by Malik
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 8:10 PM
You write, "Your statement that 'it's [vandalism's] just plain wrong' is entirely moralistic and baseless." Here, we agree. I don't think that a good case can be made for a moral objection to political vandalism in this case. An objection due to this tactic's lack of effectiveness, however, is more warranted.
However, you then succumb to the same illogicality of which you're so quick to accuse dustin. You write, "Would you show logical consistency and also profess that if one doesn't like racism one simply should not be racist? Such a conjecture is utterly asonine as it fails to address the fact that inaction does absolutely nothing, and that concerned people are not 'wrong' simply because they choose to act. Would you oppose an unpermitted protest against the KKK because anti-racists should simply abstain from joining the organization?"
This comment neglects the fact that there are many other means besides unpermitted protests that could be successfully utilized to combat racist groups. This isn't to say that an unpermitted protest against such groups should be condemned (personally, I would wholeheartedly support such a protest), only to point out that a.) you're distorting dustin's arguments and b.) that if there are other viable means of protest, and if those means are likely to be more effective, then those means should be utilized.
Small vs. Big Business
by Malik
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 8:26 PM
I've also noticed a few comments that seem to suggest that Starbucks was attacked primarily on behalf of Kiva Han and small business. I sure hope I'm just assuming too much. To attack one capitalist in defense of another is *not* revolutionary.
Kiva Han is a capitalist enterprise. And like all capitalist enterprises, it necessarily exploits wage labor, tends towards expansion, and reinforces consumerism. A boss is a boss is a boss.
"Small is beautiful" is not a progressive ideal. It is, by definition, reactionary, and draws us further away from the conditions objectively necessary to establish a free society based on workers' democratic control of the means of production and exchange. Fascists have traditionally been the foremost proponents of this ideal.
If you're going to target Starbucks, do it because *all* capitalists are bad, not because some are incidentally worse than others.
Re: ...
by Malik
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 8:43 PM
*All* companies that employ people are exploitative. Starbucks is more exploitative because it's huge, and can afford to do so. If Kiva Han were a huge corporation, it would be just as exploitative. The personalities of the owners have very little to do with this process. Firms must compete, necessarily resulting in increased exploitation, monopolization, and oppression.
I can scarcely believe you would suggest that someone shouldn't work at Starbucks. This idea of yours that people can just walk into any place and get a job is not only false, but mirrors the kind of arguments made by opponents of social welfare programs. I don't know who you are, but this is the kind of comment I'd expect from someone who's had the privilege of never having to be forced to work for a living.
Furthermore, getting a job at Starbucks (or McDonald's, etc.) might actually be a good idea for opponents of Starbucks. Imagine how much damage one could do the the company by organizing a union, through industrial sabotage, etc.?
actually
by pr0t3s7
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 12:08 AM
to respond to dustin:
"vandalism causes undue hardship on proprietors of business and to the community"
You fail to address how this instance of vandalism caused undue hardship on business owners. Exactly why is any hardship incurred by this corporation undue? Another poster has already explained the reasons why this corporation is regarded as being so notorious, so I don't feel that it is entirely necessary to reiterate. Moreover, the community was not harmed by this action.
"as far as starbucks and hurting people goes, two COMPLETELY different things"
No, actually, the two are quite inextricable, that is the reason why people choose to demonstrate against the corporation.
"actually i've seen people look at starbucks then turn around and go in kiva han. they also opened the food section... kivahan will bery unlikely loose any business to starbucks"
I'm almost positive that starbucks' generally serves food, therefore i do not understand the purpose of this argument.
"so how is kiva han's coffee not hurting people and starbucks' is exactly"
Starbucks' not only supports the israeli military (and thus the brutality exercised against palestinians) but the corporation also funded the LEIU conference in Seattle earlier this year. The conference was designed in order to provide regional authorities with the capacity to perform blatantly unconstitutional surveillence on people for expressing their beliefs.
"you like vandalism so much? i should come to your home and smash your windows"
Their exists a fundamental discrepancy between an individuals home and a corporate store. The former is an area where an individual lives, and the latter a mechanism for nothing more than the accumulation of capital and the perpetuation of insipid consumer culture. The two are, in fact, quite different. As far as I know, no one sleeps in starbucks'.
now to address Malik:
"a few hundred dollars (at most) worth of damage was done. So what?... You're throwing pebbles at giants"
And exactly how did david defeat goliath? You may refer to property destruction as throwing pebbles at giants, but I must state that the methods you advocate could just as easily be referred to as "yelling at a wall". The point is, the battle against corporate capitalism is quite difficult, regardless of our tactics.
Also, the amount of damage done here may or may not have had more severe repercussions. Historically, property destruction against this specific corporation has been a lot more effective than many would like to believe. CEO Howard Schultz was practically in tears after the destruction rendered upon starbucks' stores during the WTO protest in Seattle. There have been countless instances where very simple property destruction has, in fact, prevented the store from operating and, thus, from accumulating capital. Thus your superficial analysis is a bit inchoate, as the repercussions of these types of actions generally go much deeper than a layer of broken glass.
"the corporate media will use this act to smear the global justice movement"
It is utterly counterproductive to base our actions upon our expectations of corporate coverage. If we truly want to ensure that we are not slandered by the media, then our best course of action would be to do absolutely nothing. Because regardless of what we do, the corporate media will, in fact, distort our methods and goals to satiate their own odious desires. We have been called terrorists for doing nothing more than marching in the street, however, I believe that it would be quite ridiculous to discontinue street demonstrations for this reason. In many cases, the lack of illegal behavior will motivate media outlets to fabricate incidents (generally at protests) in order to slander us. We must understand that the corporate media is not our friend, and, for this reason, we must not play by their rules.
"what would be more effective-- breaking a Starbucks' window or organizing starbucks workers? Spraying slogans on a Starbucks' wall or organizing a initiating a Starbucks' boycott"
Exactly what prevents all of these events from happening? I see no reason why they cannot work in tandem. The erection of superflous dichotomies between actions such as "spraying slogans on a Starbucks window or organizing starbucks workers" is unecessary, for the participation in one action does not eliminate the ability for the other action to occur.
In contemporary america, people have become raised to respond to sensational images. This is another impetus behind property destruction. The fact is, a lot of people won't care how nefarious a corporation starbucks' is until they are provided with a sensational, almost shocking image. And there is no reason why the creation of this image has to negate the possibility of other forms of action, in fact, it generally assists them.
"this comment neglects the fact that there are many other means besides unpermitted protests"
No, that simply is not the case. I never claimed that their weren't other means, I simply addressed one form of resistance. The fact that other means of opposition exist by no means indicates that the initial action is now illegitimate. Moreover, there is nothing about an unpermitted march that prevents legal forms of protest from happening, so I fail to see the significane of this statement.
"Kiva Han is a capitalist enterprise... it necessarily exploits wage labor...a boss is a boss is a boss"
This argument fails entirely to address the severity of oppression perpetuated by different corporations. If one company is significantly more truculent than another, than i believe a different course of action is necessary for the first than for the latter.
Our responses are generally dependent upon the nature and severity of the threat. For instance, one would be wise to use different methods to address the problem of a 9 year old racist then a gang of 5 pipe wielding neo-nazis. For this reason, one would be wise to use different tactics to address the problems inherent in a small capitalist business and those that are more endemic of a large corporate enterprise.
I financially support neither kiva han nor starbucks' (nor most companies, for that matter) because, in america, their are ways to survive without succumbing to consumerism (for the most part).
Trying to avoid the tactics debate...
by bugg
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 12:48 AM
I'm going to try to avoid the debate on tactics here, but I felt this story was worth publishing despite the fact it's several weeks old for one key point:
As far as I know, it's the only action of note that has been taken against this new Starbucks.
If people would like to organize leafletting or other forms of direct action that do not result in property damage, I encourage them 150% to do so- in fact, I would be willing to help. But that hasn't happened yet- and of course, we're all equally to blame for that- so I don't think it's fair to criticize this action all that much.
I support a diversity of tactics, and I also support criticizng and constantly reevaluating our tactics. But when only one tactic is being used, the best way to deal with a disagreement in the tactic is to lead by example.
Neither condone nor condemn
by Frankie Lee
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 9:15 AM
Insurance replaces the windows.
Who replaces the land, the lives and the livelihoods caused by unchecked greed?
If you value a window more than life, there's not too much to discuss.
Property modification is an effective tactic due to the greed of the insurance companies. They raise their rates, not because glass costs more, but because they can.
Proactive folks all over North America have made in impact in the market for the civilian humvee.
By illuminating the car lots at night, the insurance rates have skyrocketed for dealers who carry these motorized dildoes. It doesn't pay to stock them anymore.
I see...
by Irv The nirv
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 10:35 AM
So it is just A.O.K. to destroy property, asault the employees of a business, shut down computer servers that affect peoples' livelihoods (and the work that they are doing which can affect other peoples lives) if you do this under the misguided precept of fighting corproate greed or some similar leftist nonsense. Just like a leftist idiot. Oppresssion and destruction are good for everyone if done in the name of the leftist cause.
You are a bunch of idiots. Assaults on property(whether breaking windows, shutting down servers, or blocking the entrance of a starbucks) are all criminal trespass and possibly much worse. If you don't like Starbucks (like me) don't buy your coffee there. That simple, but for you it is some whacked out crusade against latte or some other outlet because you are an antisocial misfit. What F'ing corproate greed are you supposedly fighting? What if starbucks shut down tomorrow? How many jobs would be lost? How many coffee and other suppliers would suffer for your f'ed up political purposes. Get a job if you can you ass. And if you can not get a job look in the mirror, because it is more likely your own fault than the fault of some nameless corporate Republican boogyman in some far off office that you imagine is puling the strings of every world leader and local cop just to keep your worthless ignorant ass down.
thank you vandals
by dutin
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:57 AM
first off i want to thank whomever smashed in the front door of the bloomfield starbucks. out business has gone UP due to 2 main things.
1) community support (bloomfield is not happy with it and sympathizes for the nice people that work at starbucks)
2) we gave out free coffe since we couldn't be open. so more people will be stopping in.
so thank you.
and to adress the only things that aren't just getting rediculous:
" I'm almost positive that starbucks' generally serves food, therefore i do not understand the purpose of this argument."
starbucks doesn't sell sandwiches and other made to order food likeKiva Han is doing. we sell small pastries and sweets. not exactly your feta and veggie sandwich.
"Starbucks' not only supports the israeli military (and thus the brutality exercised against palestinians)"
why aren't you also esposuing the need for vandalism against ehe federal building downtown? this would meet your criteria as well... or is a simple coffee shop much easier? aah yes i think so.
" but the corporation also funded the LEIU conference in Seattle earlier this year. The conference was designed in order to provide regional authorities with the capacity to perform blatantly unconstitutional surveillence on people for expressing their beliefs."
don't you want to opress racists? racists are nothing more than haters, and you hate racists it seems. so youa re no better. i don't like what they say, but goddammnit they have every right to do as they wish.
PEACEFUL NON-VIOLENT ways are the only way. violence breeds violence. peace will eventually breed peace. the only way to win is to get the rest of people on your side. vandalism doesn't get the majority on your side. it only makes them dislike you.
but i have PROOF the vaandalism only breeds sympathy for the corporation and makes new customers. you didn't hurt starbucks, you jsut helped the corporate greed you seem to hate. and again i thank you for helping me pay my rent. also why are you online if you hate consumerism? this is the highest level of consumerism out there anymore.
peace
dutin
forgot one thing...
by dutin
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 11:59 AM
*high fives irv the nerv*
speakin the truth for us all
Violence?
by nonameforfearofprosecution
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 12:44 PM
I have said it before and I say it again "Violence can not be committed agaisnt an inanimate object." So your front door getting bashed is not "violence" Your face getting smashed by someone that didn't like your facilitating the oppression of human laborers would be violence (which we do not condone).
So, get it right. An action against starbuck's front door or windows is NOT violence. Doors and windows, like paper boxes, are inanimate objects. Civil disobedience is an effective method of affecting positive change. If Starbucks does not like being the focus of protest, then Starbucks should consider the messge of the protest instead of ignoring the consequences of its own corporate greed and corruption. I am sorry you feel that participating in that greed, corruption and oppresion is the only way you can pay your rent.
www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/index.htm
.1.
by .2.
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 1:27 PM
"we gave out free coffe since we couldn't be open. so more people will be stopping in."
Sounds good. The store lost money since it couldn't be open AND people got free coffee.
Amazing that you've discovered giving away free coffee will produce more people coming in. Have you told the store managers? How could they have neglected to do this recently, they were just throwing away money by not taking advantage of this brillant idea. I hope you're getting a raise for this insight. I assume now there will be regular free coffee at starbucks?
I'm also astonished to know that you above all others speak for what Bloomfield (homogenous mass that it is :) thinks. That's great the symphathy is poring in. You've got to spread this inspiring news. Maybe everyone expressing sympathy by giving you all money could sign some kind of card and you could send it to those workers producing the coffee in the global south? I mean, you all are part of the same "family" right? You should spread the word to your whole "community" about how much everyone is feeling sorry for the Starbucks corporation. I'm sure this mutual support is a usual thing right? Your customers must be regularly following the lives of those Starbucks family members in the Global South, showing financial help when someone without health care gets sick, kicking down when an accident takes the life of someone, and more. If only you could share those stories as well, my heart is truly being touched by this all. Thank you dutin!
oh Starbucks,
by corporate propoganda sucks
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 1:45 PM
Starbucks� "Mission Statement" claims the company will �embrace diversity� and encourage employees to �treat each other with respect and dignity.� It claims that its suppliers uphold the same high standards of corporate conduct -- but the Cintas corporation (they contract apron, mat and linen service to in some places) doesn't. Over 100 charges of labor law violations have been filed against the company this year alone for firing and retaliating against pro-union employees. It currently faces over 40 lawsuits alleging discrimination against workers on the basis of race, sex, age and disability. And, a national class action lawsuit was filed last month alleging that Cintas has failed to pay its delivery drivers overtime.
Starbucks sells its coffee with its public image as a socially conscious company, while at the same time signing lucrative contracts with the nation's largest laundry company. Cintas has a reputation of being ideologically anti-union (Cintas is still largely owned by the Farmer family, the second largest private donors to the Republican Party), and has been found guilty of polluting the environment and discriminating against ethnic minorities in its production plants.
Another Response
by Malik
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 2:59 PM
"And exactly how did david defeat goliath? You may refer to property destruction as throwing pebbles at giants, but I must state that the methods you advocate could just as easily be referred to as 'yelling at a wall'. The point is, the battle against corporate capitalism is quite difficult, regardless of our tactics."
I'm not interested in just fighting "corporate capitalism". I'm interested in fighting *all* capitalisms. A return to the (largely mythical) time of small national capitalisms would be in many ways even worse than the current period of monopoly capitalism.
You're correct in pointing out that the struggle against capitalism is difficult regardless of tactics. However, I believe you're wrong in your assertion that that tactics I've suggested are necessarily no more effective than property destruction.
Organizing Starbucks workers would do more than inflict some temporary symbolic and perhaps minute financial damage. It would a constant attack on corporate profits -- one that would ultimately cost much more to the corporation than breaking a window. It would also actually improve things for workers, and create potential for a link between workers and the activist community (and unfortunately, the two aren't currently interchangeable). Breaking a window has improved the lives and/or working conditions of no one, and has great potential to breed enmity between Starbucks workers and the activist community.
A boycott, too, has the potential to do more sustained financial damage, and thus put that Starbucks out of business.
"Also, the amount of damage done here may or may not have had more severe repercussions. Historically, property destruction against this specific corporation has been a lot more effective than many would like to believe. CEO Howard Schultz was practically in tears after the destruction rendered upon starbucks' stores during the WTO protest in Seattle. There have been countless instances where very simple property destruction has, in fact, prevented the store from operating and, thus, from accumulating capital. Thus your superficial analysis is a bit inchoate, as the repercussions of these types of actions generally go much deeper than a layer of broken glass."
You cite "countless instances", then proceed to supply not a single example. Very interesting, considering how you initially disregarded my analysis as "superficial" and lacking in "empirical" observations.
But even if you're right, our actions must strive to do more than damage corporations financially. Rather, the primary purpose of our actions should be to demonstrate that our interests and the interests of the broad working class are essentially the same. Targeting corporations is not an end; it is a means by which we aim to build a revolutionary movement.
Financial damage to corporations, in itself, would be useful only in a revolutionary situation. In such a situation, it would divert needed resources, and make it more difficult for corporations to fight the burgeoning revolutionary movement.
We are not currenty in a revolutionary situation. We aren't even close. Damaging corporations, in itself, does nothing.
"It is utterly counterproductive to base our actions upon our expectations of corporate coverage. If we truly want to ensure that we are not slandered by the media, then our best course of action would be to do absolutely nothing. Because regardless of what we do, the corporate media will, in fact, distort our methods and goals to satiate their own odious desires. We have been called terrorists for doing nothing more than marching in the street, however, I believe that it would be quite ridiculous to discontinue street demonstrations for this reason. In many cases, the lack of illegal behavior will motivate media outlets to fabricate incidents (generally at protests) in order to slander us. We must understand that the corporate media is not our friend, and, for this reason, we must not play by their rules."
This is a valid point, and I agree with much of what you say here. However, we must be realistic. For the time being, the corporate media are the only way that most people hear about what happens. So we have to try and garner the most positive coverage possible. No, we shouldn't play by their rules; but we shouldn't entirely disregard them, either. There is a happy medium.
Very often, for example, when a protest involves both police brutality and property destruction on the part of the protestors, it's easy to convince the public that police violence was justified; that police were merely responding to protestor violence, *even if* police initiated the violence. Thus, I've come to believe that it's usually a good idea to keep actions that involve property destruction separate from street demonstrations. This is exactly what happened when some folks decided to toss newspaper bins at the unpermitted demo at the start of the war in March.
We should not *base* our actions on the anticipated reactions of the corporate media, but we should still *consider* these anticipated reactions.
"Exactly what prevents all of these events from happening? I see no reason why they cannot work in tandem. The erection of superflous dichotomies between actions such as 'spraying slogans on a Starbucks window or organizing starbucks workers' is unecessary, for the participation in one action does not eliminate the ability for the other action to occur."
But there's only a limited amount of time and energy and activists willing to organize around this issue. We have to allocate resources effectively.
And while they *can* occur in tandem, they're unlikely to do so when certain actions taken by activists tend to brew enmity between Starbucks workers and activists. Do you think a worker who needs the hours will take kindly to those who prevent him or her from working?
"In contemporary america, people have become raised to respond to sensational images. This is another impetus behind property destruction. The fact is, a lot of people won't care how nefarious a corporation starbucks' is until they are provided with a sensational, almost shocking image. And there is no reason why the creation of this image has to negate the possibility of other forms of action, in fact, it generally assists them."
Again, you provide no evidence to support this argument.
It's also interesting that you say we shouldn't base our actions on the anticipated corporate media response, yet see corporate media sensationalism as a justification for them.
This sensationalism is just as likely (if not more so) to lead people to get angry with, hate, and/or fear progressive movements as it is to attract them to them. The only people I know who are attracted by destruction are are video game-obsessed adolescents and criminals.
"This argument [that a boss is a boss is a boss] fails entirely to address the severity of oppression perpetuated by different corporations. If one company is significantly more truculent than another, than i believe a different course of action is necessary for the first than for the latter.
"Our responses are generally dependent upon the nature and severity of the threat. For instance, one would be wise to use different methods to address the problem of a 9 year old racist then a gang of 5 pipe wielding neo-nazis. For this reason, one would be wise to use different tactics to address the problems inherent in a small capitalist business and those that are more endemic of a large corporate enterprise."
Fair enough. I don't object to this stance. I just hope that people aren't glorifying the supposed virtues of small business.
--------------------
I believe that property destruction *can* be an effective form of protest. However, I also believe that it's worth is overestimated by the current movement. Too often, it is treated as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end.
When considering property destruction as part of an action, the following should be considered (as suggested in part by Jack Cohen-Joppa):
1. Is it necessary?
2. Is it potentially more detrimental than helpful to the cause?
3. Is it emotionally satisfying?
4. Is it logical?
But most importantly, acts of property destruction *must be the result of long processes of working with and gaining support of the affected community*.
The Starbucks action met none of these criteria, IMHO.
malik
by ,,,
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 3:45 PM
Malik, I don't have the time to respond to the multitude of points of yours with which I disagree. The biggest gripe I have is that you post in a very disempowering and dismissive way. I hope your intention is to actually inspire people to do something at the same time you might disagree a bit with what happened to Starbucks.
I do think that since there have been ZERO other types of organizing-actions against Starbucks the one and only point of posts like yours will be if people do what you propose. I see little chance of that however. You talk about how the activist community has little time and resources as the reason we need to consider how we allocate them. Fair enough, but sometimes I think that should include these discussions.
I would also point out that I for one have no idea who did this action or what they were thinking and thus have no clue how it fits into a larger campaign. Is this an isolated event? Is it part of an concerted effort to shutdown this Starbucks store? Is it the start of a more broad based campaign including a diversity of tactics? I don't know and it's therefore very difficult for me to decide how worthwhile this particular action was. It seems likely the action didn't take longer then it took you to write your comment.
Whatever people think it's nice to see people attempting to make a positive difference.
dutin
by Malik
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 3:53 PM
Anecdotal evidence is not "PROOF".
Yet another response.
by Malik
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 4:29 PM
"Malik, I don't have the time to respond to the multitude of points of yours with which I disagree. The biggest gripe I have is that you post in a very disempowering and dismissive way. I hope your intention is to actually inspire people to do something at the same time you might disagree a bit with what happened to Starbucks."
It is. I certainly don't mean to be dismissive or disempowering. But only by way of a thorough, ruthless critique of *everything* can we arrive at the best answers.
Don't accept everything I say. Read and practice widely and form your own educated opinions. I've been wrong about a lot of things, and will continue to be, I'm sure.
"I do think that since there have been ZERO other types of organizing-actions against Starbucks the one and only point of posts like yours will be if people do what you propose. I see little chance of that however. You talk about how the activist community has little time and resources as the reason we need to consider how we allocate them. Fair enough, but sometimes I think that should include these discussions."
As I touched on in my last post, the fact that there hasn't been much organizing against Starbucks is a reason *not* to go through with property destruction. Links to the affected community should be built. You need to built up to these kinds of actions.
Criticism is extremely important. It's worse to have too much talk and not enough action than it is to have too much action and not enough talk, I think. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The fact that there haven't been many actions against Starbucks should be that perhaps there isn't that much interest in opposing Starbucks.
Opposing Starbucks is radical chic, sure. But do you really think working people are more concerned about Starbucks or about the sorry state of healthcare, predatory lending, housing inequities, the prison-industrial complex, police brutality, etc.? Acting against Starbucks, I think, is more in the interest of the petty bourgeoisie than that of working families.
"I would also point out that I for one have no idea who did this action or what they were thinking and thus have no clue how it fits into a larger campaign. Is this an isolated event? Is it part of an concerted effort to shutdown this Starbucks store? Is it the start of a more broad based campaign including a diversity of tactics? I don't know and it's therefore very difficult for me to decide how worthwhile this particular action was. It seems likely the action didn't take longer then it took you to write your comment."
I think that this point has already been addressed in this post and others.
"Whatever people think it's nice to see people attempting to make a positive difference."
I agree entirely. I'd definitely rather see people vandalize a Starbucks than do nothing (or worse, become FReepers ;-).
VIOLENCE BY ANY OTHER NAME
by Irv The Nirv
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 5:07 PM
Man I love you leftist misfits. "It's not violence if it is directed at a window or door"? That is beautiful. Spoken like a true brownshirt leftist nazi. In your twisted misfit view of the world you can go ahead and have your little domesitc terrorist Krystanacht and it isn't violence. BULLFUCKINGSHIT !!!
Your tactics are for the purpose of intimidating people and the business owners into conforming wiht your views (or demands). It's violence. Intimidation is violence. If I show up at your little leftist shit hole apartment every night and leave a big steaming crap on your doorstep or vomit in your hallway (tactics used by leftists in their diverse campaigns of civil disobedience) you wouldn't be a little intimidated each night not knowing what you are going to wake up to? If I broke your windows every day until you moved out of the neighborhood, you wouldn't feel intmidated? Yeah right. And of course I woudl do it all under the cover of night so you didn't know who I was. Kind of like the KKK. Why don't you dry-fucks just cut to the chase and just wear sheets when you go out trying to threaten and intimidate. You threaten the patrons of Starbucks because they here of your vandalism and they become concerned that that they may be caught up in some act of violence. You intimidate the other business owners ofhte neighborhood who don't know of (and probably don't care about) your misfit political agenda. All they see is deterioration of their community as vandalism increases. They see their own insurance costs rise because of your criminal conduct.
That's right, that locally owned coffee shop that you think you are helping out, the shop owners operating costs just went up thanks to you. His rent will probably increase because of the landlord's increased insurance costs, because of you. Where the hell is all of your oh so sacred sense of community while you are out busting up the neighborhood? Oh I forgot, all of the morals and beliefs of a leftist are maleable to the immediate needs and desires of the leftist.
Based on your statements here, if I don't like the fact that the local Bank charges too much interest on its credit cards and offers credit to thos in society least able to handle credit, I am justified in going down there and busting out the windows? That's just civil disobedience, right? It's not a federal crime is it? Guess again dipshit. Maybe it would be okay for me to go to my local left wing coffee pit such as Beehive and bust it up every night because I don't like the politics that it seems to represent? That would be okay with you, right? I thought so.
You people and your diversity of tactics crap. You make it sound as if you honestly beleive you are some kind of freedom fighting patriots. You are criminals. You want to protest Starbucks then protest away. But don't hassle me when I am going in for a triple espresso.
.
thanks to everyone for not responding to Irv
by ---
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 5:18 PM
I can honestly say the best thing to me of this entire exchange between people is that no one is responding to Irv. It just shows what IMC could be used as, a dialogue between people. It helps control the disruptive people when they are ignored! People can put forth different views and arguments in a CONSTRUCTIVE WAY that leaves open the possability of people changing views they previously held.
Thanks everyone!!!
well
by pr0t3s7
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 5:42 PM
to Malik:
"do you think a worker who needs the hours will take kindly to those who prevent him or her from working"
A corporation not opening for business does not prevent an employee from working, rather, it simply prevents the corporation from accumulating capital. The fact that customers will not be able to purchase commodities from the store does not mean that employees will not be asked to work that day, for they still have work to do, be it cleaning or handing out free coffee (which, to respond to dutin, is a blatant example of a loss in profits, and by no means guarantees that people who will accept FREE coffee will visit the business in order to spend money on coffee. the two occurances are quite dissimilar).
Don't forget that starbucks' employees aren't being paid commission, they receive steady wages for coming to work. Thus, the fact that the corporation cannot profit for a day does not mean that workers won't earn money.
"again you provide no evidence to support this argument. It's also interesting that you say we shouldn't base our actions on the anticipated corporate media response, yet see corporate media sensationalism as a justification for them."
To provide evidence, activism against starbucks' increased dramatically after the wide-scale property destruction that took place in Seattle during the WTO meeting. Also, I said nothing about an "anticipated corporate media response", I said that a lot of people need to be supplied with a sensational image. I wasn't talking about pandering to the tactics of the corporate media, as i didn't mention the media at all in that argument. Pedestrians and consumers can see the image firsthand when they walk past a shattered window, thus elimminating reliance on the intermediary of corporate media.
"This sensationalism is just as likely (if not more so) to lead people to get angry with, hate, and/or fear progressive movements as it is to attract them to them. The only people I know who are attracted by destruction are are video game-obsessed adolescents and criminals"
No, the only people attracted by destruction are not the steryotypes you outlined. From personal experience I have witnessed everyone from single fathers to elderly women become enthralled by destruction, be it sensational images they see in movies (and, I'm sure you won't argue that only video game-obsessed adolescents and criminals watch R-rated films) or actions they witness firsthand at everything from bonfires and demolition derbies to their childs' football game.
To address your criteria for property destruction, I fail to see how the first point ("is it necessary") is entirely relevant. Whether or not something is necessary is not only subjective, but insignificant because it forces us to become subjugated by the concept of urgency. I don't feel that an action has to be entirely necessary in order for it to be beneficial, as the two have little in common. I believe that if this criteria is being applied to property destruction it should also be applied to most forms of resistance. Are unpermitted marches NECESSARY? I don't understand how an objective argument would be made that they are necessary, however, they are beneficial. Therefore I believe your first question should be "is it desirable?" as opposed to "is it necessary?". And, to answer that question, yes, this instance was desirable.
"is it potentially more detrimental than helpful to the cause?"
I addressed your concerns about the action's potential to be alienating and harmful and have seen nothing emperical suggesting otherwise (for I have responded to your concerns).
"is it emotionally satisfying?"
yes
"is it logical"
once again i have already submitted lengthy diatribes on the logic of the action, so yes, it was logical.
Response to your response.
by Malik
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 6:47 PM
"A corporation not opening for business does not prevent an employee from working, rather, it simply prevents the corporation from accumulating capital. The fact that customers will not be able to purchase commodities from the store does not mean that employees will not be asked to work that day, for they still have work to do, be it cleaning or handing out free coffee (which, to respond to dutin, is a blatant example of a loss in profits, and by no means guarantees that people who will accept FREE coffee will visit the business in order to spend money on coffee. the two occurances are quite dissimilar).
"Don't forget that starbucks' employees aren't being paid commission, they receive steady wages for coming to work. Thus, the fact that the corporation cannot profit for a day does not mean that workers won't earn money."
I don't know for sure whether or not the broken window caused people to be called off work. It certainly could have, and there are certainly many other instances in which property destruction has the same effect.
In any case, what opinion do you think workers will have of those they have to clean up after?
"To provide evidence, activism against starbucks' increased dramatically after the wide-scale property destruction that took place in Seattle during the WTO meeting..."
Has it? Is there some way to quantify such a thing? And how much of that activism is actually substantive?
"Also, I said nothing about an 'anticipated corporate media response', I said that a lot of people need to be supplied with a sensational image. I wasn't talking about pandering to the tactics of the corporate media, as i didn't mention the media at all in that argument. Pedestrians and consumers can see the image firsthand when they walk past a shattered window, thus elimminating reliance on the intermediary of corporate media."
Without the corporate media, the number of people that such a sensational image reaches is exceedingly small. How else did most people hear about the window-breaking in Seattle?
Seattle increased anti-Starbucks activism among people who were specifically watching what was happening in Seattle. It did not initiate a flurry of anti-Starbucks activism among John and Jane Q. Public.
"No, the only people attracted by destruction are not the steryotypes you outlined. From personal experience I have witnessed everyone from single fathers to elderly women become enthralled by destruction, be it sensational images they see in movies (and, I'm sure you won't argue that only video game-obsessed adolescents and criminals watch R-rated films) or actions they witness firsthand at everything from bonfires and demolition derbies to their childs' football game."
You've made a good case that people are attracted to destruction *as spectators*... but as participants...? If people are encouraged by destruction to become participants in destruction (which I don't think they are), then doesn't that render the struggle for a stateless, classless, cooperative society hopeless?
"To address your criteria for property destruction, I fail to see how the first point ('is it necessary') is entirely relevant. Whether or not something is necessary is not only subjective, but insignificant because it forces us to become subjugated by the concept of urgency. I don't feel that an action has to be entirely necessary in order for it to be beneficial, as the two have little in common. I believe that if this criteria is being applied to property destruction it should also be applied to most forms of resistance. Are unpermitted marches NECESSARY? I don't understand how an objective argument would be made that they are necessary, however, they are beneficial. Therefore I believe your first question should be 'is it desirable?' as opposed to 'is it necessary?'. And, to answer that question, yes, this instance was desirable."
I don't think the question should be so much "Is it desirable?" as "Could a result as as good or better be acheived through different means?" In this case, I think the answer is yes.
"I addressed your concerns about the action's potential to be alienating and harmful and have seen nothing emperical suggesting otherwise (for I have responded to your concerns)."
And I have seen few instances in which acts of property destruction have encouraged resistance among the mass of working people. Such instances do exist, but they must fit certain criteria in order to be successful.
"once again i have already submitted lengthy diatribes on the logic of the action, so yes, it was logical."
I'll concur with this point, as well as your contention that the action was emotionally satisfying.
The crucial criterion that this action most certainly did *not* satisfy: "...acts of property destruction *must be the result of long processes of working with and gaining support of the affected community*."
This action was built on no such ties with the community. It was thus *profoundly* anti-democratic, and will probably tend to alienate the community.
more blah blah blah bs
by dutin
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 7:47 PM
a few items i find deserve responding to that haven't been adressed that should.
"by nonameforfearofprosecution Thursday December 18, 2003 at 12:44 PM
Civil disobedience is an effective method of affecting positive change"
you need to look up civil disobedience. Ghandi got it right. what smashing windows and destroying things is would be Terrorism. you are promoting fear.
"I am sorry you feel that participating in that greed, corruption and oppresion is the only way you can pay your rent."
want to give me a job for $7+ an hour? or would you like to pay my rent? have you checked the job market lately? i wasn't able to get hired at a hardware store. and my skills are not exactly lacking.
"by .2. Thursday December 18, 2003 at 01:27 PM:
I'm also astonished to know that you above all others speak for what Bloomfield (homogenous mass that it is :) thinks."
actually bloomfield isn't 'homogenous' but it is quite the tight community. not what you find in the better neightborhood of south oakland. it's nicer to not know your neighbors unless you party with them and having drunk people wandering your street.
no bloomfield is instead friendly and people will talk yo you if they don't know you. if you are not just some random kid who moved in you are part of the community as i have become. it's like a small town where you know lots of people and they care about you. even folk i know who don't go into starbucks were very unhappy with the violence in the neighborhood. i do talk to people in the community other than starbucks customers.
"That's great the symphathy is poring in. You've got to spread this inspiring news. Maybe everyone expressing sympathy by giving you all money could sign some kind of card and you could send it to those workers producing the coffee in the global south?"
do small coffee shops get coffee from better conditions? no. you should be doing this to ALL coffee shops great and small.
by Irv The Nirv Thursday December 18, 2003 at 05:07 PM
well this was a touch too rude and fowl, but the point is nade that yes smashing private property is violence.
"by pr0t3s7 Thursday December 18, 2003 at 05:41 PM
corporation not opening for business does not prevent an employee from working, rather, it simply prevents the corporation from accumulating capital. The fact that customers will not be able to purchase commodities from the store does not mean that employees will not be asked to work that day, for they still have work to do, be it cleaning or handing out free coffee (which, to respond to dutin, is a blatant example of a loss in profits, and by no means guarantees that people who will accept FREE coffee will visit the business in order to spend money on coffee. the two occurances are quite dissimilar).
Don't forget that starbucks' employees aren't being paid commission, they receive steady wages for coming to work. Thus, the fact that the corporation cannot profit for a day does not mean that workers won't earn money."
but people DID loose wages as the number of neccesary employees dropped significantly since there was no business to conduct that morning. this would be harming innocent employees. and if you think a lowest level employee isn't innocent, you don't have to worry about paying bills and are naive in a fundamentally irresponsible way.
"by Malik Thursday December 18, 2003 at 06:46 PM
In any case, what opinion do you think workers will have of those they have to clean up after? "
a negative one.
Civil Disobedience
by dutin
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 7:59 PM
taken from http://www.animal-law.org/library/pamphlet.htm
Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience, as opposed to demonstrating, is the purposeful violation of a law to communicate the protester's belief that the law is unconstitutional or morally defective. Although some people think that violent action can constitute civil disobedience, the tradition of civil disobedience in this country is non-violent. Civil disobedience is used in many different arenas and for many different reasons. The usual goal of civil disobedience is to create public support and pressure to force a change in the law in question.
Although civil disobedience has a long history in the United States, from the Boston Tea Party to some of the most important moments of the civil rights movement, there is no constitutional right to engage in civil disobedience. Therefore, a person who engages in civil disobedience must expect to be exposed to the maximum penalties of the law, which may include a fine and imprisonment. If the law under which the person is charged is subsequently proven to be unconstitutional, however, the disobedient will be acquitted. On the other hand, if the purpose is to highlight the immorality of an otherwise valid law, rather than its unconstitutionality, the individual must expect to be prosecuted to be fullest extent of the law's penalties.
ahh it's protesting LAWS not destroying property!
i think some folks should really should have paid attention in history class. i just thought a nice source would be helpful inbacking up my claim.
Malik
by ...
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003 at 8:01 PM
Malik, you said-
"In any case, what opinion do you think workers will have of those they have to clean up after?"
But couldn't the same be said if you used more "traditional" protest methods THAT WERE EFFECTIVE? Starbucks employees have a vested interest in the business remaining open and profitable. Speaking only from my personal experience leafletting starbucks in the past I do not believe it's possible for us to EVER get the majority of the workers on our side. To alter opinions enough to get them to join us would either likely cause them to [quit out of moral reasons] or begin actively sabotaging Starbucks [also likely to eventually get them fired].
I think most would be just as upset if a boycott was sucessful as if the place was burned down. The key to whether they object to the action is likely to be what affect it has on them. I suspect Dustin would not be okay with anything effective.
None of this is to say that ties or appeals shouldn't be attempted to Starbucks employees, rather I just think that shouldn't be the key determinent of what people choose to do if they are trying to hurt the corporation. Even though employees receive slightly more privaledge then some others in society [due to being part of the exploitative beast that is Starbucks] they are themselves being exploited. Ideally, we as a community would be large enough and organized enough to offer them ways to have there needs met were we sucessful at putting them out of a job.
On another note: I would personally rather see Starbucks go out of business then see it unionized [something you suggested as more beneficial]. That also informs some of my opinons on this matter.
If the goal is to put it out of business for good I think a good argument can be made that property destruction in such a campaign would not be to its detriment. For examples of this look at SHAC's campaign against HLS.
dutin not correct.
by ...
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 10:44 AM
"Although civil disobedience has a long history in the United States, from the Boston Tea Party"
You've got to be kidding me. The boston tea party was not a traditional act of civil disobedience according to your definition. The people destroyed property and disguised themselves so as to not face prosection. Our history is being re-written, what else can you do with events that are celebrated, but also happen to be the very kinds of things you want to deplore now. Can't have things like the boston tea party repeating themselves can you? It's amazing how little history most americans know.
Please bother to research something before posting here.
you did NOT obviously red my post
by dutin
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 12:30 PM
this was an excerpt. or did you miss that? ahh yes i think you did. it was NOT and original content post. sorry YOU lose on that one... tsk tsk. read before you speak
ha! are you kidding dutin
by ...
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 1:16 PM
are you serious dutin?
you posted it,
it was wrong,
you were using it to argue your point.
maybe this will teach you a lesson to read things before you post (and bursh up on your history) Stop posting things that are incorrect.
yeah
by pr0t3s7
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 5:24 PM
Malik, being that another poster already addressed most of your comments, I will refrain from reiteration. But your statement that "This action was built on no such ties with the community. It was thus *profoundly* anti-democratic, and will probably tend to alienate the community" is equivocated, as it promotes a false denotation of the term "anti-democratic". Moreover, are you sure that people didn't build ties with the "community" (rather, the commercial area) in question? Do you have any evidence or are you just making an entirely baseless assumption? Also, by your incorrect interpretation of "anti-democratic" I fail to see why flyering, organizing a boycott, or even a simple protest would not also be subject to the aforementioned aspersion. Would you also excoriate the participants of a leafleting campaign for the same reasons?
I believe that, fundamentally, many arguments against property destruction are shown to be based upon some sort of abstract moralism. This non-empirical, anti-scientific approach is often only uncovered when one realizes that most of the same problems with property destruction are apparent in most forms of resistance, however, property destruction is generally maligned while other potentially problematic actions are acclaimed.
You're all stupid
by Percival
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 5:29 PM
If you think that throwing a rock through a window is going to change the world for the better, then you're just stupid.
What makes you think that a broken window will change a multinational corporation from doing anything it pleases?
You're not even a minor annoyance to them. You're just an idiot. You are weak and you'll eventually be overtaken by the strong. I hope you have fun breaking a few more windows before you're crushed and erased by those who are better than you.
Yeah, What He Said !!!
by Irv The Nirv
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 5:46 PM
Take that, Losers !!
Violence and Window Breaking Is for Losers
by Ghandi
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 5:57 PM
Look people, a protest of a huge heartless corporation is always a good thing. But causing property damage is never cool. Some of the more rabid posters here, which I recognize as regular freepers, are actually very correct that this conduct is counter to the sense of community that we need to embrace. Property crimes cause harm to the entire community and do increase insurance rates for everyone, not just the busineses. The people who live near the store will be harmed by your actions. The property damage also has little effect fo positive promotion of the cause. It tends to alienate people, because people generally do not like violence in any form.
If you really want to get your word out and make a point and even have some fun, try being creative. Any neandrethal Klan member can throw a rock through a window. This is exactly the type of thing that sicko KKK members would do to african american owned businesses. It is no better when you do it to protest the oppressive labor practices of Starbucks. Check out hte site I listed and see what they are doing in England. THis woudl be FAR FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than childish vandalism.
www.spacehijackers.co.uk/starbucks/
... is right.
by Malik
Friday, Dec. 19, 2003 at 6:19 PM
I think the Boston Tea Party is an excellent example of property destruction that is appropriate and effectives. Ploughshares actions are another good example, I think.
Dutin don't know what he talkin bout
by Tripod
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003 at 9:08 AM
A little bit of the 'ultra-vandalism' never hurt anybody, it is a victimless crime tee hee hee....
I just hope that our friends dahn in Washington don't think that this constitutes terrorism....
http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm
Apparently this is when vandalism becomes terrorism
skyjackers
by ***
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003 at 10:58 AM
the Spacehikackers website is awesome "Ghandi" - love the tea and cucumber sandwich action.
And you're right, creativity is what's needed. Creativity and humor can help clarify issues through symbolism and draw people in, violence repulses them and makes them vulnerable to patriot-act scaremongering.
so think about goals: do we want to broaden opposition to starbucks (or whichever corporation) or do we just want to release some well-justified anger?
That would be great, but
by Boy About Town
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003 at 1:43 PM
But Pittsburgh's "progressive" "radical" scene is about as energized and energizing as if we were in East Bejesus, West Virginia. There is NO ONE like the London group. The petty politics, the egos and the rest of hte BS here in Pittsburgh would keep anything like this from taking hold. Come on, there are almost 50 comments on this page about what you would think ws the most radical thing ever to happen in a Pittsburgh protest. It was a smashed window, an act that any monkey can do.
Is that the best Pittsburgh radicals can do. "WOOHOOO !! We broke a window 8 months ago. We're really making change in the world now !!!" It didn't get anyone involved. The action did not communicate a message. There was no follow through with protests or leafletting. There was no effort to capitalize on the momentum of the action. Just some paint on the sidewalk that said Starbucks isn't welcome in Pittsburgh. Apparently, Starbucks is about as welcome as a truly creative and effective broad and effective protest movement in Pittsburgh.
Will you stop using Ghandi's name?
by bugg
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003 at 3:26 PM
I don't have any of Ghandi's texts on-hand here, but I've read them and I certainly never got the impression that Ghandi was against property damage.
In fact, I believe he supported it- implicity, if not explicitly. Yes, Ghandi espoused non-violence. But where has he ever defined property destruction as violence?
I could be wrong on this- but I don't think I am- and I'm going to drag my ass down to the library soon to check up on it. In the meantime, please provide a cite if you're going to continue to use Ghandi's name and image for your argument, because your assumption I reject.
I think you're right, bugg.
by Hagbard
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2003 at 9:06 PM
I've been trying to find a reference.
on the smashing of the window
by Jeff
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 7:40 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Merriam-Webster�s Dictionary defines civil disobedience as: the refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government. Starbucks is not the government.
Can�t say I know a whole lot about Gandhi, but from what I do know makes me think that smashing some evil corporation�s window wouldn�t be a tactic he would promote. The British at one time were dumping cheap fabric on India and Indians were buying it while letting their own fabric industry die. Rather than going to the British government and asking them to stop importing, he motivated his people to boycott British goods. He felt that asking something of the government would be to give them more power over them. He wanted to empower the people by making a statement by rejecting foreign cloth.
You can relate his views to this situation as well. The reason many corporations have the power they have is that we as Americans support it. Organizing boycotts for places like Starbucks do more than smashing any one window can. When they stop having people coming in, they stop making money. If they stop making money then they close. If enough stores close, they stop making the money that they use to support the causes that the people that broke this window deplore.
The job is here to get the word out about Starbucks. To inform and mobilize the people. Tell them what Starbucks does and why you are against them. And try not to sound like an overemotional kook when doing it. Just be calm and rational. Yes this is a LOT more work. But I think you�ll see more results from that than what was done here. Somehow I doubt Gandhi would have been for shortcuts.
I would consider the breaking of the window and panting to have been the acts of stupid selfish children who care more about doing things that make them feel good about themselves instead of trying to put some effort into doing something yo bring about REAL change. No wonder no one listens to those of us that are against globalization and corporate greed when we have immature brats pulling stunts like this. This makes us ALL look bad. Thank you for hurting the very same social justice movement you claim to care so deeply about. I�d say that when you have people that agree with you as far as your stand on places like Starbucks, Wal-Mart and other mega corporations condemning your tactics, it might be time to change them.
on the smashing of the window
by Jeff
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 7:40 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Merriam-Webster�s Dictionary defines civil disobedience as: the refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government. Starbucks is not the government.
Can�t say I know a whole lot about Gandhi, but from what I do know makes me think that smashing some evil corporation�s window wouldn�t be a tactic he would promote. The British at one time were dumping cheap fabric on India and Indians were buying it while letting their own fabric industry die. Rather than going to the British government and asking them to stop importing, he motivated his people to boycott British goods. He felt that asking something of the government would be to give them more power over them. He wanted to empower the people by making a statement by rejecting foreign cloth.
You can relate his views to this situation as well. The reason many corporations have the power they have is that we as Americans support it. Organizing boycotts for places like Starbucks do more than smashing any one window can. When they stop having people coming in, they stop making money. If they stop making money then they close. If enough stores close, they stop making the money that they use to support the causes that the people that broke this window deplore.
The job is here to get the word out about Starbucks. To inform and mobilize the people. Tell them what Starbucks does and why you are against them. And try not to sound like an overemotional kook when doing it. Just be calm and rational. Yes this is a LOT more work. But I think you�ll see more results from that than what was done here. Somehow I doubt Gandhi would have been for shortcuts.
I would consider the breaking of the window and panting to have been the acts of stupid selfish children who care more about doing things that make them feel good about themselves instead of trying to put some effort into doing something yo bring about REAL change. No wonder no one listens to those of us that are against globalization and corporate greed when we have immature brats pulling stunts like this. This makes us ALL look bad. Thank you for hurting the very same social justice movement you claim to care so deeply about. I�d say that when you have people that agree with you as far as your stand on places like Starbucks, Wal-Mart and other mega corporations condemning your tactics, it might be time to change them.
on the smashing of the window
by Jeff
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 7:42 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Merriam-Webster�s Dictionary defines civil disobedience as: the refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government. Starbucks is not the government.
Can�t say I know a whole lot about Gandhi, but from what I do know makes me think that smashing some evil corporation�s window wouldn�t be a tactic he would promote. The British at one time were dumping cheap fabric on India and Indians were buying it while letting their own fabric industry die. Rather than going to the British government and asking them to stop importing, he motivated his people to boycott British goods. He felt that asking something of the government would be to give them more power over them. He wanted to empower the people by making a statement by rejecting foreign cloth.
You can relate his views to this situation as well. The reason many corporations have the power they have is that we as Americans support it. Organizing boycotts for places like Starbucks do more than smashing any one window can. When they stop having people coming in, they stop making money. If they stop making money then they close. If enough stores close, they stop making the money that they use to support the causes that the people that broke this window deplore.
The job is here to get the word out about Starbucks. To inform and mobilize the people. Tell them what Starbucks does and why you are against them. And try not to sound like an overemotional kook when doing it. Just be calm and rational. Yes this is a LOT more work. But I think you�ll see more results from that than what was done here. Somehow I doubt Gandhi would have been for shortcuts.
I would consider the breaking of the window and panting to have been the acts of stupid selfish children who care more about doing things that make them feel good about themselves instead of trying to put some effort into doing something yo bring about REAL change. No wonder no one listens to those of us that are against globalization and corporate greed when we have immature brats pulling stunts like this. This makes us ALL look bad. Thank you for hurting the very same social justice movement you claim to care so deeply about. I�d say that when you have people that agree with you as far as your stand on places like Starbucks, Wal-Mart and other mega corporations condemning your tactics, it might be time to change them.
sorry
by Jeff
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 7:49 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Sorry for the three times thing. The page wasn't refreshing. I thought it was something funky going on at my end.
Good Point Jeff ...and about that slow refresh
by Ghandi
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 9:44 PM
THat's pretty much what i was trying to say. Any of this childish vandalism not only hurts the movement, but also damages the community. I am totally agaisnt that. I think we need to be inclusive of and sensitive to the needs of the communities in which we conduct any action. Breaking windows adn vandalizing the community (even if it is a Starbucks, the property is still part of the community at large), only makes us all look bad.
AS FOR THE SLOW REFRESH >>> HEY IMC EDITORS>>>> This seems to have been a problem ever since the makeover. Posting is R...E.......A.........L............L.......Y slow. ALso, why isn't there a link on each page that allows you to click back to the comments page without having to go back to the frontpage? Can you make that feature like it was on the old IMC. Just because it was the old IMC doesn't mean it was all bad;)
thanks and a few mother thoughts
by Jeff
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 11:29 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Thanks, and I forgot to put this in my previous post. Just hope it gives those that commit and support such actions some food for thought.
If you worry about the common man then why would you do an act that ends up costing other common men who belong to the same company as Starbucks increased insurance rates? Why would you do an act that ends up HELPING some big multinational insurance company being able to charge more? Why would you do something that creates a mess the workers (you know, the ones that get paid shit to begin with) have to clean up?
This was an idiotic and irrational act. The people that did it and those who support such actions are just as hypocritical as ultraconservative nitwits (and yes they are nitwits) they often condemn. It FEEDS the very thing they claim to hate. For the person that did this and for the people that support such actions, start thinking a bit more about how your actions impact others and stop using �diversity of tactics� as an excuse to be a destructive little punk. There was nothing �civil� about this action.
hehe
by Jeff
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 at 11:35 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Sorry that was suposed to be a "few OTHER thoughts". So I can't type, shoot me. :)
window smashing
by Colin
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 1:07 AM
1. Property destruction isn't civil disobedience. It isn't required to follow the logic/rules of cd
2. Giant corporations aren't part of the community.
3. All protest actions lead to negative consequences for "regular folks." A permited march will inconvenince far more people than a broken window.
The Whitewashing of Ghandi
by bugg
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 3:24 AM
Jeff, the fact that you would tend to think that Ghandi wouldn't promote smashing a window is exactly why Ghandi and other major players (MLK first and foremost among them) have been whitewashed by society. It's much easier for people to accept the image of a weak Indian man who preaches love and didn't eat- but just a little research into Gandhi would find things that a lot of people would be surprised by- e.g. he believed in self defense, and otherwise differentiated heavily between non-"violence" and cowardice.
I agree with you 100% about organizing boycotts, but it's not my place to tell people what they should or should not be doing. Really, the only people I think have any right at all to criticize the property destruction against Starbucks are those who have actively contributed in a campaign against Starbucks and believe that this is hurting their goals. <B>IF YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN *ANY* ACTION RELATED TO THE TARGET IN QUESTION, YOU HAVE <EM>NO</EM> RIGHT TO EXPECT OTHERS TO LIVE BY YOUR RULES.</B> This is a principle that I would like more people to respect, because simply put, I don't think it's fair for you- or me- to say what is or isn't right if we aren't working at all on the issue.
Finally, regarding the distinction you make about Starbucks and the government, no, Starbucks isn't the government, but it is a large multinational corporation that plays unfairly when it comes to enviornmental and labor standards. If you haven't noticed lately, the gap between multinational corporations and the government has been narrowing rapidly and I see no reason why we should feel more limited when taking action against a corporation. The public schools, for example, are funded by varying levels of government, whereas Boeing is a private corporation. What does it matter?
Finally, I want to make one thing clear- I'm far more annoyed by the whitewashing of Gandhi here than I am about any issue at hand re: Starbucks. Let's not discuss Gandhi unless we're also providing cites: put up or shut up, shall we?
Asswiping of bugg
by Irv The Nirv
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 7:58 AM
Hey, bugg and the other fools who think that errant property damage is somehow making them look like MLK or Ghandi ---- YOU ARE QUITE POSSIBLY THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET.
You asswipes are trying to hide behind your diversity of tactics and MLK to rationalize your little vandal hatefest. F You Man. You guys go out and harm the community, and do nothing but create more harm to the very same peopel you proclaim to defend. You peopel are just stupid. No other way to explain it. Your very exitence demeans whatever cause you associate with and brings down the community that you are a part of.
In short you are losers. It is that loser status that causes you to go out and conduct yourselves like vandals and criminals. Get a life assholes. Maybe somenight while you are out sneaking around being cool and you smash a window in my neighborhood, some of hte ordinary working folk in my neighborhood can meet you and extract a little civil obedience on your worhtless carcass. As Ghandi once said "Does our dick touch your ass? Good, then go phuck yourself."
more
by Colin
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 5:29 PM
1. Starbucks isn't part of the community.
2. Noone that I know who advocates property destruction would ever destroy working class property. Starbucks is corporate. They're fair game.
3. This Gandhi and MLK stuff is crazy. People's perception of these men is soo skewed. Yes, they were moral giants, but they were also shrewd and ruthless strategic thinkers. Gandhi's nonviolent activism got a lot of people killed or hurt, and he KNEW it would. He knew that the image of peaceful people being attacked would eventually undermine support for Britain. He won beacuse he was ruthless, smart, and tough, not because he was saintly.
more
by Colin
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 5:31 PM
1. Starbucks isn't part of the community.
2. Noone that I know who advocates property destruction would ever destroy working class property. Starbucks is corporate. They're fair game.
3. This Gandhi and MLK stuff is crazy. People's perception of these men is soo skewed. Yes, they were moral giants, but they were also shrewd and ruthless strategic thinkers. Gandhi's nonviolent activism got a lot of people killed or hurt, and he KNEW it would. He knew that the image of peaceful people being attacked would eventually undermine support for Britain. He won beacuse he was ruthless, smart, and tough, not because he was saintly.
more
by Colin
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 5:31 PM
1. Starbucks isn't part of the community.
2. Noone that I know who advocates property destruction would ever destroy working class property. Starbucks is corporate. They're fair game.
3. This Gandhi and MLK stuff is crazy. People's perception of these men is soo skewed. Yes, they were moral giants, but they were also shrewd and ruthless strategic thinkers. Gandhi's nonviolent activism got a lot of people killed or hurt, and he KNEW it would. He knew that the image of peaceful people being attacked would eventually undermine support for Britain. He won beacuse he was ruthless, smart, and tough, not because he was saintly.
More Asswipe
by Irv The Nirv
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 6:30 PM
Not part of the community???? So you have been appointed the great arbiter of who and who not can be part of the community??? Assholes.
Okay, if you do not consider Starbucks to be a good member of the community, but the physical property which Starbucks occupies IS part of the community environs. When you trash the proeprty in a neighborhood, you are trashing the community. People should have to live having to look at your graffiti bullshit, the broken and boarded up windows, the proeprty destruction and increased insurance costs. That sort of shit not only can drive a Starbucks away, but also people who might otherwise live in the community.
I know htat you asses don't understand a thing about economics or how to build a business (let alone a community friendly business), but do you really think that another business is going to be real anxious to move into the community to fill the void that might be left by Starbucks when they find out that the community has a higher incidence of vandalism thanks to your BS. I don't think people are going to want to come out to the community to shop or spend money when they hear of the vandalism. They will just go someplace else. So Starbucks and the other businesses in the area all equally suffer (even if Starbucks suffered immediately just a little more with having to make an insurance claim).
Here's another one for you societal leeches. Starbucks will probably not see an increased insurance cost BUT THE OTHER BUSINESSES WILL. Starbucks as a huge mega corporation ismost likely "self insured" for a loss as small as a window. They just reach into a reserve fund and pay it. Their excess coverage never even knows about it, and their insurance costs don't see the affect. HOWEVER, the local businesses that can not play these big corporate finance games get whacked with higher insurance costs because their insurance carries assess risk based upon the reported property crimes in their locale. So this litle act of anti-social idiocy ends up costing the local businesses, but has a VERY limited cost to Starbucks. They pay for the window and move on. The local business gets an indsurance increase that will stay there indefinitely.
I guess you should send some apology letters to the local business owners and remind them that they should ignore the property damage on their street and the increased insurance expenses because all of this is directed at Starbucks, which is not part of the community at all.
You people are SOOOOOO Stupid. I hope when you finally graduate from high school you will become more enlightened and be able to find gainful employment actually CONTRIBUTING to the community rather than tearing it down.
hmmm
by Colin
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 8:52 PM
So anything that inhabits physical space in the community should be immune from property destruction? That's just silly -- everything is physically located somewhere or other.
And every protest tactic disrupts or damages someone or something in the community -- marches make people late, petition drives annoy people, cd disrupts the legal system, boycotts do economic damage, etc. That's the nature of the beast. This damage is marginal, and its greatly outweighed by the damage caused by places like Starbucks.
HHMMMM , another asshole
by Irv The Nirv
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 10:55 PM
Why don't you tell the people of the community and the business owners that the damage done to them, through higher insurance costs, depreciation of property values and increased in hostile community environment far out weigh the benefits of your litttle "Down With The Man" hatefest.
You just don't get it because you are an ass. you want to do some non0violent cd, go right ahead. You don't like Starbucks, rent a billboard and tell people why. It will be far more effective than your window breaking vandalism. No one respects some one who has to resort to violent acting-out to get their point across. And don't give me your self righteous Ghandi crap. You didn't even bother to try the peaceful route. You went right to the "action" because you really don't give a phuk whose windows you are breaking, you just want an outlet for your own anger. If it happens to be a multinational corporation that employs several tens of thousands of people in this country then even better, right. Hey, where do the local coffee shops get their coffee? Do children work in those coffee plantations? Are you sure? Where did that nice oriental rug in your favorite leftist book store come from? Did children slave over the loom to make it? I am sure they did? Did any children work in the factories that make your favorite leftist clove or organic cigarette? Another yes? And what about the local smoke shop that sells those clove cigarettes imported from the third world where the workers are paid about a plug nickel a day? Go break a window there why don't you. Go to any of those establishments. Blight those neighborhoods. You cause everyone who wants to use real cd in their protests to loose credibility.
You go on and on about how this is just an acceptable part of the "struggle" but you never once NOT PHUKING ONCE offer any reasoned intelligent or thought response to the TRUE and TANGIBLE economic harm that your actions cause to the people of the community. You don't give a PHUK about them that's why. You couldn't offer that up if you wanted to because you are imbeciles. OOHHHH, That's right, I must not be worth listening to because I was so rude to call you an IMBECILE. And that isn't nice and just shows that I am a "hater." Well Wrong again dickbreath. I have more respect for the community and the peole who work and live in it regardless of whether they work for the Man or not than you ever have demonstrated, you selfish turd. I am telling you the hard cold truth about your actions and you can not be mature or honest enough to face up to it. You know that your actions do not effect any of the changes that you profess to fght for. you know that the true harm is extracted on the community which you so arogantly expect should bend to your whims and desires for your political agenda. Well excuse me Nazi Boy but that all sounds to much like fascism for my tastes.
Have I said that you should go Phuk yourself lately? Well if I forgot to, then take this as a reminder (but please, wear a condemn, you don't know where you might have been).
HHMMMM , another asshole
by Irv The Nirv
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 10:57 PM
Why don't you tell the people of the community and the business owners that the damage done to them, through higher insurance costs, depreciation of property values and increased in hostile community environment far out weigh the benefits of your litttle "Down With The Man" hatefest.
You just don't get it because you are an ass. you want to do some non0violent cd, go right ahead. You don't like Starbucks, rent a billboard and tell people why. It will be far more effective than your window breaking vandalism. No one respects some one who has to resort to violent acting-out to get their point across. And don't give me your self righteous Ghandi crap. You didn't even bother to try the peaceful route. You went right to the "action" because you really don't give a phuk whose windows you are breaking, you just want an outlet for your own anger. If it happens to be a multinational corporation that employs several tens of thousands of people in this country then even better, right. Hey, where do the local coffee shops get their coffee? Do children work in those coffee plantations? Are you sure? Where did that nice oriental rug in your favorite leftist book store come from? Did children slave over the loom to make it? I am sure they did? Did any children work in the factories that make your favorite leftist clove or organic cigarette? Another yes? And what about the local smoke shop that sells those clove cigarettes imported from the third world where the workers are paid about a plug nickel a day? Go break a window there why don't you. Go to any of those establishments. Blight those neighborhoods. You cause everyone who wants to use real cd in their protests to loose credibility.
You go on and on about how this is just an acceptable part of the "struggle" but you never once NOT PHUKING ONCE offer any reasoned intelligent or thought response to the TRUE and TANGIBLE economic harm that your actions cause to the people of the community. You don't give a PHUK about them that's why. You couldn't offer that up if you wanted to because you are imbeciles. OOHHHH, That's right, I must not be worth listening to because I was so rude to call you an IMBECILE. And that isn't nice and just shows that I am a "hater." Well Wrong again dickbreath. I have more respect for the community and the peole who work and live in it regardless of whether they work for the Man or not than you ever have demonstrated, you selfish turd. I am telling you the hard cold truth about your actions and you can not be mature or honest enough to face up to it. You know that your actions do not effect any of the changes that you profess to fght for. you know that the true harm is extracted on the community which you so arogantly expect should bend to your whims and desires for your political agenda. Well excuse me Nazi Boy but that all sounds to much like fascism for my tastes.
Have I said that you should go Phuk yourself lately? Well if I forgot to, then take this as a reminder (but please, wear a condem, you don't know where you might have been).
HHMMMM , another asshole
by Irv The Nirv
Monday, Dec. 22, 2003 at 10:57 PM
Why don't you tell the people of the community and the business owners that the damage done to them, through higher insurance costs, depreciation of property values and increased in hostile community environment far out weigh the benefits of your litttle "Down With The Man" hatefest.
You just don't get it because you are an ass. you want to do some non0violent cd, go right ahead. You don't like Starbucks, rent a billboard and tell people why. It will be far more effective than your window breaking vandalism. No one respects some one who has to resort to violent acting-out to get their point across. And don't give me your self righteous Ghandi crap. You didn't even bother to try the peaceful route. You went right to the "action" because you really don't give a phuk whose windows you are breaking, you just want an outlet for your own anger. If it happens to be a multinational corporation that employs several tens of thousands of people in this country then even better, right. Hey, where do the local coffee shops get their coffee? Do children work in those coffee plantations? Are you sure? Where did that nice oriental rug in your favorite leftist book store come from? Did children slave over the loom to make it? I am sure they did? Did any children work in the factories that make your favorite leftist clove or organic cigarette? Another yes? And what about the local smoke shop that sells those clove cigarettes imported from the third world where the workers are paid about a plug nickel a day? Go break a window there why don't you. Go to any of those establishments. Blight those neighborhoods. You cause everyone who wants to use real cd in their protests to loose credibility.
You go on and on about how this is just an acceptable part of the "struggle" but you never once NOT PHUKING ONCE offer any reasoned intelligent or thought response to the TRUE and TANGIBLE economic harm that your actions cause to the people of the community. You don't give a PHUK about them that's why. You couldn't offer that up if you wanted to because you are imbeciles. OOHHHH, That's right, I must not be worth listening to because I was so rude to call you an IMBECILE. And that isn't nice and just shows that I am a "hater." Well Wrong again dickbreath. I have more respect for the community and the peole who work and live in it regardless of whether they work for the Man or not than you ever have demonstrated, you selfish turd. I am telling you the hard cold truth about your actions and you can not be mature or honest enough to face up to it. You know that your actions do not effect any of the changes that you profess to fght for. you know that the true harm is extracted on the community which you so arogantly expect should bend to your whims and desires for your political agenda. Well excuse me Nazi Boy but that all sounds to much like fascism for my tastes.
Have I said that you should go Phuk yourself lately? Well if I forgot to, then take this as a reminder (but please, wear a condem, you don't know where you might have been).
have you extremists forgotten
by Urban Guerrilla
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 10:14 AM
That location sat empty for years! Starbucks didn't force Uni Mart out., they acquired the property and it just happened to sit across the street from a small coffee shop. I'm not a starbucks fan, their coffee tastes like shit and it's over-priced too. The best form of agression is to not give them your money. I love you formally suburban white kids from well to do families who come and live in the city and start breaking things in the name of protest. Get over yourselves, go back to mommy and daddy and break shit in wexford or fox chapel.
What If ?
by thoughtful person
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 10:44 AM
If you don't like starbucks:
1. Get a job.
2. Get Rich.
3. Buy the building starbucks is in.
4. Kick them out. Put in something you like.
5. Lobby for zoning that earmarks certain Zones as Historical / Local only. - Forbidding nationally owned chains, national fast food, WalMarts, etc. (No starbucks, no franchises, no McDonalds, BKs, Taco Bells, etc)
That's how capitalism in this society works.
Why don't you learn how to play the game, it's fun and you can make money at it too - but that takes work and time, and dedication.
Smashing stuff is stupid and annoys the Insurance agent who has to pay for it, not StarBucks!
If you could buy the building,
what would you put in StarBucks place?
What If ?
by thoughtful person
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 10:45 AM
If you don't like starbucks:
1. Get a job.
2. Get Rich.
3. Buy the building starbucks is in.
4. Kick them out. Put in something you like.
5. Lobby for zoning that earmarks certain Zones as Historical / Local only. - Forbidding nationally owned chains, national fast food, WalMarts, etc. (No starbucks, no franchises, no McDonalds, BKs, Taco Bells, etc)
That's how capitalism in this society works.
Why don't you learn how to play the game, it's fun and you can make money at it too - but that takes work and time, and dedication.
Smashing stuff is stupid and annoys the Insurance agent who has to pay for it, not StarBucks!
If you could buy the building,
what would you put in StarBucks place?
still more
by Colin
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 1:04 PM
I'm not a capitalist, so why would I use capitalists methods. Thats silly.
For the record, I'm not suburban or middle class. And I've never done property destruction. It's a tactic that I respect. If I want other activists to repect my tactics, then I have to respect theirs. Otherwise, we get into these internecine wars and the bad guys (like Starbucks) win.
And, once again, ANY protest tactic has unintended consequences, some of which are bad. So does waking up in the morning. It's unavoidable. We can only try to increase the good and limit the harm by picking the right targets and applying our tactics as ethically as possible.
Its odd to see an activist get so worked up about a Starbucks window.
Colin...isn't that another name for "asshole"
by another thoughtful urbane gorilla
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 2:04 PM
You are an idiot. Waking up in the morning has unintended consequences and that is anologous to the entirely volitional act of smashing a window? Now that is not only silly, but also stupid.
You have to respect any protest tactic? What? Do you lack the ability to make descisions for yourself, or the backbone to discern right from wrong/good from bad/effective from ineffective/helpful from detrimental? Sounds like Ivring may actually be right for once around here.
I am not sure that anyone is getting worked up over a Starbucks window, but they are getting worked up over childish vandalism masquerading as activism. It most certainly was "an action" but it had far more consequences that were hurtful to the community and to the cause of activism. The "unintended" consequences that you speak of were completely "avoidable" cnsequences. You (or whom ever it was that carrried out this "action") individually chose to ignore the option of avoiding those consequences, even though that would have been in the best interest of the cause overall.
You DO NOT have to respect every "tactic" that calls itself "activism". Otherwise wouldn't you have to respect the "tactics" of thsoe "activists" that physically block the entries to family planning clinics or rehab centers? Or how about the tactic of property destruction of those "activists" that do not want family planning clinics, rehab centers or low income housing? If you can not distinguish between good/bad tactics then why should you distinguish between good/bad activists? To bring it a little closer to your foolishness, the true community activists that are out sweating to get economic development into Oakland and other communities are not at all helped by your vandalism. Another unintended consequence for which you have no concern is that hard community development work.
Is it better to have a vacant building there than to have a Starbucks? No. Is it better to let the community benefit from the increased economic activity that follows a Starbucks? Yes. Even though you ignorantly see these little bits of economic reality as some broad capitalist evil, it has benefits for the whole neighborhood. Or do you think that the other businesses there do not run on "capitalist" principles (such as make a profit = make the payroll = stay in business).
If you want to educate people about Starbucks than please do, but don't hurt the rest of the merchants on that street or residents of that neighborhood. You hurt Kiva Han and the other members of that community more with your little antisocial outburst than you did Starbucks.
Now you are on to the truth
by Irv The nirv
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 10:41 PM
They don't care about the comunity. These economic realities they will never see. They will only be happy when everyone is equally impoverished. "Hooray, we beat capitalism. Now everyone is dirt poor and living in squalor. Happy Day. The leftist activists won !!!"
Colin (yes, that's medical for "asshole" and an appropriate choice by mommy and daddy on that blessed day), can't succeed in society and wants to drag everyone to his level. He can't discern between the good adn bad because he doesn't have the fortitude of character that such a judgement requires. He is afraid of such ethical or value judgements, for that might mean that he would also have to stand for those judgements. And God (or the nameless diety that we are not alowed to acknowledge) forbid that anyone should be 'judgemental.' Oh that woudl not be 'inclusive.' We have to embrace all diverrsity. Even 'diversity of tactics'. Isn't it great, you even have to embrace me. Or are you "judgemental." Ar you making judgments about my "tactics".
Coli, get your act together before it is too late and you continue along your path of personal ruination and hatred. Destine to be a hateful angry aging activist, crying about all the 'could have beens' of which you 'were robbed' by "the Man" and the "capitalist society " that you will blame for your marginalization. As Micheal Jackson once said, ask the man in the mirror befrie you go blaming anyone else.
Go break another window. You and that guy from the old Andy Griffith show. You know the one, Gomer's cousin who used to walk around with the bag full of bricks and through them through the window of anyone who he had a bitch with. What the hell was his name? I guess I better go turn on TVLand and get back to you. Anyway, that is the image that you paint of yourself. Not far off at all I am willing to wager. Another lonely figure, comical if it were not so pathetic, adrift in the storm of their own misgivings and missed opportunities, foresaking shelter of any cove claiming religious devotion to the call of the captains ego, itself merely the vantriliquists doll for the siren on the rocks.
Guys, calm down
by Lee
Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 at 10:50 PM
Everyone who says, "down with starbucks." I have been following the large amount of hatred for starbucks by many for some time now, and I have come to realize what you are fighting for, and a damn good cause it is. I support the down-sizing of starbucks fully, but feel that the actions taken to do so have been less than classy. It makes no sense to bust the windows of a multi-billion dollar company that will just put up another set of windows that are ten times stronger and will replace those if need be. It's stupid to spray paint signs of your hatred when they'll just paint over them. If you want to get anything done, you can't go out and throw away your credibility as you have so diligently done. Smashing windows and putting graffiti on starbucks buildings won't do anything. Doing something more constructive like making public boycotts and protests are much better ways of dealing with it. Or perhaps just standing outside of starbucks and telling people some of the things they do and how supporting them is ruining local business. If you want to be taken seriously, act like complete professionals, and don't come off as a bunch of hooligans that smash windows and spray paint walls to get your way. For those of you that disagree with my suggestions I would just like to ask the following: has smashing windows done anything? No. Has writing on walls done anything? No. Is it worth taking a more practical step in getting what you want? Yes. For those of you who take offense to this post, I apologize.
Credibility?
by bugg
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 at 3:19 PM
"you can't go out and throw away your credibility as you have so diligently done"
I'm curious, but how can an anonymous actor have credibility in the first place?
I'm involved with people in various social justice circles, including fair trade coffee work, and I have <b>no bloddy idea</b> who threw the brick through the window. So who, exactly, has lost credibility?
You lose, bugg
by Ghandi
Saturday, Jan. 03, 2004 at 3:34 PM
You may not have thrown the brick through the window, or even know who did, but you have been supporting the person who did (or at least that they did not do anything wrong in terms of the protest/activist movement). By supporting this, you sacrifice your own credibility and the more that people do this crap the more the movement loses. There are a lot of thoughtful postings here that I hope you and others in the movement have learned from. The result of these actions hurt the very community that someone was arguably trying to aid.
comments to bugg and irv
by Jeff
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 8:45 AM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Hmm Hey Bugg, let�s go to Webster dictionary again shall we? This time let�s look up the word violence�
Main Entry: vi�o�lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
Hmm window is smashed. It�s destroyed by an intense, turbulent, or furious and destructive action or force. It wasn�t hit by soft foam rubber bricks and loved to the point it was fell apart. It had someone come along and toss a brick at it. Seems to me to have been done by someone by an exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. Hmmm these all seem to fit the definition of violence to me. Funny, in the definition I don�t see any part that violence is not violence unless it�s against a person. Anyone else see it in there? In fact it seems to me, by the first definition, that violence CAN be committed against inanimate objects (in the case of the example, the house). Rationalize it all you want, this was an act of violence. This is the same kind of tactics antiabortionists sometime use to intimidate people that provide abortions (granted the Starbucks is still standing and in some case abortion clinics are destroyed). It�s not at the same level but the same mentality is behind it. It�s done to inspire fear and to intimidate. And I�m sure that if asked, many of the people that commit such acts against places like this Starbucks would object to such tactics being used on abortion clinics. This would be hypocrisy. And I condemn such tactics from either side. They are all useless and really get the social justice movement nowhere. They give your cause a black eye. Bullies make few friends and are often in the end taken down a peg or two. By praising these acts you praise those that use fear and intimidation as a method of getting their way in the world. You are therefore saying that what abortion clinic bombers are doing is right and justified. What our current presidential administration is right and justified. I thought we were fighting against such things?
So I guess by your logic that only people that are antiabortion should be the ones that condemn the tactics of abortion clinic bombers? Or that only the people that were FOR the war in Iraq are the ones that can now speak out against it? Sorry. I�ll condemn what I want. And speak out against what I will when I want and how I want. If I feel something is wrong I�ll say so. This was wrong. If you or anyone else that commit such acts don�t like it, that�s too fucking bad.
This did NOTHING to hurt these Starbucks. Smashing windows, destroying cars and whatever other destructive acts that certain people in the social justice movement commit are just passed on to the consumer in the end. Ok so the Hummer lot where the cars were burned had to install new lights. Hmmmm who do you think pays for those lights in the end. Could it be the CONSUMER that BUYS those Hummers? Do you actually think the company is going to install those lights and operate them at a loss? No, they will just pass on the increased operating costs and insurance costs to the people buying those cars. And considering they are a luxury item, the increase doesn�t add up to a whole lot when you have enough money to afford a Hummer in the first place. You don�t hurt the corporation one bit.
Now for Irving. You know I�ve been reading this site for a while now and followed your posts. Frankly you are part of the problem as well. You spout off what some talk radio show has programmed into your head thru repetition. You and those on the other side of the political spectrum that hang out here are one and the same. You can�t think for yourselves. Hell you�ve even got the tactic that Rush and many other right wing talk show hosts of ridiculing the other side with ad hominem attacks down perfectly. But I�ve got to say, �little precious� is getting VERY old. Try coming up with something new please?
Maybe if you didn�t belittle people with your comments, someone might actually listen. But that�s not the point is it? You really don�t care about doing anything constructive. You are just here to feed your ego and feel superior to others. Isn�t it?
Believe it or not, sometimes what the right has to say IS correct. Sometimes what the left has to say IS correct. And there are even times with BOTH might be right about the same thing. But being right about anything Is useless if you can�t get past the rhetoric. Both sides would do well to get their heads out of their asses and start listening to each other, communication with each other instead of talking AT each other. If you can�t do that, then sit down, shut up and let others do it instead. What YOU do hurts YOUR cause TOO. Just like what the people that broke these windows do to their cause. And in the end you have no room really to condemn it because you do pretty much the same thing on here.
We built it, we can rebuild it
by Buenaventura Durruti
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 9:25 AM
"We are going to inherit the earth . There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We Are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."
We built it, we can rebuild it
by Buenaventura Durruti
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 9:27 AM
"We are going to inherit the earth . There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We Are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."
Another Dumb Thread
by George K.
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 4:50 PM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
I didnt see you people protesting when Kuntz Bakery shop closed!! WTF! That was the last independant pastry shop in Oakland, and It is gone too.
None of you remember the variety of things in Oakland when I was there, and I only left my regular occupation of Oakland in the early '90s!! oakland is a shithole of bland stores, bars, and food places. One of the ONLY places that is still there that I always went to for a good cup of coffee was Kiva Han, and thank god it is still there.
Fucking up a starbucks window will not get them to leave. If you dopes and trolls think that is the answer, then you may as well live in some ghetto. The only tactic that a capitalist entity like Starbucks comprehends is LOSS OF PROFITS. They want to undersell all of the competitors until the competitors are out of business, and they are the only supplier remaining. To force them out, people have to be enticed to NOT GO THERE.
How about this: instead of buying paint or wasting money on other shit....buy some coffee from Kiva Han or even just Maxwell House, stand in front of Starbucks AND GIVE OUT FREE COFFEE. Don't let people enter the store! Entice them to go to Kiva Han. Or get ahold of Kiva Han Gift certificates or coupons, sponsored by an activist organization, and hand them out in front of Starbucks.
This will hurt their bottom line, subject them to economic hardship, and force their decisionmakers to pull the plug on that location.
How far can you activists push them? HOW CREATIVE CAN YOU BE TO BEAT THEM WITH THEIR OWN BLUDGEON?
You speak all the time about diversity of tactics, and all I ever see are two things: a march that makes everyone hate you, or violent vandalism (which makes you morally and ethically corrupt).
Why don't you diversify your tactics a little more and deprive Starbucks of their life blood: Money? Watch them wither on the vine?
Try it.
Kunst and Starbucks
by Covington
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 7:06 PM
From what I've heard, Kunst was completely mismanaged and was too far gone before there was even a glimmer of an organizing drive in the shop. Workers were encouraged to keep working and take over the business from the boss (and even occupy the bakery), and address the racist and sexist issues in their workplace. However, the boss had so many outstanding debts it would have been challenging to take over the business. They should have stripped the stuff, though.
I'm torn on the Starbucks issue. I certainly agree that damaging or altering the facade of the store is not the best way to go to reach the workers at Starbucks. On the other hand, it might influence some community members to investigate why Starbucks is hated. I think a good route would be to try to organize Starbucks workers and engage them in a way that they are not geared towards seeking a contract with Corporate, but placing increasing demands on the nature and structure of the business -- making connections between fair trade and their own standard of living. Obviously, this is not an overnight solution. After all, small store or large store -- unless it's a collective, all coffee retail workers are wage slaves. Even if there is a collective, I would argue that it does not constitute an "alternative economy" when it still has to function within the parameters of the capitalist marketplace. And I've seen small stores exploit their workers just as much as large ones. Of course, community pressure can have a greater effect if the company is based in the local community.
Kunst and Starbucks
by Covington
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 7:08 PM
From what I've heard, Kunst was completely mismanaged and was too far gone before there was even a glimmer of an organizing drive in the shop. Workers were encouraged to keep working and take over the business from the boss (and even occupy the bakery), and address the racist and sexist issues in their workplace. However, the boss had so many outstanding debts it would have been challenging to take over the business. They should have stripped the stuff, though.
I'm torn on the Starbucks issue. I certainly agree that damaging or altering the facade of the store is not the best way to go to reach the workers at Starbucks. On the other hand, it might influence some community members to investigate why Starbucks is hated. I think a good route would be to try to organize Starbucks workers and engage them in a way that they are not geared towards seeking a contract with Corporate, but placing increasing demands on the nature and structure of the business -- making connections between fair trade and their own standard of living. Obviously, this is not an overnight solution. After all, small store or large store -- unless it's a collective, all coffee retail workers are wage slaves. Even if there is a collective, I would argue that it does not constitute an "alternative economy" when it still has to function within the parameters of the capitalist marketplace. And I've seen small stores exploit their workers just as much as large ones. Of course, community pressure can have a greater effect if the company is based in the local community.
Come on now..
by Erin
Thursday, Mar. 18, 2004 at 12:44 AM
Okay, I just started glancing through some of your "opinions" on Stabucks and what happened in Oakland. It just so happens that I'm doing a report on Starbucks for my econ class.. oh, and not to mention I kind of work at a starbucks. I don't understand why people are saying they "hate starbucks" and "it's destroying our economy!" Get over it, look past it..MOVE ON! If it's not hurting you, shut your mouth, please. Just because it put a few ma and pa coffee hole in the wall joints that were never even good in the first place, out of business doesnt mean you should be pissing your pants. Anyways.. I have research to do, so do me a favor (please), just.. god I don't even have words for some of you people, you irritate me. Go find something better to do, get a life.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)