Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Is theft subversive?

07:51 / 01.04.02

He thinks he is avant-garde if he has seen the latest happening. He discovers "modernity" as fast as the market can produce its ersatz version of long outmoded (though once important) ideas; for him, every rehash is a cultural revolution. His principal concern is status, and he eagerly snaps up all the paperback editions of important and "difficult" texts with which mass culture has filled the bookstores. (If he had an atom of self-respect or lucidity, he would knock them off. But no: conspicuous consumers always pay!). Unfortunately, he cannot read, so he devours them with his gaze, and enjoys them vicariously through the gaze of his friends. He is an other-directed voyeur.

The knock them off part of this set me to thinking (I can't find the original version anywhere online so I'm not 100% sure about the translation). When is theft a positive act? Is it a rebellion against consumerism or just a pirated acceptance of commodity culture, an outsider version of Saturday at the shopping centre?
Has anybody any personal examples of theft from either side? Was it subversive?

09:39 / 01.04.02

I know all property is theft and theft is the redistribution of unfairly held wealth from the ruling white middle class elite to the rest of the populace, but if I find the cunt who broke into my grandmother's house and nicked her few paltry possessions I'll shove his "Idea of Youth" up his skinny arse and beat him to death with his ersatz version of long outmoded ideas.

Theft can be subversive, I suppose, if it hits an evil multinational in the pocket. It is better to steal from companies than individuals, though, in my book. I did nick a copy of the Teachings of Buddha from a hotel room in Japan, but I figured that if the hotel owners were true Buddhists they'd be quite happy for me to take the text home and read it.

09:59 / 01.04.02

I've been puzzling over this for a few days because I was reading a thread on another board (the Ms board, if anyone knows it) about credit cards. Lots of people had them, lots had run up big bills, the usual stuff. And then one woman said that she regularly runs up huge biils, defaults, and then renegotiates to pay off 'what she can' which is usually less than half of the total.

And now a big argument's blown up. Is that theft, as some people say? Well, of course it is, legally, but is it justified? The woman concerned says she's an artist, she's poor, and she can't afford all the consumer goods that are advertised - and this is her way of striking back. She also says (and I agree) that the way credit card companies entice people further and further into debt is wrong.

But. I don't know where I stand on what she's doing. I can see both sides - she is 'striking back' against them, but they'll just pass the costs onto other people - many of them poor and heavily in debt themselves - by upping the rates. So is she just justifying her own theft at the cost of the people she claims to represent?

I have been going round in circles on this one so any input would be good.

10:00 / 01.04.02

Proper reply now: No, I don't think theft is subversive, because you're still playing the old consumer game, still desiring goods you have been told to desire, the only difference is you're not handing over bits of paper with the Queen's head on them for said goods. It would be much more subversive to ignore the goods altogether.

11:06 / 01.04.02

It would be possible to use theft to drop out of the consumer game though. For instance, partaking in shoplifting and credit card fraud in order to survive outside the corporate/state defined world of employment. Poaching in the urban jungle.

pointless and uncalled for

12:41 / 01.04.02

Is theft subversive?

Yes. It subverts the entire consumer culture ethic of pay for what you own/do/receive as service. Much of western civilisation has revolved around the mentality that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

By engaging in theft, both corporate and personal, you attempt to evade costs, which is something of a futile exercise. Sooner or later the chain of events will lead to an increase in price of everything. Unless you can find a method by which you can steal everything then you will become a victim of your own crimes.

A better question would be "Is theft revolutionary?"

Yes, it can be, if it is done properly with proper thought and consideration for the effects of the act.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:38 / 01.04.02

I can think of at least two kinds of "subversive" theft: "ethical shoplifting", e.g. the open theft of mahogany goods by activists on the grounds that the raw materials were already stolen from indigenous peoples, and "freeganism": a philosophy which holds that the consumption of animal prodicts is OK, so long as the products are either stolen or found (thus no money changes hands and there is no profit for the manufacturer). Whilst the validity of the latter is very debatable, ethical shoplifting sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It is not merely consumerism by another name, since owning the products is never the object; the object is to inconvenience the retailer and to draw attention to a cause.

pointless and uncalled for

13:43 / 01.04.02

Ethical shoplifting sounds like an interesting idea. How do the shoplifters announce their actions and the reasons behind them. I'm assuming that they do otherwise they would just be responsible for a bombardment of news stories about a gang of eclectic furniture thieves.

What happens to the items that they steal afterwards? Are they returned to the aforementioned indigenous peoples a'la Robin Hood?

08:53 / 03.04.02

i was thinking of starting a thread on this myself. i used to be a thief, pretty low scale stuff, stealing from bookstores (w h smith and one secondhand store that i felt had ripped me off). years later, i was accused of stealing collection money from the lesbian avengers. i didn't do it and it upset me hugely that anyone could think i would do that to such a worthy group. i do feel stealing can be political, but i've been angry when, for instance, my bike was stolen, as from what i could tell, the thieves were professional and probably had more money than i did. so most thieving isn't political; much of the burglary in my area is by crackheads, there's nothing more behind it. i have no problem with people stealing food from supermarkets if they need to, but not from a cornershop. re-distribution of wealth is one thing, but most of the people i've known who say they believe in it are just basically lazy.

gozer the destructor

09:09 / 03.04.02

Going back to an earlier point, I read a great essay on the Proudan/Anarchist definitions of Property (what is property or do the anarchists want to steal your toothbrush?) and the difference between this and possesions or the little things of sentimental value. Unfortunately due to the system that we are raised in, we are brought up with an idea that-to have is good to not have is bad, and therefore everybody wants to say 'this is mine, get off!'...the taking of a book from a store is not subversive as has been discussed above, it merely increases the price of the rest of the books being sold-and this follows trotsky's view of terrorism as simply increasing the states social controls-reducing civil liberties, however, doesn't this also lead to an oppresed society more likely to revolt? or would it simply give the government more power to crush subversive tendencies within society? got a bit lost but I thnk you know what I mean...

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

16:11 / 03.04.02

Sax: Not neccessarily. Back in the day, I would steal food from Kroger so that I wouldn't have to go days without eating (which really sucks). It's not that I desired these products, I just didn't want to have to go another weekend on just water and ciggarettes.

Was it "subversive"? I don't know. I never stole from small markets, where the food was actually bought by the owner and the losses would take money from him. My reasoning at the time was that at stores like Kroger and Wal-Mart, my theft wouldn't take money out of the gerneral manager's pocket. I've worked at similar stores, and theft is recorded and the value of the loss is sent to an office on the other side of the country. The store isn't penalized. I figured, "I need to eat, and it's not taking money from the people working here, and the food doesn't belong to anyone working here, so screw 'em. I want food."

This reasoning eventually led me to stealing DVD's and selling them. The money was not for food, just drugs. This could be called playing the consumer game, I guess. And it kinda felt "subversive", as I was working to get what I wanted, but not in a socially unacceptable way. "Screw their system of morality and law!" we would say, "I'm hungry, and they won't ever convince me this is 'wrong'. I--oh shit, security. beat it."

Re-distribution of wealth, eh? I've never thought of it like that. I certainly never called what I did "right" or "good", or for any cause other than that I wanted to eat or do drugs. The morality of it never really interested me.