You think you're being really clever by stealing from the evil corporations. The corporations know that people will steal, so they just put up the prices to compensate. Who loses out? The 'proliteriat'.

sceptic, You are a fool!
First of all, corporates know your are going to steal stuff, so they put the price up, but they do it before you actually steal it. In other words they put some money on the side for revenue lost by theft.

Second, if they loose money, that's brilliant, it would take a hell of a lot of stealing to actually cut into their profit margins though.

Now there's only one point, why do it all in the same place in the same time, and if you do, why put it up on Indymedia, you know there will be millions of extra cops on the streets, why doesn't everyone steal from a corporate around where he lives, if we all do it on the same time, the police will be stretched to cope with it, Say that at exactly 1pm and 5pm they will get a million calls of a million shops all over the city/country/world, they will not be able to cope, probably only few people will get nicked (hopefully).

You admit yourself prices are higher than they need be because of theft. Now, if theft increases, do you think that the corporations will lose money? No, they'll just put up prices further. Who loses? The proletariat.

Instead of stealing, which always carries the risk of apprehension, make a donation to "Save the Children" or some other worthy cause. It may not be the ultimate solution, but a few needy kids will benefit from it in the short term until the CAPITALIST SYSTEM is crushed forever.

Stealing IS dealing with the symptoms not the cause of captilasm.

Whilst im not sure i agree with the concept of this post i do feel its criticisms of Adbusters warrant more time and examination. Adbusters preaches a mantra of culture jamming and anti consumerism but unfortunatley after years of intelligent (if a little high priced) criticism, philosophy, design and art it is beginning to lose its way. A year or two ago adbusters introduced the concept of the Blackspot. The idea was simple and brilliant, culture jammers and activists left a black spot with a spray can or marker in their local area to alert other similar minded people that they were at 'work' in the area. Adbusters even gave away free blackspot stickers with one issue and then later a blackspot CD. This was all well and good until they decided to extand this concept, the simple spot was to become a logo. Adbusters set about creating what they called the Blackspot sneaker. The aim, to create an 'anti' brand that would eventually challenge nike for the global sneaker market except with an ethical twist. "Whats wrong with that?" i hear you cry, well essentially nothing but unfortunatley this was a huge step away from the fundamental principles of the magazine itself. Having always preached anti-consumerism Adbusters was whole heartedly delving into the worlds of consumerism. At the time this concept began i had a subscription to adbusters (i had to purchase that with my credit card as thats the only way people outside of Canada can pay for the magazine if you live outside of London) and i was immediatley concerned about the whole concept of the Blackspot brand that seemed to be emerging. I decided to email Kalle Lasn (Founder and Editor of Adbusters) with my queries. All i got was an email back saying 'look at this' with a link to the Blackspot sneaker website (i wont put a link here, its easy enough to find if you google it). I then started voicing my opinions on the Blackspot forums and found that several other people had the same concerns so again i contacted Kalle Lasn but this time i made one very simple question - two pages in Adbusters adressing the issue. One page for the concept and the other against with the possibility of further discussion in future issues. As far as i know adubsters never published a single letter of concern or complaint about the Blackspot brand despite giving regular space in their letter sections to the Israel/Palestine debate (they support the palestinians and regularly get accused of being anti-semitic etc) and it didnt seem like my request was that unreasonable. My request fell on deaf ears and subsequently i didnt renew my subscription. All i was asking for was the transparency that Adbusters demands of corporations, governments and businesses on a regular basis. Adbusters is now looking to expand their concept into Blackspot restaurants, record labels, bicycles and more.

Squirrello

Why don't we go on a Robin Hood mission, steal from the corporates and give to Oxfam (or whoever).
Of course petty theft is not going to bring about the collapse of capitalism, I don't think anyone was suggesting this. But neither is a G8 protest. At best it's going to contribute a little (very little) to the cause. But it is a morally justified fun, more fun than paying and more justified than giving them money.

You know you love it really, you're just pretending you don't to get hot chicks.

If i wanted to get "Hot chicks" to sleep with me, I would of worked hard, bought a jaguar, and a new pair of shoes, and go on "the pull". Or maybe i would just steal the car and the shoes instead, I would not try to bring about a world free of consumption, It wouldn't serve my cause very well if it was just sex i was after.

Hot chicks, and consumption...
besides why do you even presume I am a man? unless you think I am a lesbian or something.
I hate capitalism, because, in it's modern pretext, it is an encapsulation of everything wrong in the world. Everywhere in between starvation in Africa, to multi billion dollars weapons industry, is defined by "Capitalism", it might not be the best word to describe it, and in fact, it is been so over used, it's nearly a meaningless word. But I hate everything that it represents still, and I would hate it if we used the term "Gargigalism" instead. I hate the fact i would have to work an 8 hours day, and give the money to some rich bustard, I hate the fact that the only satisfaction i would get of life is to buy things, things I wouldn't even wanted otherwise. I hate the fact that this world is so unfair, and that some people are getting rich of killing others, I hate the fact that I have no voice or power in decisions that will affect my life, I hate the fact that I have to pay for everything, and I hate having to consider how many hours work is anything I want or even need is worth, and the pleasure I know i won't get of it. I hate exploitation, advertising, brain wash, superficiality, oppression, shoes, playstations and expensive cars, I hate cheap flights and I hate the knowledge that everything I do, be it buy food or go on the bus is inevitably going to bring money to someone who doesn't deserve it, and will increase the share holder's purse, share holders who probably have their hands in lots of other dodgy business, be it arms trade, slave labour or what ever. I hate capitalism for these reasons and many many more,
"Hot chicks" have nothing to do with it, I would much rather live in a good world.
I don't know if it's even worth mentioning just how sexist these statements are BTW.

Steal stuff, and than steal more and more, If you can get away without giving them a penny of your hard earned cash, go for it.

Oh right.

You can steal from the 'big corporations' because, like, man, they're eeevil.

So where do you draw the line? How about a medium corporation? Well, fairly justified.

A small corporation? The corner shop? The local newsagents? The bloke next door?

Ok, this is getting quite interesting, if a little petty, Where do you draw the line? well it's up to you, Some people believe that all trade is immoral, and therefore stealing is viable, I don't personally like the idea of stealing from the pockets of a hard working grocer. If you cannot justify it to yourself, don't do it, but if you cannot justify to yourself stealing from someone(something)who owns a large share of our world, than you should reconsider your morals.
If your next door neighbour is a multi millionaire, than by all means steal from him. but i find it's much easier to justify it to yourself if you steal from a faceless corporation.
Personally I don't think there should be any property, except maybe for a few personal belonging, definitely not a multinational.
Where do you draw the line? when you've developed and established a strong sense of morality,challenged it, and have a strong conviction in your motives, you can just about break any law.
Why are you so against stealing from them anyway? you can't honestly think that this will severely harm the rest of us do you?

Let me guess - you're probably a student, and you don't have a family [other than parents/siblings]. You see, there's this odd thing that when people have children, they want to give them a home, and they rather like the idea that the home is theirs, so they can decorate it or improve it if they want to. Perhaps you think all housing should be publicly owned - which is fine until the heating breaks down and you have top wait three weeks for the plumber employed by the council to come and fix it. You're probably against cars too, but a lot of people do like to go and visit friends and relations. Ah, use public transport. Well, people had to do that years ago, then cars came along, and people realised that cars were a damn sight more convenient. Bugger they convenience, you might say. And they would say - bugger you.

Trade is immoral?? Now, let's see - can you fix your plumbing? the electricity in your house? No? What do you do? You call in a tradesman. Noooo - this is immoral! Trading means one person makes something, because he's good at it, and trades it for something else, which he's not so good at making.

Capitalism - nasty stuff. And here's 'Name?' propagating his views by means of a computer and the Internet - and do you think we'd have those without capitalism?

ok fair point about people needing trade in order to get things they cannot make or do themselves however the point i think being made about trade being made immoral is the middle man of currency or capitalism. if it were simply an issue of one person trading their skills or goods for another we would be able to avoid a lot of the problems that come with money and potentially have many more skilled and able people and thus not need vast corporations or companies to cater for our needs.

Childish b*tching is depressing. Less of it, please.
There are ways to debate the effectiveness of particular tactics without
A) being superior and/or offensive
B) losing sight of the fact that ultimately you have more in common than is different between you

What have we got in common?
He believes that thanks to rich business man we have the Internet, I believe that it's more to do with the combined efforts of some of the smartest people in recent history, he believes that those people wouldn't of done it, wouldn't of organised themselves without someone getting rich of off it, I believe they would of.

Than there's all this petty stuff, trying to guess if I am a man or a woman, trying to figure out my life style, all this bullshit. I can very well try to conceive where you are coming from, but I won't reduce myself to your level, instead I am going to focus on your argument.

Trade? if we can define it first it would help, If you mean, two parties, exchanging good or services, where one is making profit of the other, or even worst, one is making profits for a third party, on some exchange rate, in which either the consumer (call it party one) is paying more than the service/good is worth, or that the provider(party two) works for less than he's effort is worth to make party three (the corporate say) money, than yes I am completely against it, I'd rather own nothing. This definition is inherently exploitative.

If you mean, people sharing skills, for the common good, be it a plumber or a car maker (that's a different argument). and if they do it on equal terms, than by all means, there's nothing wrong with it. If we could find a common ground, say I will fix your sink, and when I need my car fixed someone else will do it, and you will, I dunno, use your amazing skills of policing somehow. than is this even trade? And if instead of doing it to make profit, we do it to contribute to the greater good, or to an individual's comfort, or whatever. than money itself is not such a bad thing, It just ensures people do their bit. (I personally believe that having a currency will cause competition, and thus exploitation, but this isn't the point, the point is one of equal terms to share our workload)

Than we return to where we've started, which was, Is it OK to steal from big businesses, now to begin with you said that it's wrong because they will raise the prices, and I said it's alright because, the prices are already inflated, and those that actually do the work get much much less than their worth. (actually i don't think that's exactly what I said, but it's my point). Do you expect me to feel bad for stealing from HMV, why? because it will undo the fabrics of society? to hell with the fabrics of society!

Now the house thing, you get comfort from knowing that you're children have got a place to live, and you enjoy the privilege of decorating it, unfortunately, in this day and age, the only way you could do this, is by owning it. and this is fine, but do you honestly see no difference between owning your family's house and a multinational? You do really see no difference in between having enough money to buy food for your children and having enough money to buy half the state of Utah? and although your children live in a nicely decorated house, with Santa coming in and out of your chimney or whatever, there are countless others who don't. this is why I hate capitalism!
I would rather abolish property altogether, but in a market economy, this doesn't work, this is also why we should abolish it, we can fend for ourselves, fix our own sinks, and make our own computers, whilst working a lot less, if we'd found a way to decentralise the way we do things, of course I am not saying that one person should build his own computer and fix his own sink, that will just be stupid, what I am saying is that they should do it for one another, not for increased profit margins. It's those profits which gives us the legitimacy of stealing, it just means that the profits are redistributed more equally (Ideally we could send those playstations back to their makers in china). a profit HMV have no legitimate right to own. Ok i think in my drunken state, this is as a coherent argument i can produce, Good night, I'll check it in the morning, and hope I didn't make a fool of myself here :)

Why do you defend capitalism so vigorously, do you actually like living like that? do you like consumption being the sole purpose in life?

Deeply sceptical of it! Seems to me to be an excuse for workshy hippies to get what they want. Why would they go up Camden to do it if not to nick a pair of £150 boots to go with their purple dreadlocks?

Real proletarians in general don't steal and like me they have to put up with their lot in life just like my neighbours have to. But some of us are aware that if things don't change soon they'll have to... Global warming etc. How long can we keep on working for the man before we have to take control of our own lives? At least I try and put something back in by working people with problems

Theiving a jar of coffee from Sainsbury's may be victimless crime, but it aint the way forward folks..

But what is the way forward?

on the word 'profit'. Profit is the amount someone charges over and above the costs he incurs. Now, if you sell something at cost, you make no profit, but neither do you have any money to live on. Okay, you could factor in your living expenses into costs, but my idea of reasonable living expenses and yours might be completely different.

Then you go to say 'is paying more than the service/good is worth'. What is something 'worth'? Something is worth what you're prepared to pay for it. What is this computer 'worth'? Anything you like. Offer me a thousand pounds, and I'll take it. Offer me a tenner, and I'll say - not worth it, mate. So, what is 'worth'?

We do need rich businessmen to make computers at a price we can afford. To set up a semiconductor factory takes a great deal of money - otherwise known as capitol, and where is that capitol going to come from? And let's say a businessman spends a million pounds setting up a factory, and produces an item he sells for a pound. He sells 900,000. He's made a loss. He sells 1,100,100. Shock horror. he's made a 'profit'. Nasty, nasty man. Indeed, the more popular his product is, the nastier he becomes, poor chap.

By the way, I'm pleased to see you're not a student - an educated person would not have written 'those people wouldn't of done it' but 'those people wouldn't have done it'. Unless our education system is even more dire than I thought it was.

I seem to have some compulsive need to answer your ridiculous comment, even though they attempt (miserably) to be offensive.
Thanks for that maths lesson, very useful. Your argument stands as is, that is to say, this is how things are done now days. It doesn't in anyway justify why this is how things should be, does it?
Sure the business man build the factory, sure he spent his cash on it, and sure he wants to make more cash out of it, but that doesn't make it right. It's worth pointing out the the business man doesn't actually produce the out put does he? no, he pays his workers to, and there lays the problem, in the one step you've skipped out of in this equation. You seem to defend the "natural order" of things blindly, even though this natural order is where slave labour plays a major role. You seem to say, it's fine, you had a million dollars, you by all means deserve to get a 10 per cent return on this, by virtue of having it to begin with.
You also skipped the fact that the semi conductors he (his slaves) produce are only a by product of him making profit, it's not the purpose of his exercise.
And besides, none of this is any reason for it not to steal from him.

Also, I didn't say I'm not a student, just like you didn't say you're not a cop. Maybe I am a student, maybe I'm a plumbing student, maybe I'm an immigrant, maybe I'm dyslexic, or maybe all of those. As for intellect, for thinking outside of the box, for constructing a coherent argument, not just explaining how things are, well your not very good at it, so I'm going to reduce myself to your level and say, little intellect, pissing people off, supporting capitalism, I'll say your a well paid cop, quite racist/sexist, quite bad at your job, under appreciated amongst your colleagues, and with severe sexual problems, now, If you'll excuse me, I'm getting quite sick of this conversation.