It hits the fan, in the US and Greece

So what's up with this rioting in Greece? I read a few news reports (AP,CNN) that some kids were throwing stones at some cops, and one of the cops shot one of the kids -- which triggered days of well organized street battles between police and "youth". I thought to myself "WTF? Why are kids throwing stones at cops, and why does this 'rioting' seem to be an organized attack on the police?" Well, the Christian Science Monitor provides some context:

Many Greeks cite the events of November 17, 1973 – a day that is still commemorated, when the army stormed the Athens Polytechnic University and killed a number of striking students – as a reason why the police must be restricted.
"The police stay out of certain areas, unless there's a major emergency, and the anarchists don't trash things badly unless there's a good reason," Mr. Kiesling says. But "once someone gets killed, the doctrine is massive retaliation."

Thanks, CSM!

In other news, in a scene that reminds me of the Argentinian economic crisis of a few years back, American workers are occupying their former workplace after their employer abruptly shut down due to their line of credit being cut off by Bank of America.

Workers belonging to the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers union began their peaceful occupation of the plant on Friday after family-owned Republic Windows & Doors said it was closing after Bank of America canceled its line of credit.

I expect that both of these stories will provide fodder for heated debate between the right and left wings of the libertarian movement.

I'm not all that familiar with the Greek Anarchist movement and while I am certainly sympathetic to just retaliation against organs of Statist aggression, I don't support looting as an ethical part of such retaliation. In any event, it's worthy to note that different attitudes that the Greek population has in regard to police power when contrasted to Americans. Unlike in Greece, those kind of tactics would elicit zero sympathy here and would be utterly counter-productive.

The latter story doesn't seem to be all that related to the 1st story. In the second instance, you have a peaceful protest for claims of unpaid labor. However, I don't know enough of the details to make a solid judgment, but my skepticism antenna goes up when the politicians start getting involved. I read Jeremy's post on the subject, and I would suggest we aren't anywhere near a type of economic collapse that would portend a type of labor homesteading of capital goods. What Army is going to prevent that plant/company, if production is no longer profitable, from going into Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization?

I didn't mean to suggest that there was any real connection between the two events -- except that they happened around the same time and involve some sort of direct action against the establishment of the respective communities.

I also didn't mean to suggest that the greek riot/rebellion was serving any productive purpose (as is becoming increasingly clear), or would serve as a model for anything in America. I think it is mainly interesting as an example of a society where there is only lukewarm support for the state--such that the authorities are afraid that any assertiveness on their part would trigger massive resistance from the populace. The only possible connection to the second story comes from reports that the Greek Authorities are even more timid than usual because of the economic problems.

In theory, I do sympathize with targeted, direct retaliation against thuggish behavior of the police. But I don't ascribe to looting and chaotic revolution. You are just going to end up likely replacing the old regime with a new ruling class of thugs...

In the second instance, you have a peaceful protest for claims of unpaid labor. However, I don't know enough of the details to make a solid judgment, but my skepticism antenna goes up when the politicians start getting involved. I read Jeremy's post on the subject, and I would suggest we aren't anywhere near a type of economic collapse that would portend a type of labor homesteading of capital goods. What Army is going to prevent that plant/company, if production is no longer profitable, from going into Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization?

I agree that the goals of the sit-in are not radical. However, the tactics are somewhat radical -- they could have just filed a lawsuit; instead, they occupied the factory. While these workers probably just want publicity for their cause (and perhaps to prevent liquidation from proceeding without their claims being given high priority), this direct action could serve as an example for the other workers who are facing layoffs.

Their mentality (as reported) is also interesting. By demanding that the bank pay their promised wages, they are basically putting the corporations into a paternalistic role -- the banks/government run the economy and therefore have obligations to take care of the workers. I think that many Americans adhere to this implicit ideology of infantilism. As this economic disturbance proceeds, I think this ideology will be tested: either the economic conductors of our society will find a way to satisfy the masses, or they will be discredited and a lot of "little people" will decide that they have to lookout for themselves. This crisis could eliminate the last elements of the post-WWII consensus in American political thought.

Maybe Obama will manage to maintain the credibility of the establishment, but I think even he could have a hard time.

To the extent this a peaceful protest for claims against unpaid labor compensation, I'm fine with it. If it becomes about trying to galvanize a labor movement to demand Statist support of unprofitable enterprise, then I'm not so fine with it; and to the extent the politicians start grandstanding, I'm become skeptical of it.

However the overall point I was making in my new post is that in anarchist coordination, the type of appeals of Kinsella to "first use" in unilaterally and violently mowing down legitimate peaceful protest when it it's a result of a legitimate claim is just conservatism dressed up in bogus libertarianism. Without the State, there would be no cops to shield him from the likely consequences of contracting such a slaughter that he so flippantly advocates.