I know in the US, stolen items are a tax write-off for the corporation. I'm not certain if small businesses are eligible but I wouldn't doubt it. Even if it didn't, there's insurance for that kind of stuff.
Shoplifting is not useful as a protest. Those for whom shoplifting will impact (small business) are not part of the "system" per se .... the larger entities either price it in or have insurance. The power of the mercantile state is in the monetary system and debt feudalism on a personal, corporate and state level. In order to fight that we must expose how the debt money system works and how the role of government is to protect the global monetary cartel - shoplifting is only really a desperate measure to survive, given the large risks and the lack of any real impact.
this sounds to me like a more or less useless detour - the direct way to paradise: abolish the state & make social property possible - exposing the monetary sys gets you nothing but headache & a bored audience, who's never had the "pleasure" of economic studies. I agree: shoplifting isn't worth the risk, not even if it's really for survival only.
This. From : http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/shoplifting.php I've a shirt saying : 'Shoplifters go ahead, collectivization starts at supper markets !'. In my opinion, shoplifting is one of many radical and maybe not the most efficient ways of destroying capitalism. There are 2 things : First one is, there is a difference between shoplifting and stealing ( this is MY opinon not the definition of shoplifting and stealing ). Shoplifters, apart from trying to stay alive, are spreading a message. The message is simple, there should be no product that has a price nor there should be a store owned my an individual ( or private property at all ). People have earned their essential things for living by working their asses off and getting underpaid and exploited everyday. The same thing is explained on web-sites I mentioned above, it's a definitely a good thing to read even if you disagree with me and the concept of shoplifting. 2nd thing is radical solution. If shoplifting became a hobby of many people, it would definitely destroy capitalism. Why ? When you shoplift, you steal ( I know I've said it is not the same, but I cannot use any other verb at the moment ) from a company and of course the worker has to pay ( not everything and not everytime ! I've talked to my local store where they said they don't have to pay for the things that are stolen BUT they don't get much things stolen so maybe that is the reason why ). If the worker decides not to pay for the stolen goods he/she gets fired, obviously. And now you can connect this to one of the anarchists moto 'Capitalism works because you work', and you will understand that if many ( by many I mean MANY ) people shoplift capitalism would eventually stop working. This is some kind of revolution and it could work. I know some of you might say 'why don't we all quit jobs and capitalism would be over' ? People are not willing to do this, by shoplifting you're making them do that. You're making them realize how pointless capitalism is ( just the fact that someone stole something and you, who only works there and has no impact on anything, has to pay for that is pointless ). Again, I'm not very good at explaining my own opinon, I recommend you read the short text on link above. Some shoplifting statistics. The 3rd one is interesting, because it is actaully saying : Shopliftin is making capitalism a harder place to live in. I, myself, never shoplift. Simply because I have enough money to buy what I need and I prefer boycotting instead of shoplifting, but I know some people who shoplift and that is why I wear the shirt I mentioned earlier and why I support shoplifting. And before I get trolled, this is not the way I want to go to bring down capitalism, this is just few thought on shoplifting and reasons why to shoplift.
The debt money system is the root of the control. Its clearly a system based on fraud, and the key thing is how simple the scam is. No one needs to understand economics to understand how the debt money system worked - for example, why does the government have to borrow money (from rich people and banks) when they "could" print it for free? Ask 99 people that question and see how many good answers you get - none. Even the economists cover it up with talk about dilution and inflation, when the truth is the private control over money by banks and corporations has nothing to do with economics, it has to do with a conspiracy to replace land based feudalism with debt based feudalism. What you call economics is mainly a jargon system design to disguise what is really a simple con. Just modern feudalism. So if you are not a beneficiary of the money system, you are a victim. That is the true power of the capitalist system and why they need big government and control.
I don't think they're allowed to take the money from their employees, I guess there is always corruption and it probably depends on where you live, but I highly doubt they are able to fuck over their employes because of theft. So I second the tax write off or the insurance thing. There is nothing wrong with shoplifting, I know people that buy food and steal to compensate for the tax, meaning if you buy something for xx money and you pay 25% tax for it, you steal something to compensate for the tax you pay to the state. I doubt anyone actually runs around and calculates that stuff though, but either way I don't see anything wrong in stealing, people always steal to survive. Whether it's computers or food.
i do not agree with you, it doesn't run like that in denmark, the shopowners can do what they want...and the unions can't do shit, needless to say if you shoplift, the people who produce the stuff which is already exploited by the state and workplace he or she works at...won't get their pay...
Hm that's pretty fucked up. I really wonder if its like that everywhere. Because then I guess it's better to reconsider.
Well I can't say about Denmark but over here shops are insured against theft. And about restaurants, I did waitering for a while and although you are totally exploited and have to basically survive on tips we weren't liable for unpaid meals, it may be different in the US. And workers at production facilities being held liable for stolen items in shops, which I assume have already been paid for? I find that hard to believe. Where did you read about this?
Unless the government strictly enforces the Employment standards act small and large business can do what they wish. For example in Canada a person was fired and denied unemployment benefits because he called in sick to play in a baseball game, this went through the courts and eventually was upheld - because the employee "lied". Up to that time, even proven employee theft was not necessarily cause for termination. The bottom line is know your rights, and the consequences of your actions.
I sometimes work in a local supermarket, to get some money and I have some experiences with shoplifting. Actually there are 4 groups of shoplifters that I have recognized. 1. The employees Most of the shoplifting is done by the employees. When I go to work I usually don't bring any food with me. I eat for free lol. And everybody in that supermarket does that. 2. Organized thieves: These don't go after simple sandwiches. They are stealing expensive goods such as coffee and alcohol and they resell them on the streets for a better price. These groups have usually a boss. The thieves do this to survive, but the boss wants to make money. 3. Rich bastards They steal because they can and nobody stops them because they don't look like thieves. They do not need money or food, they do it for the thrills. 4. Hungry and desperate people They only want some food.
I steal not regularly, but a bit 50% cause I'm bloody poor and 50% because using money just, well I don't like using money or funding big business and my town only really has big business - companies where me stealing a couple of little items won't hurt the worker or even really get noticed. I don't feel 'good' about it per se, but it's better than funding corporations
