Report on the Weekend Revolt Against Capitalism


Capitalism seems to have survived the weekend.

In case you didn't hear, a motley crew of the generally outraged, including members of hackivist group Anonymous, the tedious Adbusters, which first published the idea in July, and far fewer average Joes and Janes than the groups had hoped, tried to overthrow the shackles of capitalism and other stuff, on Saturday. They gathered in San Francisco, Portland, and New York City's financial district.

How did it go?

Well, a few thousand, but far fewer than the 20,000 hoped for, showed up in New York City and a few of them are still there. There were a few arrests, including some over a creepy anti-mask law. And over at Pajamas Media, there's a good, awkward round-up of the proceedings, with plenty of familiar photos of activists in black. Particularly good is this mention of the forever-baffling alliance between leftists and supposed anarchists:

In American politics there are two strong currents of anti-capitalist thought: Marxism/communism/socialism versus Anarchism/far-left-libertarianism. The problem is that these two ideologies are fundamentally at odds; one advocates hyper-centralization of political and economic power, while the other advocates hyper-decentralization.

In earlier times, the communists and the anarchists hated each other; they are natural enemies. But in recent decades they have formed an uneasy and deeply unstable alliance; since they both hate the status quo of American capitalism, they feel they ought to band together and smash the system as a unified front, and worry about how to pick up the pieces later.

(I'm not sure how uneasy the alliance is, considering how many anarchists I knew in college who were more than willing to compromise with socialism if they couldn't have anarchism.)

Bonus mocking of Adbusters types using a livestream with lots of corporate sponsorship.

As much as Anonymous occasionally does awesome things like be on the right side of the murdered Kelly Thomas, or hack the official Syrian website, some of them also joined this sea of people who can't tell the difference between corporatism and capitalism. Which makes those individuals…not unique and not particularly radical.

Reason on another Anonymous activity. Reason on Anarchism. 

NEXT: Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, & The Declaration of Independents Fall Tour Dates!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The funniest part in the Pajamas media account is that Saturday was Mexican Independence Day and the Day of Rage in LA got swallowed up by the annual Mexican festival. That is just too damned funny.

    1. Who can resist the call of tequila and El Grito?

      1. Thirty angry, dirty scumbag trustafarians wandering around through a Mexican carnival filled with people having a good time and not caring what the trustafarians are raging about. It really is just a perfect metaphor.

    2. So you’re saying that the Mexicans stole from the Ragers.

      a) SHOCKER!

      1. On Constitution Day, no less.

        For the record, Mexican Independence Day is Diecis?is de septiembre, so it was on Friday, not Saturday. They may have extended the celebration into the weekend–why the heck not?–but the actual day wasn’t Saturday.

        1. So what the fuck is Cinco de Mayo? How many independence days do those greedy Mexicans need?

          1. Cinco de Mayo is, mostly, an American fraud. It’s a holiday celebrated in one Mexican state to signify kicking the French out of Mexico. Mexican-Americans latched onto it for some reason to make it a rallying point for their politics here, but it’s in no way an important holiday in Mexico. September 16 is their July 4, period.

            1. It’s akin to confusing St. Patrick’s Day with the day Ireland declared independence.

          2. Cinco de Mayo is a US holiday.

  2. it is always amusing when the church of the aggrieved and offended convenes. Nothing speaks to corporate evil quite like a motley band of professional protesters and trustafarians going for a Sunday walk. At least there was no damage.

  3. “In earlier times, the communists and the anarchists hated each other; they are natural enemies.”

    What changed is that today’s “anarchists” don’t know what the word means.

    1. Ha! It means people who study spiders, smartypants.

      1. That’s absurd. Anarchism is a doctrine urging the abolition of Archie and all comics and television derived from him.

        1. No you dopes. From Wikipedia: Anarchism is Earth’s southernmost continent, encapsulating the South Pole. It is situated in the Anarchic region of the Southern Hemisphere, almost entirely south of the Anarchic Circle, and is surrounded by the Southern Ocean. At 14.0 million km2 (5.4 million sq mi), it is the fifth-largest continent in area after Asia, Africa, North America, and South America. For comparison, Anarchism is nearly twice the size of Australia. About 98% of Anarchism is covered by ice that averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness.

          1. That’s Antarchism, silly.

            1. I thought Anarchist was the soda flavored by the rare ‘Anar’ fruit.

              1. What about auntarchists?

              2. Isn’t the Anarchist the evil, Satanic dude that Revelations talks about?

      2. Are you sure that it’s not you that doesn’t know what anarchism is?

        1. You’re all wrong. “Anarchism” is that body of architecture focused on the use of arches as structural forms. Think Roman aqueducts.

          Geez – I thought EVERYONE knew that!

          1. No, it is you who are wrong. It’s people who oppose arches. That’s what the “an” is for.

            For instance, it is clear in The Fountainhead that Rand was an anarchist, because she opposed classical styles of architecture, including the arch.

            1. No you’re all wrong. It’s people who hate those who love arches.

              1. My last girlfriend was a “golden anarchist”; she had a McDonalds fetish!

                (Please don’t ask me about the roleplaying she NEEDED in the bedroom!)

                1. So did you have to dress like Ronald McDonald or the Hamburglar? Sorry, nevermind.

                2. Sounds like you had some big shoes to fill.

                  1. It involved her old work uniform from that toxic waste processing center they call a restraunt…

                    1. No, damnit, all you monocle wearing dipshits are fucking retarded. Anarchism is when the state owns all means of production, and cuts me a check for smoking pot and writing idiotic revolutionary poetry. Gah.

                  2. +50 HARP

        2. Are you sure you know what sarcasm is?

          1. Is that similar to “sargasm“? That is, the physical and emotional sensation experienced at the peak of sarcastic excitation, usually resulting from stimulation of the sarcastic centers of the brain and usually accompanied in the male by ejaculation?

            1. Your thinking of the Sargasm Sea:

              The Sargasm Sea is a region in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by ocean currents. It is bounded on the west by the Gulf Stream; on the north, by the North Atlantic Current; on the east, by the Canary Current; and on the south, by the North Atlantic Equatorial Current. This system of currents forms the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. All the currents deposit the marine plants and garbage they carry into this sea.

              The Sargasm Sea is 700 statute miles wide and 2,000 statute miles long (1,100 km wide and 3,200 km long). It stretches from roughly 70 degrees west to 40 degrees west, and from 25 degrees north to 35 degrees north. Bermuda is near the western fringes of the sea. The Sargasm Sea is the only “sea” without shores.


              1. So what does my girlfriend mean when she told me that she three sargasms last night?

                1. It means she received a deposit into her subtropical gyre.

                  1. Then I better double bag it next time!

        3. This s pretty fuuny stuff (for a change)

    2. Not really; Communists & Anarcho-Syndicalists is the same combination which lost the Spanish Civil War in the 1930’s.

  4. Yeah! Down with free association!

    1. Workin’ on it, heller. I’m kinda busy with this wealth-envy putsch.

  5. You know what’s really annoying?

    Rage Against the Machine was a great, great band. I can understand if Zack De La Rocha’s voice gets on your nerves, but the rest of them have one of the best power trio combos to come along in DECADES. But their politics, which they specifically and intentionally use in their music to, you know, “FIGHT THE MAN, MAN” is just stupid and hypocritical on about a gazillion different levels.

    It’s so annoying to have to ignore the ridiculousness of a multi-platinum selling band lecture me about Capitalism and Evil Corporations, especially since they are such a smoking band.

    1. Marxist millionaires.

    2. The redeeming feature of RATM’s political lyrics is that they were strongly anti-authoritarian (if you didn’t pay too much attention to what they actually wanted). “Fuck you I won’t do what you tell me” is still a fucking great line.

      1. they were strongly anti-authoritarian (if you didn’t pay too much attention to what they actually wanted)

        That’s what is even funnier about their fanbase- disaffected trustafarians raging against daddy forcing them to get a job.

        Side note: Their is an all-girl RATM cover band here in Nashville and I’m friends with the lead singer. She sounds EXACTLY like De La Rocha when they perform, but she’s the sweetest girl you’ve ever met in person. That’s right, ZDLR’s vocals sound exactly like a 20+ year old girl.

      2. “anti-authoritarian”??

        The visited Cuba and loved Castro. As long as a tyrant is properly leftist, they are very pro-authoritarian.

    3. And that is why Audioslave was such a great band. It was Rage with good vocals.

      1. Great piece, thanks leviramsey..

  6. I’m taking votes for what the ‘circle E’ means.


    1. Existential Excrement

    2. Equality – enforced, of course, through the archy (to no one’s surprise)

    3. I vote earwigs from the Night Gallery episode.

      1. Damn earwigs ate my hops…I harvested and got NINE DAMN FLOWERS!!!!

        1. But they laid one hundred thousand eggs. . .in your brain!

    4. Ewoks?

    5. Entitlement.

  7. I heard one of the “leaders” (?? maybe) on the radio this AM, talking about how a bunch of them had surrounded/”captured” the Bull statue on Wall Street.

    Capture the Bull – it’s where Their power emanates!!!111!

    I just laughed and laughed and laughed. Epic.

    1. Not many people realize this. But all of the power in Wall Street comes from a single bronze bull. Take that and the power to rule shall be yours.

      1. One Bull to Rule Them All

      2. That doesn’t explain why riot cops in Pittsburgh during G-20 surrounded one of our many dinosaur statues…Hmm.

      3. Just rip the balls off and every banker on Wall Street will experience something like this:

      4. Only if you shout “Blackwater…Haliburton” at the same time.

      5. So if I can find some rodeo clowns for hire then I could use their power to enslave the Bronze Bull to my will?

        I could be an evil overlord like Emperor Palpatine…except that my minions would be manure smelling eyesores that drink heavily and chase after hookers!

        Though they would be MUCH more preferable to storm troopers since I’m pretty fucking sure that even a midget rodeo clown could beat the ever loving shit out of Mark Hamill!

  8. I don’t believe there is such a thing as a pure anarchist and if there was, he/she wouldn’t be protesting. Anarchists in these rallies are communists who simply don’t like the power structure of the organized communists, but don’t have any better ideas. They’d take power if it was handed to them, but they’re simply communists without focus.

    1. Hi have you met me?

      1. No, which emphasizes my point. You don’t exist.

    2. There is has never been a more vile ideology than Communism. But the people who once practiced it, were at least consistent and fanatically committed to a set of ideas that they clearly understood, mistaken and evil those ideas may have been.

      Now they don’t even have that. Today’s communists can’t even claim to be communists. They are too stupid and confused for that. They are just pathetic. Living out Marx’s adage about history repeating first as tragedy and then as comedy.

    3. I’m a pretty pure anarchist (individualist anarchist in the Spooner sense), and I highly resent these fucks calling themselves anarchists. There are arguably valid left-leaning anarchists, but these fucks are just dopes who have assumed the mantle of “anarchist” because they think it sounds cool. They’re almost always collectivist, and yes, if they gained power they’d immediately start using it.

      What I most dislike is that they create a very mistaken impression in people’s minds of what an anarchist is.

      1. I would wonder how anarchists would really fair in a world with no social norms. I think it would be hell given the wide variety of insanity people are subject to.

        1. People would create their own norms and band together and form their own tribes and your “anarchy” would end before it began. Once someone can attract a couple of followers and use those followers to provide protection and enforce their will on other people, that is it, you no longer have anarchy. And that will happen every time.

          In many ways anarchists remind me of old Marxists. Marxists believed that you could create the new socialist man who would resist the temptation to exploit others and just work for the collective. Anarchists believe something similar in that they think man can be perfected by removing government and this new man will resist the temptation to organize and rule his neighbors.

          1. And once again, John, you show your absolute ignorance of what anarchism is about, and that fact that we are all anarchists, at the end of the day. You follow the laws that you find tolerable and break the ones you don’t. You will speed, or smoke weed, or possibly kill the guy who slept with your wife, if you choose to do so.

            “Government” is a fantasy that allows those people who are at the top to legitimize themselves, and you are the stupid sucker who buys into it. Feel proud?

            1. No we are not all anarchists. I may not agree with laws, but I tend not to break them. More importantly, laws get broke so what? The question is what would happen if all government disappeared tomorrow? We know what would happen, people would immediately form new more localized governments. That is what people do. You will never get rid of government. it is a question what government do you want, not if you can have a government, because you are getting one whether you want it or not.

              There has been lots of places that didn’t have strong central governments or places where the people distrusted the central government (usually because it was an occupying power run by foreigners) so much that they refused to rely on it or trust it in any way. In every case, local warlords and thugs arose who served the function of government.

              Pretending that we can ever have a state where government doesn’t exist is just a masturbatory fantasy.

              1. In every case, local warlords and thugs arose who served the function of government

                This is different from now how? It’s funny how you deceive yourself into thinking that there is any difference, and how you just have to have your comforting daddy-state.

                At least in anarchy, the thugs/warlords wouldn’t get to call themselves “politicians” and “police” and legitimize themselves.

                It’s also amusing how the current system clearly doesn’t work, but to you, trying something different is unacceptable. That’s some rigid thinking, John, but I guess I can’t expect otherwise from you.

                1. If you think now is worse than what it was in say medieval Europe, or the warlord periods of China or French occupied Sicily, you are just stupid Epi. I mean like Tony level stupid. Yeah, our government sucks. But on the scale of suckatude, it is still better than 99% of the governments that have ever existed. You seriously must know nothing about history if you think the current US government even approaches the level of murder and injustice perpetrated by pretty much every other human organization in history. Do you have any clue how fat, dumb and happy you are living here versus about anywhere or any when else in history?

                2. The difference being sometimes the warlords in a complex legal framework society are held in check, which is what minarchists advocate. We like the benefits of society, but aren’t ignorant of the pitfalls.

                3. At least in anarchy, the thugs/warlords wouldn’t get to call themselves “politicians” and “police” and legitimize themselves.

                  Sure they would. Who would stop them?

            2. And that fantasy called the courts and the common law is what created property rights and the rule of law which in turn created the wealthiest civilization in history. It is one hell of a successful fantasy. Anarchy in contrast has never and will never exist. But everyone else is the one living in a fantasy world not the anarchists.

              1. And where are we at now, John? You start with a government, and it will grow, and grow, inexorably, until you get to the behemoth that we have today. With politicians “legally” stealing and giving billions or trillions of dollars to crony banks, energy companies, you name it.

                Enjoy that legality, John, because it’s literally what you claim to want. So next time you criticize the bailouts, or Solyndra, you should maybe shut the fuck up because you’re being a hypocrite.

                And there is no fucking rule of law. Ever. There may be places or times where humans were relatively good at sticking to it, but there will always be hanging judges or the cop who lets another cop off or bribery or what have you. Because humans are humans, not the law.

                1. Granted the US will probably have an argentinian collapse rather than a slow Japanese decline, but that does not make government inherently wrong, just that the cycle needs to be reset somehow.

                  1. just that the cycle needs to be reset somehow

                    “Somehow.” Jefferson thought so too, except it didn’t happen that way, did it?

                    People who crave power are very good at getting it, and they are also very good at keeping it. The more you legitimize them, the easier it is for them.

                2. Epi,

                  You are just a kook. And there is no fucking rule of law. That is just profoundly stupid and wrong. There has been a great rule of law in the Anglosphere for about five hundred years. Has it been perfect? No. But it sure as hell functioned and set the table for the most productive economies in history.

                  1. That is just profoundly stupid and wrong

                    And you just profoundly and stupidly don’t understand what I am saying. But you never have, and you never will.

                    There is no such thing as the rule of law, because true rule of law means that the law is followed at all times, not by the populace, but by the government that enforces those laws. Governments are just people, who will break laws willy nilly if they feel like it.

                    Understand now? I doubt it. To put it in a different way, if you want real rule of law we would need to be ruled by artificial intelligences.

                    1. There is no such thing as the rule of law, because true rule of law means that the law is followed at all times, not by the populace, but by the government that enforces those laws.

                      Governments are human entities and fallible and often don’t live up to their ideals. Big fucking deal. The 10% of the time the rule of law is ignored doesn’t mean that the 90% of the time it isn’t doesn’t exist or that anything less than perfect is somehow synonymous with complete failure. You are not even making any sense.

                3. Enjoy that legality, John, because it’s literally what you claim to want. So next time you criticize the bailouts, or Solyndra, you should maybe shut the fuck up because you’re being a hypocrite.

                  No he is not. Informing you of the fact that people will band together and form governments, or entities that very closely resemble them as such, despite pie-in-the-sky anarchist fantasies, is not the same as endorsing every single thing the government does.

                  One is a fact (people will form governments); the other is a value judgment (the things government does are good/bad). I did not hear a lot out of John on the latter, and that is all you are yelling about.

                  You know what’s said, Epi? We know you are smart, but kinda like John Stossel, you got in the echo chamber and you got lazy. And now this is the result.

            3. I may not like some aspects of government, but like the idea that if I sign a contract that I don’t have to enfore it at the length of a gun, which requires a third party to provide that service. And because of economies of scale, the third party can provide that service for a rather nominal charge. We all may be a little anarchist, but organized structure provides a better framework for cooperation that just hoping everyone holds the same values as you.

              1. Episiarch is so fucking stupid that even John is out-arguing him. I could take the stupid if it weren’t for the massively unjustified ego.

                1. Shut up Tony. You set the standard for stupid on here. And you have never out argued anyone in your entire life. You are the most narrow minded, uninformed cliche of a neurotic liberal I have ever seen. There is a reason why no one thinks you are real. I sadly know you are.

            4. Wow – another completely vacuous nonentry from our resident Screecher-in-Chief.

              We are all anarchists because we sometimes break laws? Are you serious? This is Ezra Klein-level dumbness.

              1. Hey, Tulpa, using another handle doesn’t change your bitchy tone, you know.

                1. Another brilliant witticism. Has your brain atrophied that badly?

                  1. Another banal denial. How gauche.

                    1. Government is inevitable, exactly as John describes, because human beings are not atomistic beings, they are social animals, and from day one begin to appreciate, innately and intellectually, the value of cooperation with other human beings with whom they share the planet.

                    2. I didn’t give you permission to enter our discussion, sockpuppet.

                    3. Denial of what? Whether I am Tulpa (I am not, by the way)has no bearing on your intellectual puerility.

                    4. Another banal denial. How gauche.

                      This sentence does not even make sense. “Another boring denial. How awkward/crude/lacking in social grace”? Did you just google “insults+thesaurus” and regurgitate what was on the page?

  9. There were a few arrests, including some over a creepy, anti-mask law.

    We have one of those laws in Virginia. It was enacted to fight the Klan. I don’t see how it’s particularly creepy.

    1. Because post G-20 people harped on the scary, masked anarchists and somehow ignored the 800 riot cops who were also masked, black-clad, and threatening.

      Right to protest, right to masked marching, I’m fully behind.

      1. “It was enacted to fight the Klan.”

        It’s the intentions that matter, not the results! If you’re against anti-mask laws, you’re racist!

  10. I don’t know who irritates me more – hippies or hipsters. I think it’s time to get myself a porch, a rocking chair, some chewin tobaccy, and a shotgun.

    1. To really round out the ensemble, you need an old hound dog.

      1. ‘shine in a Mason jar, as well. Don’t forget.

        1. Kristen’s post made no reference to breakfast.


      2. You need several hound dogs. And they must live under the porch.

        1. I don’t think Kristin is a backwoods hillbilly, just a grumpy old man. Porch, gun, rockchair and scowl are all that required. Maybe a “shaking” cain.

          1. Maybe I am a backwoods hillbilly because I would love to move to the country and own a large pack of hounds, although they would live in their own shed and not under my porch.

            1. …in their own shed and not under my porch.


            2. I live in the burbs with 5 terriers. It’s not a fearsome pack of hounds, but it is a pack.

              Actually, this is the first time I’ve had this many dogs. Pack dynamics are pretty interesting to watch.

              1. I love terriers. They just sturdy little dogs. And they are such fearsome little shits. They will really take on anything. Five of them must be a scream to watch.

                1. Nothing comes into my back yard, that’s for damn sure, and I feel sorry for it if it does. The neighbors on the lake side of the subdivision keep complaining about ducks in their yards. I will never have this problem.

            3. We never doubted that for second.

              I’d rather an exotic island in the carribbean with a pack of trained dolphins (with lasers).

          2. Think of me as Ouiser from Steel Magnolias. One of my all-time favorite movie characters, without a doubt.

            1. “I’m not crazy, I’ve just been in a very bad mood for 40 years! “

  11. Capitalism is man taking advantage of man.
    With communism it is the other way around.

  12. In earlier times, the communists and the anarchists hated each other; they are natural enemies. But in recent decades they have formed an uneasy and deeply unstable alliance

    Wouldn’t it just be easier to point out that they’re not really “socialists” or “anarchists” here… they’re fucking *idiots* who don’t even understand the political theories they ostensibly espouse. They’re a bunch of punk kids who dont understand what the fuck capitalism is, they just know protesting it makes them feel morally superior.

    i mean, every time these guys come out, be it a WTO meeting, or whatever… people keep acting *surprised* they’re incoherent goofballs. They used to be mildly amusing. Not so much anymore. Fucking crusty-punk ‘politics’, whatever the stripe, are parades of stupid. I’d be more worried if they suddenly became more articulate and better organized.

    1. Yes. If they actually read Marx instead of making assumptions about him, they would be dangerous.

      1. It like my old Captain used to scream at me whenever my antics went from amusing to expensive:

        “You fucking dumbfuck! If you had brains you’d be no shit dangerous but instead you’re just cluster fuck disatrous!”

        Man did he love to say fuck!

      2. Reading Marx would require intellectual effort, so there’s no possibility of that.

      3. Perhaps if they read Marx they would no longer hold those views?

  13. I don’t think there is any kind of deep divide between contemporary Marxists and anarchists.

    For them, “Marxism” and “anarchism” are just brands, poses, trade dress. Pretty much like “Pontiac” v. “Buick”.

    Underneath the laundry, they’re just stupid, entitled fuckwits. And that’s a worldwide brotherhood, friends.

    1. Yeah, it appears that this bunch of stupid, entitled nitwits merely thinks that an encircled, scrawled “A” logo looks way cooler (kewler) than the classic hammer-and-sickle logo and prefers the post-modern pose of Che to classic pose of Marx.

      They really are a really pathetic lot. One thing is certain: if they actually got their way, these useful idiots would eventually be rounded up for transport to the gulag.

  14. We’re the W.B. of S.E.F.! Join us!

    1. Whats the name of their Newsletter? The International Fuckwit? Black Mask Monthly?

  15. they feel they ought to band together and smash the system as a unified front, and worry about how to pick up the pieces later.

    The future sure bodes well for them, considering only a couple thousand bothered to show up after the call for thousands more.

  16. Capitalism should be replaced by democracy.

    I’m feeling hungry, could you all hurry up and vote on whether or not I can order a pizza and if I can get Canadian Bacon or Anchovies?

    1. Um, I meant “Canadian Bacon AND Anchovies”.

      1. I knew you were a godless fucking commie but even the Ruskies wouldn’t commit such horrors to a pizza!

        1. Hey! We’ll sue!

          1. I said godless *FUCKING* commie you godless commie!

            1. We’ll sue you AND those poseurs over at “”!

              Hey, what about that guy who got pissed at overlawyered? He seems like a decent fella…

  17. Notice how libs are trying to call even mildly anti-government types “anarchists” – which is even fuckin’ stOOpider when they apply it to Republicans, who LOVE government – and yet, they bitch and moan when the term is (correctly) applied to extreme-leftist types who throw bricks and set shit on fire at G20 summits.

  18. The tone in this article and other recent posts lead me to believe that is becoming more and more simply a shill for the status quo.

    1. While that’s probably true, I don’t see where you would’ve gathered that from this article in particular.

    2. Mocking these people is not equal to favoring that status quo, at least in my book.

  19. I once didn’t go to an apathy rally.

  20. lepu heavy industry is committed to designing and manufacturing all kinds of crusher, jaw crusher is the typical crusher

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.