"Looting... provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be."

"And I think that's a part of it that doesn't really get talked about—that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory."

Says Vicky Osterweil, author of "In Defense of Looting," interviewed at NPR.

[A] trope that's very common is that looters and rioters are not part of the protest, and they're not part of the movement. That has to do with the history of protesters trying to appear respectable and politically legible as a movement, and not wanting to be too frightening or threatening. Another one is that looters are just acting as consumers: Why are they taking flat screen TVs instead of rice and beans?... All these tropes come down to claiming that the rioters and the looters don't know what they're doing. They're acting, you know, in a disorganized way, maybe an 'animalistic' way. But the history of the movement for liberation in America is full of looters and rioters. They've always been a part of our movement....  

I don't know if other people in "the movement" are happy to see that idea spoken aloud. I've been hearing that there are 2 groups of people — the peaceful protesters and these mysterious other people, who, I've noted, the journalists don't seem to care to identify and investigate. Osterweil is saying these are not 2 different groups. It's one movement, and it's been going on for a long time.

Osterweil says it's a Republican/right-wing myth "that the small business owner must be respected, that the small business owner creates jobs and is part of the community." She conceptualizes the small businesses as agents of oppression within the community. They're not innocent victims, unfairly targeted. So don't worry about them. In fact, as Osterweil tells it, the looting is a cogent argument — an attack on "the idea of property... the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions." In this view, it's "unjust" to have to work to make money to buy the things you need and want, because "the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories." Looters "get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.... Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police."

That seems to present looting as street theater with a message. It makes an argument. A terrible argument. We've heard that argument in words many times over the years, and most Americans reject it. We want to work and build wealth and enjoy our lives and we want the great mutual benefits of hard work and wealth. Osterweil's looting is a switch from making the argument against property in words and to speak with actions — the destruction of property. But that doesn't make the argument more convincing! It's a nasty tantrum thrown because you can't convince people with your ideas. Ironically, fortunately, it makes the argument for the other side.