# Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited



## love detective (Aug 12, 2011)

2 and half years ago the IWCA put out an article called Dealing With The Renegades, which at the time received a fair bit of criticism and gasps from both shocked liberals, lefties and others alike

In light of recent events are opinions on it still the same as it was? Can the issues that it raises be ignored in any attempt to develop a meaningful,  relevant  and confident working class politics for the age & conditions we currently find ourselves in?

The full piece can be read here and below have quoted a few choice excerpts from it:- 



> Amidst all the concern about knife crime and gang culture, it is often tacitly assumed that the perpetrators are representative of alienated working class youth. Not so: what they are more generally representative of is a new -and growing- social formation that has willingly embraced a _non_-work ethic. It needs to be recognised that these lumpen elements represent a grouping that is quite separate from, and _actively_ _hostile to_, the interests and well-being of the working class proper.
> 
> Admittedly the biggest problem in identifying the trend is the physical proximity between the emerging underclass and the working class proper. Though they may share the same estates at the same time the former harbours instincts, values and aspirations at variance with and indeed hostile (like sort of low rent neo-liberals) to traditional working class custom and practice. This is what goes to make it so potentially destructive a fifth column. Karl Marx himself concluded that it represented ‘the most dangerous _class_ of all’ (our italics) for similar reasons. And given its current scale, a class is what it undoubtedly is.
> 
> ...


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> 2 and half years ago the IWCA put out an article called Dealing With The Renegades, which at the time received a fair bit of criticism and gasps from both shocked liberals, lefties and others alike
> 
> In light of recent events are opinions on it still the same as it was? Can the issues that it raises be ignored in any attempt to develop a meaningful, relevant and confident working class politics for the age & conditions we currently find ourselves in?
> 
> The full piece can be read here and below have quoted a few choice excerpts from it:-


 
Why am I not surprised that this post has been completely ignored?


----------



## Geri (Aug 13, 2011)

That is a good article.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 13, 2011)

I think a lot of people found the original article bold and uncomfortable on here and also on other boards. It goes right against the grain of liberal leftism which triumphs the renegades , siding with them as 'victims'. You can see that in the  the discussion on here about sentencing of those involved in the looting.

 The 'salute our looters ' and demands for a full transitional programme line that Trot groups like Workers Power took, is typical of the surreal abstract world of the cobweb left.

If  pro working class elements had built strong working class community organisations would they have cheered on 'our boys' who looted and smashed up local shops and businesses? Or would that looting be less likely to happen in areas where there were strong working class community organisations?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 13, 2011)

What people tend to forget is that those at the forefront of this week's riots are the kind of people who make life in many working class communities a misery, especially for the weakest and most defenceless. For those of us who grew up in the inner-cities, the despicable wanker rifling through the Malaysian student's bag after he'd been attacked is an eminently recognisable character.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2011)

Just posted this on another thread, didn't realise this one was here:

Very interesting and thoughtful piece from Kenan Malik: Moral Poverty and the Riots



> The fact that the right has appropriated the language of morality has led many on the left to ignore moral arguments, indeed often to see such arguments as reactionary. That is a fatal mistake. Morality is as important to the left as it is to the right, though for very different reasons. There is no possibility of a political or economic vision of a different society without a moral vision too. Moral arguments lie at the heart of our understanding of social solidarity, and of the distinction between notions of social solidarity and pious rightwing claims of ‘we’re all in it together’. And that is why it also has to be at the heart of our understanding of the riots.





> As a result, morality has come to be seen not as difficult choices that one has to wrestle with, or as norms that one works through within a collective setting, but as a set of predetermined rules provided as a state hand-out. Morality has ceased to be *ours*.





> Because the right has appropriated the arguments about moral failure, many on the left have rejected moral arguments altogether. The left talks much about the social and economic impact of neo-liberal policies. But little about its moral impact. Such willful blindness is dangerous. The questions about economic and social poverty, about unemployment and the cuts, are closely related to the questions about moral poverty, about the breakdown of social solidarity and the rise of a nihilistic culture. There can be no challenge to mass unemployment and the imposition of austerity without the restoration of bonds of social solidarity. We cannot, in other words, cannot confront economic poverty if we do not also confront moral poverty. We need to remake our own language of morality, reforge our own moral norms.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As a result, morality has come to be seen not as difficult choices that one has to wrestle with, or as norms that one works through within a collective setting, but as a set of predetermined rules provided as a state hand-out. Morality has ceased to be *ours*.



I thought the rioters were *them* - the lumpen non-working class, the underclass. Surely "our" morality is as relevant to them as the state hand-out?


----------



## love detective (Aug 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What people tend to forget is that those at the forefront of this week's riots are the kind of people who make life in many working class communities a misery, especially for the weakest and most defenceless. For those of us who grew up in the inner-cities, the despicable wanker rifling through the Malaysian student's bag after he'd been attacked is an eminently recognisable character.



that's it in a beanshell

I posted the below on another thread but probably more relevant here:-

it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves​
while it might be energising/liberating to see the police being so effectively sidelined and shown to be powerless in the face of a mass (albeit of atomised individuals) who share a common purpose - is there anything else positive that can be taken from what's happened, personally I'm struggling​
as the logic & motivations of the riots seem to be derived from the very same logic & motivations of the society that 'produced' them, there doesn't seem to be much there to actually threaten or dent the foundational basis of the system that they are supposedly reacting against. sure we can all go on about how looters are bypassing & causing ruptures to the normal circuits and flows of capital, but that in and off itself doesn't mean there's anything progressive about it - organised crime does the same thing to an extent and no one sees anything liberating or progressive about that​
at least in the past, forms of protest and revolt against the system emerged and had some kind of life span before they were eventually recouperated by capital, but this kind of thing doesn't even need to be recouperated as its starting point is already squarely in the individualist neo-liberalising camp already. Even looters themselves were being robbed of their gear (I saw this myself at the back of the argo warehouse in catford) - no sign of even a collective solidarity amongst the looters. What basis is that to genuinely hold the kind of optimism that some on the left seem to be getting from this - the only thing to come from this will be to further bolster the confidence of the lumpen elements that are already making life a misery for a large element of the working class proper. The notion that lefty (by having 'street meetings') can somehow harness and direct this towards something more progressive is absurd​
fair enough any kind of riot or disturbance is going to be a messy complicated affair and you can't hold out for a perfect/textbook reaction to capital/the state - but all this seems to do is to further shine an already bright light on the complete & utter failure of any kind of progressive/radical alternative to what's happening to our society​


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 13, 2011)

love detective said:
			
		

> but all this seems to do is to further shine an already bright light on the complete & utter failure of any kind of progressive/radical alternative to what's happening to our society​


Agreed, but that'll be due to too much of this sort of polarising thinking:



love detective said:


> lumpen elements that are already making life a misery for a large element of the working class proper.


I take it EDL members defending Eltham are "proper" whereas teaching assistants nicking clothes are "lumpen elements"?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 13, 2011)

It's a good piece, only thing I take issue with is "willingly embraced".


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> that's it in a beanshell
> 
> The notion that lefty (by having 'street meetings') can somehow harness and direct this towards something more progressive is absurd
> 
> fair enough any kind of riot or disturbance is going to be a messy complicated affair and you can't hold out for a perfect/textbook reaction to capital/the state - but all this seems to do is to further shine an already bright light on the complete & utter failure of any kind of progressive/radical alternative to what's happening to our society​


 
As I said in another thread 'the left' (anarchists included) even were it capable of approaching the rioters, which it isn't, would be met by blank incomprehension if not outright hostility.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 13, 2011)

> _Put simply most are ‘in the life’ because they want to be._


There's a lot of truth in that article IMO, but this isn't my experience when doing youth work with excluded kids, and doesn't match with the experience of friends still doing this.

For most they sink into that life because they can't see any other viable option, and it's handed to them on a plate. The alternative route of apprenticeships, learning a trade etc by contrast usually seem like an impossible pipe dream, with few opportunities available, little support, and no guarantee of work anyway (particularly in a recession).

There will be some who given all the options would choose a life of dealing, petty crime and likelihood of time in jail, but it's a tiny minority IMO. Fact is the options aren't there for most, so they slip into this life instead. It's almost the inevitable consequence of excluding the number of kids from school that we do in this country combined with the lack of trade type training / apprenticeships and reasonably paid work opportunities etc.

my experience is from oop north though, so this may be more true in parts of london.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Aug 13, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> I take it EDL members defending Eltham are "proper" whereas teaching assistants nicking clothes are "lumpen elements"?



The problem you face there is that whether you like it not those people who gathered in Eltham, at least on Tuesday night, where locals and that what they did was the same as the Turks/Kurds in Dalston and the Sikhs in Southall. It was a community response and primarily from people who could be considered as working class. In fact I would argue that those in Eltham probably represented the most direct descendants of the working classes that Mark and Engles wrote about it and seemingly put so much faith in.

Its not enough to have a seeming response from many on the left that 'brown' viglilante groups good, 'white' viglilante groups bad and that in many ways their appearance was the most newsworthy happening of the entire event because the truth is that for many people it was the first time in the lives that that had genuine concerns about being able to ring 999 and get a response. The authourity of the state was probably at its weakest on Monday and Tuesday than it has been since maybe the darkest days of the bombing in WW2.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2011)

think I started to lose focus a bit at this point :
. 
"Money, status and sex (consensual or otherwise *– mass rape goes unreported though is apparently not uncommon*) all seem instantly more attainable, with the core philosophy all wrapped up rather opportunistically in the flag of ‘respect’)" 

I'm used to reading /hearing that kind of unsubstantiated crap in all sorts of places, but wouldn't expect to be hearing it from an organistion with , like it or not,remaining links to socialism - any of you bearers of the flame want to expand on that particular little claim ? Like, just a_ morcel_ of supporting evidence for what is a very grave accusation ?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As I said in another thread 'the left' (anarchists included) even were it capable of approaching the rioters, which it isn't, would be met by blank incomprehension if not outright hostility.



ffs, give it a rest keyboard warrior - riots / unrest / rebellion taking place all over this country on an unprecedented scale, with all sorts of dynamics ,participants, focus, responses involved - and you're sat behind your keyboard days later declaring with the kind of bullshit authority only LLetsa can summon up , what would/wouldn't happen if 'the left' (anarchists included)' 'approached the rioters' ? you'll be getting the tea leaves out next you daft old sod.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 13, 2011)

It just reads to me like another form of polarisation. It refers to the working and not-workers as though they are two homogenous masses. There is confusion in it over whether we are fighting structure or a moral battle. If they think the latter is necessary for the former then I'd still ask how does better morality lead to a better fight in the situation where there is bugger all leftist organisation to start with? You can't self-discipline your movement if there is no movement. Meanwhile it is shot through with the religious notion of the moral good of work. And above all, it fails to recognise how more powerful people moralising at less powerful people creates new forms of power. And yes, if you are working and writing pieces for the IWCA, you have marginally - by some small but significant amount - more power than the non-working 'underclass' you are writing about. It is unpleasant to watch moralising within an unbalanced power relationship. There are other ways to engage with people who are causing you trouble than disciplining them. This is religion masquerading as politics. _Oh Lord, give us the strength and the knowledge to bring those Backsliders back into the fold, so that we, the True Working Class, can take on our Messianic role in defeating Satanic Capitalism._

And I'm not saying this from a guilt-ridden liberal position (though no doubt BA will decide I am). And I felt a small sense of satisfaction when someone punched the little tyke trying to nick my bike in Lewisham on Monday night. When you have to fight arseholes you have to fight arseholes. I just like my politics at least relatively unstructured by the 2000 years of religious nonsense we pretend to have escaped.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> It just reads to me like another form of polarisation. It refers to the working and not-workers as though they are two homogenous masses. There is confusion in it over whether we are fighting structure or a moral battle. If they think the latter is necessary for the former then I'd still ask how does better morality lead to a better fight in the situation where there is bugger all leftist organisation to start with? You can't self-discipline your movement if there is no movement. Meanwhile it is shot through with the religious notion of the moral good of work. And above all, it fails to recognise how more powerful people moralising at less powerful people creates new forms of power. And yes, if you are working and writing pieces for the IWCA, you have marginally - by some small but significant amount - more power than the non-working 'underclass' you are writing about. It is unpleasant to watch moralising within an unbalanced power relationship. There are other ways to engage with people who are causing you trouble than disciplining them. This is religion masquerading as politics. _Oh Lord, give us the strength and the knowledge to bring those Backsliders back into the fold, so that we, the True Working Class, can take on our Messianic role in defeating Satanic Capitalism._
> 
> And I'm not saying this from a guilt-ridden liberal position (though no doubt BA will decide I am). And I felt a small sense of satisfaction when someone punched the little tyke trying to nick my bike in Lewisham on Monday night. When you have to fight arseholes you have to fight arseholes. I just like my politics at least relatively unstructured by the 2000 years of religious nonsense we pretend to have escaped.



well put, lots of half assed 'morality ', very little substance, and no socialism ( "packs" - what like 'animals' ? ! ) ....in these circumstances, possibly the weakest ever contribution I've seen from what I know is now largely a forgotten organisation, but is still inextricably linked to one that seemed at the time to have some real potential. End of that particular story for me.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 13, 2011)

i'm probably too pissed to post on this thread but - i've never really accepted the idea of a lumpen class and personally the idea that a class division should be based on morality rather than economics and relationship to capital/power is contemptible.  the most human response to poverty and exclusion is rage, and a desire to just take what you dont have.i remember walking the streets of london when i was living in a nightshelter as a teenager and looking through the windows of restaurants, i hated those cunts in there, but i also wanted what they had, money, security, family - unless we can provide that, then all this shit is irrelevent - you wont make alienated children less angry by preaching at them or further alienating them - we need to offer solutions right now, not some vague hope of glorious revolution one day, and given how pissed off they are that solution will need to be better than a job in tescos


----------



## JHE (Aug 13, 2011)

cantsin said:


> think I started to lose focus a bit at this point :
> .
> "Money, status and sex (consensual or otherwise *– mass rape goes unreported though is apparently not uncommon*) all seem instantly more attainable, with the core philosophy all wrapped up rather opportunistically in the flag of ‘respect’)"
> 
> I'm used to reading /hearing that kind of unsubstantiated crap in all sorts of places, but wouldn't expect to be hearing it from an organistion with , like it or not,remaining links to socialism - any of you bearers of the flame want to expand on that particular little claim ? Like, just a_ morcel_ of supporting evidence for what is a very grave accusation ?



'Not much reported' would be more accurate than 'unreported' and 'gang rape' is probably a better term than 'mass rape'.

Morsels:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3397433.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/05/gender.ukcrime
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8345673.stm


----------



## love detective (Aug 13, 2011)

cantsin said:


> think I started to lose focus a bit at this point :
> .
> "Money, status and sex (consensual or otherwise *– mass rape goes unreported though is apparently not uncommon*) all seem instantly more attainable, with the core philosophy all wrapped up rather opportunistically in the flag of ‘respect’)"
> 
> I'm used to reading /hearing that kind of unsubstantiated crap in all sorts of places, but wouldn't expect to be hearing it from an organistion with , like it or not,remaining links to socialism - any of you bearers of the flame want to expand on that particular little claim ? Like, just a_ morcel_ of supporting evidence for what is a very grave accusation ?



a morcel



> Young women are being exploited and subjected to sexual violence as a result of gang reprisals, according to a report.
> 
> Interviews with more than 350 women and girls by the charity Race on the Agenda revealed the use of rape to punish girl gang members and relatives of rivals.
> 
> ...



a bit more - A study into the impact of serious youth and gang violence on women and girls (PDF)



> Sexual violence and exploitation are significant weapons used against females associated with, or involved in, gang violence. Rape has become a weapon of choice, and used against sisters, girlfriends and on occasion mothers, as it is the only weapon that cannot be detected during a stopand search.
> 
> This use of sexual violence takes place against a backdrop where girls have little peer support, where girls and boys are extremely confused about consent and their own motivations for engaging in sex, and where young people have little to no understanding of coercion.





> Gang-associated women and girls rarely disclose any victimisation they experience due to fears over reprisals, and the belief that their criminal association means that they are not privy to the protection of the state.





> Research by Jody Miller (2001), amongst others, has identified, but not always explored, the high rate at which young women associated with gang violence experience sexual assault. The Building Bridges Project identified that those females who associated with gangs as partners (as well as sisters) feared gang rape being used on them as a weapon against the male with whom they were associated.





> “In the area of serious sexual violence, there is an appreciably high level of under-reporting. In offences involving multiple perpetrators, the pressures for not reporting to police are believed to be even higher. This could be through fear of reprisals from a wider network of suspects, or through social links to the victim if a known party initiated the offence and unknown offenders then took part. Because a significant proportion of these offences are committed against young people, there is further potential for under-reporting due to the victim‟s age, additional vulnerabilities and the powerful effect of peer group pressures.”



some more - _The Female Voice in Violence Project - On the impact of serious youth violence and criminal gangs on on women and girls across the country (PDF)_



> many paricipants were able to ariculate risk, drawing from their own experiences and those of their peers and family members. Women and girls were able to discuss, in detail,extreme forms of violence such as rape,kidnap, torture and arson, and their fear for their personal safety and the safety of those around them.





> Across the country, women and girls discussed the use of rape and sexual assault as a weapon in criminal gang conﬂict employed against female family members and partners of gang members to threaten or punish. Rape was cited as a risk without promping, and was often linked to the use of kidnap and other forms of torture.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2011)

JHE said:


> 'Not much reported' would be more accurate than 'unreported' and 'gang rape' is probably a better term than 'mass rape'.
> 
> Morsels: ( at best !)
> 
> ...


(2009)

New figures revealed there were 93 gang sex attacks in London in 2008/2009, compared to 71 in 2003/2004, with others unreported, detectives believe.

ignoring the 'beliefs' of bent OB on the take from NOTW, a 17% rise is not to be taken lightly, , but we'd need a update now to actually get any hard info from this, ie: to see any kind of continued, sig nificant rise .


----------



## smokedout (Aug 13, 2011)

cantsin said:


> (2009)
> 
> New figures revealed there were 93 gang sex attacks in London in 2008/2009, compared to 71 in 2003/2004, with others unreported, detectives believe.



grim as that is, in a city of 7 million people it is hardly endemic - id imagine that levels of rape is comparable amongst all the social classes and has more to do with patriarchy than the lumpen proletariat.

to use it to condemn the tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids who came out on the streets the other night, or the unemployed (whether through choice or circumstances) is sensationalist bullshit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

> In a post-industrial world having the ability to confidently define the core working class constituency is a must. Because it is only out of such a process that the political authority to _exclude_ as well as include can emerge.



I don't understand what is meant by this really. How is it useful to exclude? Where do the excluded go?

Also, surely one should be extending the notion of working class to include the majority - the vast majority, 90 percent of the population, I would say, more or less - who I would argue all share a great deal in common in terms of their interests in defending and extending universal provision, ensuring taxation is progressive, and more nakedly anti-capitalist measures such as taking essential services back into public ownership. Where is there a 'core' that is smaller than this and that has distinct interests? Isn't it more fruitful to try to reach out beyond any traditional core to persuade many who would today vote tory that in fact their interests lie with the many that are beneath them in the economic order, not the few that are above them?

In terms of collective action - government action - regarding this kind of social problem, the solution can only be one thing, I think. All else is a bit of a distraction. And that solution is straightforwardly the redistribution of wealth. Many of the solutions to the problems of societal breakdown follow from this, and are impossible without it, I would say.

A simple example of this would be the changes that have taken place around Kings Cross - the estates along the Pentonville Road. Lots of money has been spent on them, and they are far better places to live as a result. I take a class in a new community centre there occasionally, and there are capoeira classes before mine, and lots of other things going on. The communal areas between blocks have controlled access now, which is unfortunate in many ways, but it does allow kids to play and hang out there in safety. Spending money well works, basically. And it's the only real solution to any of this. That kind of money needs to be spent on every single estate in the country, and there is absolutely no reason whatever why it can't. And crucially, the money then needs to continue to be spent, to ensure that the sports halls and community centres continue to be used, and continue to be maintained. How many adventure playgrounds are there in London that are closed and overgrown now? The only one I can think of that's still open is in Wandsworth, and it's a great place. Every borough needs to have them.

A lot of the kids rioting were just teenagers. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of excluding them and subcategorising them as a non-working underclass. They're just kids still. Or have I missed the point?


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

cantsin - i'm guessing you're not seeing the logical fallacy in looking to use figures for *reported* gang rapes to challenge the comment that:-

_"mass rape goes *unreported* though is apparently not uncommon"_

and even putting that aside - the general notion that any serious attempt to understand and comprehend the true prevalence of rape should rely upon official reported figures is absurd when reports suggest that something like nine in ten rapes go unreported


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

cantsin said:


> think I started to lose focus a bit at this point :
> .
> "Money, status and sex (consensual or otherwise *– mass rape goes unreported though is apparently not uncommon*) all seem instantly more attainable, with the core philosophy all wrapped up rather opportunistically in the flag of ‘respect’)"
> 
> I'm used to reading /hearing that kind of unsubstantiated crap in all sorts of places, but wouldn't expect to be hearing it from an organistion with , like it or not,remaining links to socialism - any of you bearers of the flame want to expand on that particular little claim ? Like, just a_ morcel_ of supporting evidence for what is a very grave accusation ?



I think to be fair it should have read 'gang rape'. Funnily enough the only people that bring it up are black themselves. Why? Because it is their sisters and daughters who are more often than not the potential targets. Of course, by one programme last year, made by a black man I think on Channel Four, the media, for all the usual reasons, ignores it entirely. When  a youth worker (and ex-gang member incidentally) brought up the scandal of media and political silence during a heated discussion panel on Sky on Friday, he was of course ignored.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> cantsin - i'm guessing you're not seeing the logical fallacy in looking to use figures for *reported* gang rapes to challenge the comment that:-
> 
> _"mass rape goes *unreported* though is apparently not uncommon"_



the comment is nonsense, there is no 'mass rape', gang rape, horrific a crime as it is, is not mass rape, the idea that the lumpen are mass raping each other is ludicrous


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

i think we are all agreed and accept that what is meant was gang rape (and indeed it was gang rapes that cantsin was referring to when pointing out the statistics which we are all apparently to take as gospel)


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

free spirit said:


> There's a lot of truth in that article IMO, but this isn't my experience when doing youth work with excluded kids, and doesn't match with the experience of friends still doing this...
> 
> my experience is from oop north though, so this may be more true in parts of london.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> When a youth worker (and ex-gang member incidentally) brought up the scandal of media and political silence during a heated discussion panel on Sky on Friday, he was of course ignored.



was that the guy who was on the bbc youth question time last night.  he came across really well until he starting going on about teenagers being given contraception and teenage mothers being the root of all the problems the working class faces


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

London is different in that regard. There are hundreds of mainly black gangs in London. They are a criminal network. Often drug-based. For much of the time they target each other. Knifings and shootings, tit for tat, are fairly common. The riots in Hackney and Tottenham were very different in terms of intensity, to what happened outside of London, and to what happened in other parts of London.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> was that the guy who was on the bbc youth question time last night. he came across really well until he starting going on about teenagers being given contraception and teenage mothers being the root of all the problems the working class faces


Yes, I saw that. It seemed a particular obsession with him. He identified the problem - high rates of teenage pregnancy - but couldn't see that the solution to that problem isn't more moralising, which he seemed to be advocating.

The tory bloke on that was insufferably smug. 'In my house I'm the law', he proclaimed, as if that settled the argument.

That programme exemplified how pointless it is to talk about any of the issues they were talking about without talking about money and its distribution.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> London is different in that regard. There are hundreds of mainly black gangs in London. They are a criminal network. Often drug-based. For much of the time they target each other. Knifings and shootings, tit for tat, are fairly common. The riots in Hackney and Tottenham were very different in terms of intensity, to what happened outside of London, and to what happened in other parts of London.


Do you think the riots in those areas were essentially gang-based, then. That wasn't my impression.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> was that the guy who was on the bbc youth question time last night. he came across really well until he starting going on about teenagers being given contraception and teenage mothers being the root of all the problems the working class faces



No, it was guy called Sheldon Thomas on Sky. Interestingly he insisted there was an actual 'underclass' while Peter Hitchins a traditional right-wing pundit dismissed the notion as 'unhelpful' most likely because he considers the entire working class to be the problem.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No, it was guy called Sheldon Thomas on Sky. Interestingly he insisted there was an actual 'underclass' while Peter Hitchins a traditional right-wing pundit dismissed the notion as 'unhelpful' most likely because he considers the entire working class to be the problem.


Yep. Same bloke.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you think the riots in those areas were essentially gang-based, then. That wasn't my impression.



Hackney definitely was. Not only that, but there was more than one gang involved. A 'united front' if you like.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> London is different in that regard. There are hundreds of mainly black gangs in London. They are a criminal network. Often drug-based. For much of the time they target each other. Knifings and shootings, tit for tat, are fairly common. The riots in Hackney and Tottenham were very different in terms of intensity, to what happened outside of London, and to what happened in other parts of London.



i wondered about that.  ive walked all round south east london the last few days, and was up in camden the other day.  the scale of it is immense, even toysrus, in a (pretty remote part of the old kent road) has its windows staved in - but it does seem to have been confined by and large to chain stores, not local businesses and pawn shops/banks/bookys (theres an argument to be made about that as well, whats so fucking great about the petit bourgeois)

id dispute that there are hundreds of gangs btw, there are a few very fierce and nasty gangs (much as there always was), there are lots of lairy teenagers bigging themselves up who'd shit themselves if they ever got involved in anything serious


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Hackney definitely was. Not only that, but there was more than one gang involved. A 'united front' if you like.


Not doubting you, but how do you know that? It's the first time I've heard that suggested definitively.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Hackney definitely was. Not only that, but there was more than one gang involved. A 'united front' if you like.



real gangsters dont expose themselves by smashing up shops, if we're going to have an honest discussion about this we need to talk about the people and families at the top of the chain - many of whom still have inordinate power over and sometimes live in working class areas,  do you want to go first?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> London is different in that regard. There are hundreds of mainly black gangs in London. They are a criminal network. Often drug-based. For much of the time they target each other. Knifings and shootings, tit for tat, are fairly common. The riots in Hackney and Tottenham were very different in terms of intensity, to what happened outside of London, and to what happened in other parts of London.


I acknowledge there seems to be a major difference in the intensity of the gang violence in London, and probably the numbers involved etc. but I still doubt that this statement would be true given a more level playing field / other options being more available.



> _Put simply most are ‘in the life’ because they want to be._



sure this will apply to some, same as it always has to some degree, but most?


----------



## revlon (Aug 14, 2011)

in what context did marx describe the lumpen as the most dangerous class of all? In fact did he ever say they were that? Thorough and prescient article but not sure what it is driving at. This new social formation, by virtue of its behavioural traits, is not longer of the working class and shouldn't be seen as such? An expanded lumpen undermining working class cohesion from the other side?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

cantsin said:


> ffs, give it a rest keyboard warrior - riots / unrest / rebellion taking place all over this country on an unprecedented scale, with all sorts of dynamics ,participants, focus, responses involved - and you're sat behind your keyboard days later declaring with the kind of bullshit authority only LLetsa can summon up , what would/wouldn't happen if 'the left' (anarchists included)' 'approached the rioters' ? you'll be getting the tea leaves out next you daft old sod.



Calm down, you old fool.

What's happening is far from being on an unprecedented scale, as you would remember if you'd only let your hard on go down, and is largely apolitical, with the range of people involved actually quite narrow. And at the forefront of the riots are criminal elements, who always alienate the mainstream working class, who are, of course, best at identifying them for what they are. 'The left' is neither capable of approaching them nor their hangers-on, as we will see, because, just as in the 1980s, 'the left' will profit nothing whatsoever, from these events-and that's whether you consider 'the left' to be the tired remnants of the Trot and anarchists groups, the left of the mainstream labour movement (if it can be said to still exist), or the advancement of traditional radical left ideas or goals through whatever form of organisation.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> grim as that is, in a city of 7 million people it is hardly endemic - id imagine that levels of rape is comparable amongst all the social classes and has more to do with patriarchy than the lumpen proletariat.
> 
> to use it to condemn the tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids who came out on the streets the other night, or the unemployed (whether through choice or circumstances) is sensationalist bullshit



Amazing the lengths some people will go to to defend such phenomena just beacuse of their misplaced and actually quite laughable attempts to identify with the social milieu in which it mostly takes place.

I take it the likes of cantsin, brainaddict and smokedout have been busy trying to win the leading elements of last week's riots over to their chosen brands of (cough) progressive politics over the last few days?

(By the way, it was far from hundreds or even tens of thousands who rioted. As I said, to cantsin the hard on, calm down.)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Hackney definitely was. Not only that, but there was more than one gang involved. A 'united front' if you like.



Where is your evidence for this? Having watched a lot of footage myself and recognised people and places I say that you are skewing what happened.


----------



## yield (Aug 14, 2011)

revlon said:


> in what context did marx describe the lumpen as the most dangerous class of all? In fact did he ever say they were that? Thorough and prescient article but not sure what it is driving at. This new social formation, by virtue of its behavioural traits, is not longer of the working class and shouldn't be seen as such? An expanded lumpen undermining working class cohesion from the other side?



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm


> The “dangerous class”, [_lumpenproletariat_] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.


1848 so not new.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

Fuck me, Marx sounds just like David Icke.



> its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> id dispute that there are hundreds of gangs btw, there are a few very fierce and nasty gangs (much as there always was), there are lots of lairy teenagers bigging themselves up who'd shit themselves if they ever got involved in anything serious



Even if this is true, it's a major part of the problem. The attitude is enough and means that these kids are lost to any form of pro-working class politics.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> real gangsters dont expose themselves by smashing up shops, if we're going to have an honest discussion about this we need to talk about the people and families at the top of the chain - many of whom still have inordinate power over and sometimes live in working class areas, do you want to go first?


 
Again, it doesn't matter if they're 'real gangsters' or not. The attitude is enough.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

I think the couple of rather brief and unsubstantial criticisms made of the OP last night have totally missed the point - which is rather surprising given that it essentially restates views I’ve seen them agree with before, albeit the OP is put in a sharper form and with a slightly different focus : there is a section of the traditional w/c that via the neo-liberal measures of the last 30 years (which actually only intensified pre-existing alienation) that today feels that it has no part of or interest in society, that can’t see what society means to them, beyond showing that it’s dog-eat-dog and fuck you jack - and that they react accordingly. I think that’s pretty unarguable.

Where I disagree with the article is in that it uses the language of _exclusion_ rather than _priorities_. It’s one of those clichés that on-the-ground politics is a matter of priorities but it’s true. A social movement won’t, can’t be based on those who engage in the worst sort of selfish anti-social behaviour _under current conditions_ - the best you’ll get right now will be the worst aspects of the riots, the mirror image of capitalist looting and so on.

So where and who do we look to construct this movement? Quite obviously the rest of the w/c who are victims of both of those types of looting and ASB. What’s stopping them? Right now one of the largest obstacles is the lack of feelings of social solidarity and the sort of rooted networks that were constructed in the past. And the disintegration of (or failure to build) these essential sort of ties is being helped along by anti-social behaviour and crime within w/c communities (let me use that term just for ease of argument right now).

These people are doing the neo-liberals work on the social level - reinforcing the individualism and the atomisation of the neo-liberal economic model, closing up opportunities for collective responses through fear of sticking our head above parapet and fostering the perception that we’re each of us on out own, except maybe for our competing gang. That’s where the question of priorities comes in. In line with the summary in the first para, if we can foster those (old and new) forms of social solidarity and w/c confidence then there is something for those carrying out that sort of destructive behaviour to be part of. One follows the other.

(And just to be clear, by the above I don’t mean a fully functioning capitalist democracy, I mean a society in which people have a real say in how it functions, what collective needs are and how they’re met, not a two-job, credit card based moneyed grind)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

revlon said:


> in what context did marx describe the lumpen as the most dangerous class of all? In fact did he ever say they were that? Thorough and prescient article but not sure what it is driving at. This new social formation, by virtue of its behavioural traits, is not longer of the working class and shouldn't be seen as such? An expanded lumpen undermining working class cohesion from the other side?


In the context of them being employed by the authorities to undermine the 1848 revolution - and most recently used when he Egytpian state did the same early this year - remember the camel attack?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Even if this is true, it's a major part of the problem. The attitude is enough and means that these kids are lost to any form of pro-working class politics.


I think you miss the point if you think what is needed is to win these kids over to a particular political ideology. I don't think that's what is important at all, at least as a first step. What's needed is to show them other choices and give them reasons to want to take those other choices. Branding kids 'lumpenproletariat' and writing them off as scum helps nobody. And it's just plain wrong, I think.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Amazing the lengths some people will go to to defend such phenomena just beacuse of their misplaced and actually quite laughable attempts to identify with the social milieu in which it mostly takes place.
> 
> I take it the likes of cantsin, brainaddict and smokedout have been busy trying to win the leading elements of last week's riots over to their chosen brands (cough) progressive politics. over the last few days?


You might take it that way. But I don't have a brand of politics, and this week I have not even felt like talking about my politics. I have been too depressed about the mainstreaming of fascist-leaning rhetoric into politics and the media. Historically one of the elements of fascism was a squeezed middle class being given a demonic other to blame for their falling standard of living - and the creation of the illusion that community can be formed once this alien presence is expunged. You want to help that along a bit by uniting the working class with the moralising middle class you go right fucking ahead but don't count yourself on my side.

I didn't defend violent rioting and I did not condemn it. There are several reasons for that but one of them is because I am aware that my opinion means fuck all to most of the people I saw on the streets this week. I would think about that fact alone for some time before bothering to venture an opinion on the rioting.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you miss the point if you think what is needed is to win these kids over to a particular political ideology. I don't think that's what is important at all, at least as a first step. What's needed is to show them other choices and give them reasons to want to take those other choices. Branding kids 'lumpenproletariat' and writing them off as scum helps nobody. And it's just plain wrong, I think.


 
Whether it's winning them to a particular ideology or 'showing them other choices' the point remains that those of a radical left persuasion are mostly incapable of approaching these kids and would be given short shrift by most of them if they did due to the distorted consumerist/'gangsta' attitude to which they subscribe.

And like it or not, you can't divorce politics from the 'showing of other choices.' As we will see the only attempts to do this will come from mainsream political/ business elements, just as happened after the last round of mass riots, reinforcing the very outlook and ideology that has presented us with an underclass in the first place.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

don't you think most of the people arrested for whatever over the last few days.. not all of them are "kids" and mostly just were caught up in the moment, rather than being serious criminals.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> You might take it that way. But I don't have a brand of politics, and this week I have not even felt like talking about my politics. I have been too depressed about the mainstreaming of fascist-leaning rhetoric into politics and the media. Historically one of the elements of fascism was a squeezed middle class being given a demonic other to blame for their falling standard of living - and the creation of the illusion that community can be formed once this alien presence is expunged. You want to help that along a bit by uniting the working class with the moralising middle class you go right fucking ahead but don't count yourself on my side.
> 
> I.


 
Nobody has suggested 'uniting a moralising middle class' with the working class', though, have they? And whether you like it or not, the bitterest condemnation of what's happened has come not from the middle class but from the working class people whose communities were ransacked.

'I didn't defend violent rioting and I did not condemn it. There are several reasons for that but one of them is because I am aware that my opinion means fuck all to most of the people I saw on the streets this week. I would think about that fact alone for some time before bothering to venture an opinion on the rioting'

If you're not offering an opinion on the rioting right now, what exactly are you doing?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

I think it'd be very interesting to see a detailed breakdown (if such a thing were available) of the composition of the mobs doing the rioting and looting, over the several different stages from it kicking off at a family-led protest to the widespread unrest.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> don't you think most of the people arrested for whatever over the last few days.. not all of them are "kids" and mostly just were caught up in the moment, rather than being serious criminals.


 
Yes. Rather than being serious criminals many of them are the type who burgle their next-door neighbours.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

I can summon up very little moral outrage at let's say; a single mum on benefits taking a chance to score some free trainers for her kids ...

What I don't know, because I didn't participate, is how representative that example is of what was going on vs the "lumpen ratboy scum victimising their own communities" stuff.

My sense is that both stereotypes were present to some degree along with a lot of other phenomena. Which is why I think some analysis of the composition of the mobs might be useful ..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

It is true that it is possible to live literally next door to kids like this and barely interact with them at all. I did when I lived in Brockley. Then I got a job in the local video shop and I had no choice but to interact - to stop them from nicking stuff partly, but also just because there were kids who liked hanging around in the shop - pushing the boundaries by lighting up spliffs and seeing what you'd do. But you can overstate the case for them being like this out of choice. A bunch of kids who can think of nothing better to do than to hang out in a video shop and see if they can get a rise out of the people working there are clearly just bored and unmotivated. Talking to them about politics would be kind of ridiculous.

You win the political argument elsewhere. The political argument is what you win with those in control of money to get some money to spend on giving these kids something to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Yes. Rather than being serious criminals many of them are the type who burgle their next-door neighbours.


What do you base that judgement on?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the context of them being employed by the authorities to undermine the 1848 revolution - and most recently used when he Egytpian state did the same early this year - remember the camel attack?



What was this again Butchers? (I did hear vaguely something about it happening - ie criminals being employed by the authorities, but what was the camel attack?)


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I can summon up very little moral outrage at let's say; a single mum on benefits taking a chance to score some free trainers for her kids ...



Nobody has even mentioned moral outrage, and rather than talking about nicking trainers, people are more focused on the gang/pack mentality that fuelled the terrorising/ ransacking of working class communities, and the alienation of the majority working class who quite naturally do not want to identify themselves with the very criminal elements who do their best to make the lives of many of them a misery.

Lot's of straw men being constructed, as usual when it comes to this kind of subject.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you base that judgement on?


 
Experience. I know what I'm looking at even if you might not.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> <snip> Lot's of straw men being constructed, as usual when it comes to this kind of subject.


 Including yours, hence my suggestion that step one is to try to establish some facts ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Experience. I know what I'm looking at even if you might not.


And yet there appear to be a lot of first time offenders up in court for rioting.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You win the political argument elsewhere. The political argument is what you win with those in control of money to get some money to spend on giving these kids something to do.


 
As we are seeing, this argument is not being won and shows no signs of being won. And isn't even a major part of the solution to what is a very complex cultural dilemma.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And yet there appear to be a lot of first time offenders up in court for rioting.


 
So?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Including yours, hence my suggestion that step one is to try to establish some facts ...


 
Go on then. I've seen none coming from your direction so far, but don't let me stop you.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And yet there appear to be a lot of first time offenders up in court for rioting.



Sure and who ends up in court might provide some factual information, at least as a starting point, about the composition of the rioters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As we are seeing, this argument is not being won and shows no signs of being won. And isn't even a major part of the solution to what is a very complex cultural dilemma.


You are right that this argument is not being won. But I disagree completely with your second sentence. All the various social ills you and others describe have as their root cause inequality and lack of money being spent on certain parts of society.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Nobody has even mentioned moral outrage, and rather than talking about nicking trainers, people are more focused on the gang/pack mentality that fuelled the terrorising/ ransacking of working class communities, and the alienation of the majority working class who quite naturally do not want to identify themselves with the very criminal elements who do their best to make the lives of many of them a misery.
> 
> Lot's of straw men being constructed, as usual when it comes to this kind of subject.


Yes but the judiciary are clearly treating the two as the same thing.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Nobody has suggested 'uniting a moralising middle class' with the working class', though, have they? And whether you like it or not, the bitterest condemnation of what's happened has come not from the middle class but from the working class people whose communities were ransacked.
> 
> 'I didn't defend violent rioting and I did not condemn it. There are several reasons for that but one of them is because I am aware that my opinion means fuck all to most of the people I saw on the streets this week. I would think about that fact alone for some time before bothering to venture an opinion on the rioting'
> 
> If you're not offering an opinion on the rioting right now, what exactly are you doing?



I'm offering opinions on people's reaction to it.

So 'the working class' condemned the rioting did they? Which parts of the working class condemned which parts of the rioting? Cos we'd sure better deal with the ones who didn't condemn it, what with them not being the Real Working Class.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What was this again Butchers? (I did hear vaguely something about it happening - ie criminals being employed by the authorities, but what was the camel attack?)



The attack by paid Mubarak supporters on Tahir square by idiots on camels and the people rounded up and paid to attack from the bridge and so on. 1848 was Louis Napoleon using the same types to first crush the w/c revolt then to stamp on any later potential anti-state organising. (If you're asking about that as well, unsure if you are)


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are right that this argument is not being won. But I disagree completely with your second sentence. All the various social ills you and others describe have as their root cause inequality and lack of money being spent on certain parts of society.


 
It might be a major part of the cause, but if it was the whole cause, you wouldn't get such attitudes arising even among relatively affluent youths. For every 'ghetto' kid there's a middle class copyist.

Also, we need to remember that as society became more wealthy and inequality declined consideraby in the era of welfare capitalism, gang culture and crime, particularly anti-social crime in working class communities, actually grew. It isn't simply a matter of 'throwing money at a problem' (as they say.)


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> It's a good piece, only thing I take issue with is "willingly embraced".



presumingly your issue is more to do with the use of the term willingly (as opposed to embraced - as i don't think anyone can disagree there has been an embracement)

to take the view however that people unwillingly embrace the kind of tendencies referred to in the article smacks of a crude kind of economic determinism which robs the working class, both as individuals and collectively as a class, of the agency and potential to be the active subject that is required if any kind of progressive alternative to capitalism is ever to be achieved

Instead it leaves them as passive objects, conditioned totally by factors external to them, destined to behave & act in a particular predetermined way, like some kind of secular predestination. While socio-economic factors clearly cannot be ignored and form a fundamental part of any analysis - to go too far the other way to the kind of crude determinism that some lefties come out with further consigns an already weakened, demolarised, emaciated, confidence sapped, working class further, as it robs the class of its ability to actually be the class for itself. It's only the crude kind of vulargised marxism that allows us to think that all that's needed is to turn capitalism on, sit back and await the glorious proletarian revolution and emancipation of the working class, like some kind of determined chemical reaction


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So?


So the rioters would appear to be far from just a bunch of the usual suspects who make the lives of others on their estates a misery.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm offering opinions on people's reaction to it.
> 
> So 'the working class' condemned the rioting did they? Which parts of the working class condemned which parts of the rioting? Cos we'd sure better deal with the ones who didn't condemn it, what with them not being the Real Working Class.


 
Working class people condemning the smashing up of their own communities were enough in evidence right across the media over the past week.

Nobody has used the term Real Working Class.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Yes but the judiciary are clearly treating the two as the same thing.


 
Are you surprised?


----------



## revlon (Aug 14, 2011)

yield said:


> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
> 
> 1848 so not new.



he dosen't call them the most dangerous class of all, and they were only dangerous when they were mobilised into a standing army.

It's not a particulrly big deal but calling them the most dangerous class of all gives them a status beyond their means.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2011)

@butchers, yeah, I was, thanks for that. Were all those types really "lumpen" tho? I guess a lot of them were ... but reading one of the articles about it it appears that some of Mubarak's thugs were relatively wealthy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Also, we need to remember that as society became more wealthy and inequality declined consideraby in the era of welfare capitalism, gang culture and crime, particularly anti-social crime in working class communities, actually grew.


I presume you're talking the period 1950s-70s here. Do you have evidence for this?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So the rioters would appear to be far from just a bunch of the usual suspects who make the lives of others on their estates a misery.



Nobody's said they are. Some have asserted that many of those at the forefront of the riots are. As I said, some of us at least do recognise what we're looking at.


----------



## revlon (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the context of them being employed by the authorities to undermine the 1848 revolution - and most recently used when he Egytpian state did the same early this year - remember the camel attack?



this is what i suspected. So they are dangerous when they are used _professionally_ by the ruling class against the woking class.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I presume you're talking the period 1950s-70s here. Do you have evidence for this?





LLETSA said:


> Nobody's said they are. Some have asserted that many of those at the forefront of the riots are. As I said, some of us at least do know what we're looking at.


 
No. Look it up and you'll find it's true though.

There was even a thread on here that discussed the subject in the context of something else not that long ago, I seem to remember.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you surprised?


no but it still doesn't make it okay.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i wondered about that. ive walked all round south east london the last few days, and was up in camden the other day. the scale of it is immense, even toysrus, in a (pretty remote part of the old kent road) has its windows staved in - but it does seem to have been confined by and large to chain stores, not local businesses and pawn shops/banks/bookys (theres an argument to be made about that as well, whats so fucking great about the petit bourgeois)
> 
> id dispute that there are hundreds of gangs btw, there are a few very fierce and nasty gangs (much as there always was), there are lots of lairy teenagers bigging themselves up who'd shit themselves if they ever got involved in anything serious



Not being snidey - but where do you live?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not doubting you, but how do you know that? It's the first time I've heard that suggested definitively.



It was widely known locally that the Pembury was going to blow even before Duggan was executed.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Where is your evidence for this? Having watched a lot of footage myself and recognised people and places I say that you are skewing what happened.



Skewing it how? Your not saying that you think the whole the thing was 'spontaneous' surely?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> no but it still doesn't make it okay.


 
Maybe not, but who's saying it does?


----------



## Sue (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> It was widely known locally that the Pembury was going to blow even before Duggan was executed.



Week after a load of the local gang got picked up for drugs offences.

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...swoop_on_hackney_gangs_in_dawn_raids_1_983079


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 14, 2011)

cantsin said:


> (2009)
> 
> New figures revealed there were 93 gang sex attacks in London in 2008/2009, compared to 71 in 2003/2004, with others unreported, detectives believe.
> 
> ignoring the 'beliefs' of bent OB on the take from NOTW, a 17% rise is not to be taken lightly, , but we'd need a update now to actually get any hard info from this, ie: to see any kind of continued, sig nificant rise .


 
I think you will find when you see the trials over grooming evidence of this sort of behaviour even if the charges aren't rape. Commiting gang rape or group sexual assualt, for young girls being the victim when they join, is very often part of initiation into youth gangs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> No. Look it up and you'll find it's true though.
> 
> There was even a thread on here that discussed the subject in the context of something else not that long ago, I seem to remember.


ok, I'll accept that. Certainly the prison population grew considerably in that period.

It is still mostly about money, I would suggest. That plus the single most important and obvious change to the law that would neutralise a lot of gang activity overnight, which is reform of the drug laws.

I would wonder, in fact, how much of that rise in gang behaviour in the 50s to 70s can be attributed directly to the rise in drug use over that period and the opportunities that created for profitable criminal behaviour to flourish. Drug prohibition has been the single biggest social own goal of the past century.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 14, 2011)

free spirit said:


> There's a lot of truth in that article IMO, but this isn't my experience when doing youth work with excluded kids, and doesn't match with the experience of friends still doing this.
> 
> For most they sink into that life because they can't see any other viable option, and it's handed to them on a plate. The alternative route of apprenticeships, learning a trade etc by contrast usually seem like an impossible pipe dream, with few opportunities available, little support, and no guarantee of work anyway (particularly in a recession).
> 
> ...



You are right about the lack of opportunity but what about those who don't slip into this life? What do we learn from them?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Maybe not, but who's saying it does?


are you _trying_ to start a fight over nowt?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure and who ends up in court might provide some factual information, at least as a starting point, about the composition of the rioters.



Given the fact that here are likley to be up to 3000 there is a research oppotunity up for grabs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> You are right about the lack of opportunity but what about those who don't slip into this life? What do we learn from them?


That this isn't a case of simple determinism. Create shitty social conditions and more people will choose criminality. That's all. You can't look at an individual and say what their behaviour will be. But you can look at a million individuals and say that it is likely that x percent will behave in a particular way. For example, depending on the social conditions of their upbringing, a person with psychopathic tendencies may go on to become a gang leader or a successful businessman and pillar of society.

This is why there is no contradiction between condemning individuals who commit antisocial behaviour and condemning the social conditions that they have grown up in and which, had they been different, would be likely to have led to different behaviour from that same individual.

It's what Blair meant by 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. Shame that in reality he did very little to address the latter. The simple reason why he didn't address the latter is, I would say, that neoliberal economic policies are the number one cause of crime.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Not being snidey - but where do you live?



catford


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> don't you think most of the people arrested for whatever over the last few days.. not all of them are "kids" and mostly just were caught up in the moment, rather than being serious criminals.



yes round here, and not just kids, there was shit all over the street, of course a lot of local people (most of whom are skint) helped themselves to the odd item


----------



## dennisr (Aug 14, 2011)

Sue said:


> Week after a load of the local gang got picked up for drugs offences.
> 
> http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...swoop_on_hackney_gangs_in_dawn_raids_1_983079



I lived on the Pembury for about 10 years. Gave up on the shithole and got transfered out eventually - I still get plenty of information on whats going on despite the superficial 'upgrading' of the estate. Like others have said above, I don't think that most of the wee opportunists joining in - and many now paying the price -  were conciously 'led' they didn't need to be but, yep, elements on the estate alongside the police have played a big part in creating the situation that has come about.

 One of the down sides of going to that demo in Hackney yesterday was the number of idiots from one particular organisation that still think they have the right to pose on the matter or have anything worth saying. They probably live nearby to the places I live but are a million miles away in their feel for estates like mine. One of the 'demands' they are now making, apparently, is 'police off of our estates'. 'Unrealistic' does not quite cover how i feel when I see these idiots. I'm just glad its a fantasy on their parts. Yep, of course i don't trust the police who have used this estate as a holding pen for decades. Its embarrassing being associated with such fools by being in the same vicinity yesterday.


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

> There is confusion in it over whether we are fighting structure or a moral battle....
> 
> ....how does better morality lead to a better fight.....
> 
> ...



Interesting to hear this kind of liberal bleating about the horrors of morality almost immediately after the article butchers posted up from malik pointing out the debilitating dangers of said bleating. On another thread about liberals there was some discussion about the wealth of differences between economic & social/left liberals - but the one thing that they both seem to share is a rejection of anything even approaching what could be described as social morality (another example of the kind of binary approach to politics the liberal left takes - i.e. if the right make use of morality in their arguments then they have to take the opposite view, because it must be nasty & illiberal). Malik sums it up well I think:-



> _Morality is as important to the left as it is to the right, though for very different reasons. There is no possibility of a political or economic vision of a different society without a moral vision too. Moral arguments lie at the heart of our understanding of social solidarity_
> 
> _The left talks much about the social and economic impact of neo-liberal policies. But little about its moral impact. Such willful blindness is dangerous. The questions about economic and social poverty, about unemployment and the cuts, are closely related to the questions about moral poverty, about the breakdown of social solidarity and the rise of a nihilistic culture. There can be no challenge to mass unemployment and the imposition of austerity without the restoration of bonds of social solidarity. We cannot, in other words, cannot confront economic poverty if we do not also confront moral poverty. We need to remake our own language of morality, reforge our own moral norms._



Personally i'm not so sure that the question of morality is the right thing though - it's about what is required to ensure that the working class, as a class, retains (or recovers) the ability to be a progressive threat to the existing order - a working class that is thoroughly humiliated & debilitated poses no threat to anything, so surely, as the article suggests, the task of anyone supportive of pro-working class politics is to root out and check/reverse the growth of such tendencies that diminishes the ability/potential of the working class to remain (or recover it's ability to be) a progressive, political threat to capitalist social relations


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

What do you mean by 'working class' in this context? The last time the working class was able to affect capitalist social relations for the better, I would suggest, was immediately post-war. But far more people self-identified as working class then. I'm far from untypical of 'middle class' people in the UK in that I'm now two generations removed from working class ancestors.

The middle class has grown since the war and the working class has shrunk, yet I would argue that in reality there has been a fuzzy merging of the two and the interests of huge numbers of people who would be called middle class by most people really coincide with the interests of those who would be called working class. To successfully challenge capitalist social relations again, don't these groups need to work together?


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

post 1979, a huge proportion of people who actually self identify as middle class are effectively there through the illusion of credit - once that all comes tumbling down combined with the slow but irreversible shift of economic & political power as a whole eastwards - a rump real middle class will obviously remain and prosper in the ways that they have always done (connections, social capital etc..) - but nothing like the 'we're all middle class now' notions of before and I think there is a huge scope for the fuzziness you talk off to decline substantially - the resentment and anger of the majority who are squeezed out of that once expanded social & economic space will no doubt eventually find a political home somewhere. At present the only game in town in terms of preparing for those changed conditions, and capable of offering an attractive home for that anger, is the far right.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I think you will find when you see the trials over grooming evidence of this sort of behaviour even if the charges aren't rape. Commiting gang rape or group sexual assualt, for young girls being the victim when they join, is very often part of initiation into youth gangs.



Also rape and the threat of rape, is known to be employed as a form of retribution against the female members of someone else family, if they can't, or are too feckless to track him down themselves. But then again, as has been repeated on here endlessly - 'they're just kids'.


----------



## dennisr (Aug 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> At present the only game in town in terms of preparing for those changed conditions, and capable of offering an attractive home for that anger, is the far right.



If that was true they would be doing better than they are. The far-rights support remains, largely, a passive, electoral support.  Thats not to ignore the threat it poses - but there is a danger in overplaying the present situation. I don;t think we can say it is the only game in town.

These self-identifying middle classes (and I would agree with your points about their illusions) have, to a much greater extent moved into the trade unions - teachers, civil servants, public sector. Those trade unions may be weakly led and the membership unconfident - but they have to been decisively smashed. I get the impression that one of the ConDems targets are those trade unions.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> yet I would argue that in reality there has been a fuzzy merging of the two and the interests of huge numbers of people who would be called middle class by most people really coincide with the interests of those who would be called working class.



i'd suggest that there is also a fuzzy merging between the traditional working class and the underclass described in the op.  who buys the nicked iphones, who runs the drugs trade, where do the traditional working class gangsters fall into this spectrum.

i think the piece is overly simplistic on second reading - the distinction between the working and non working class is largely false, there is too much cross over and the idea than someone is instantly delumpenised just because they get a job in tesco is silly.  people drift between the two, lots of those gang members have working mums, lots will go on to work themselves, for many its just a youthful rebellion.  i also think the piece falls into a bit of a 'kids today' trap, these problems are not new, im not sure thing are that much worse than they were when i was growing up - they may look slightly different, but there were plenty of young people who were a plague on their communities back then as well.

but what we need is not more analysis, but solutions, and ones as LD says which are based not on morality but on what fucking works.  working class people know there is a problem, they know where the problem is, we live it, and where i'd agree with the op is that it is 'our' problem, we need to deal with it, but with ever more resources being stripped away that is going to be very difficult.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> catford



So if you have large estates round there, then you will have gangs - the type of gangs who in other parts of london kill for infringing a post code. The way you were talking earlier about just 'a small number of viscious gangs' it was if you had been transported back to the '60's. Back then at least the Krays and the Richardson's tortured or killed for a reason. What the article is talking about is significant _social_ change. The gangs are really just the lumpen's crack troops. The tip of the spear.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So if you have large estates round there, then you will have gangs - the type of gangs who in other parts of london kill for infringing a post code.



yes we do, and they are fucking nasty, but id dispute that its mainstream amongst young people, and a lot of what 'looks' like criminal gangs actually isnt

this



> Back then at least the Krays and the Richardson's tortured or killed for a reason.



is just romantic bullshit, these kids torture and kills for exactly the same reasons.  the likes of the richardsons and the krays havent gone away and their influence is just as destructive as ever


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

On the question of morals, I think that between equals we can and should hold each other to certain standards of behaviour. However in a situation of structural inequality the moralising between people who classify themselves in different groups is actually just another way to destroy the chance of solidarity. I say 'the chance' of solidarity rather than actual solidarity because we must be honest: there is no politicised working class movement in this country. If you think the lumpenproletariat - or whatever you want to call them - are to blame for that failure then your analysis is fucked.

To clarify what I meant about not wanting to rush to give my opinions on the rioters and rioting, I could also put it like this: I would not want to say anything on here that I would not say to the faces of those kids, and I wouldn't say it without wanting their response. While seeing the absolute necessity of an analysis of our structural positions, I would not create a generalising narrative that sums up what the 'problem' is or what the 'solution' is. I would not want to theorise the lives of individuals _in their absence_ in a way that involved _me_ or even _us_ working out what should be done about _them_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

I agree with smokedout. I think it's very easy to romanticise the past and demonise the present.

I also agree that fundamentally the social problems of an estate can only be sorted out by those that live on those estates. But they need the resources to do that. And changing the built environment for the better, which is something outside forces - govt, councils - can do, works. In and of itself, it can help change behaviour. As I said earlier, the changes around King's Cross are an example of that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> a lot of what 'looks' like criminal gangs actually isnt


Yep. There's a danger sometimes that any group of black boys hanging out in the street will get labelled a 'gang'.


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> I say 'the chance' of solidarity rather than actual solidarity because we must be honest: there is no politicised working class movement in this country. If you think the lumpenproletariat - or whatever you want to call them - are to blame for that failure then your analysis is fucked



Are you reading the same article as me?



> Much of this destruction can be directly attributed to the 30 year crusade by Reagan/Thatcher/Blair, who, inspired by right-wing think tanks, became convinced they could actually influence how people think. Atomising social relations and fundamentally changing what people had faith in, is, if anyone needs reminding, what neo-liberalism was really about. Having done so successfully, we now are reaping the whirlwind


----------



## ska invita (Aug 14, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I think a lot of people found the original article bold and uncomfortable on here and also on other boards. It goes right against the grain of liberal leftism which triumphs the renegades , siding with them as 'victims'. You can see that in the the discussion on here about sentencing of those involved in the looting.


But the sentencing going on does appear to be insanely ramped up, and breaking all existing guidelines. Telegraph's lead story today is that Cameron is going to introduce some kind of 'zero tolerance' punishments on gang crime. This is going to take us down the US path: bigger prison populations with a vicious cycle of criminal behaviour. European countries with low reoffending rates prove that harsh sentencing is not the way to go - rehabillitation, skill building etc. works. Punishing harder is just lazy and easy, but doesn't work. Whatever you may think about 'rioters as victims', more draconian punishment is not the way to go.



LLETSA said:


> What people tend to forget is that those at the forefront of this week's riots are the kind of people who make life in many working class communities a misery, especially for the weakest and most defenceless. For those of us who grew up in the inner-cities, the despicable wanker rifling through the Malaysian student's bag after he'd been attacked is an eminently recognisable character.


Agree there - horrible as the video was, ive seen worse on an average weekday at 4pm on the walworth rd. I was thinking yesterday how this vidclip has become one of the key parts of the media narrative of the riots - if the footage of the 16 year old girl getting lynched by cops in tottenham (the moment that supposedly kicked off the riots) hadn't been so shakey and blury, things might habe been very different, both in media perception and in the intensity of the rioting.


LLETSA said:


> As I said in another thread 'the left' (anarchists included) even were it capable of approaching the rioters, which it isn't, would be met by blank incomprehension if not outright hostility.


a ballsy activist friend of mine who lives off mare street spent a lot of time doing just that, encouraging people not to smash up their neighbourhood - some people listened and talked with her, others didn't. one of the problems with the underclass tag is that it can lead to generalisations such as that these are zombie-criminals beyond engagement. I dont buy that.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

ska invita said:


> a ballsy activist friend of mine who lives off mare street spent a lot of time doing just that, encouraging people not to smash up their neighbourhood - some people listened and talked with her, others didn't. one of the problems with the underclass tag is that it can lead to generalisations such as that these are zombie-criminals beyond engagement. I dont buy that.


 
I haven't said that. What I did say was that, whatever the reasons, there are not many on the left liked your 'ballsy activist friend,' and that the traditional message of the radical left is at least as likely to fall on deaf ears among those doing the rioting as it does with the rest of the population.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> yes we do, and they are fucking nasty, but id dispute that its mainstream amongst young people, and a lot of what 'looks' like criminal gangs actually isnt
> 
> this
> 
> is just romantic bullshit, these kids torture and kills for exactly the same reasons. the likes of the richardsons and the krays havent gone away and their influence is just as destructive as ever



As far as I can see, nobody has said that the gang problem is 'mainstream among young people', but that the gang culture is a destructive influence in working class communities. Nor do I see that anybody has romanticised the Krays or the Richardsons-the point is that when they killed it was about 'business' and not for something as trivial as infringing on a rival gang's perceived territory.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok, I'll accept that. Certainly the prison population grew considerably in that period.
> 
> It is still mostly about money, I would suggest. That plus the single most important and obvious change to the law that would neutralise a lot of gang activity overnight, which is reform of the drug laws.
> 
> I would wonder, in fact, how much of that rise in gang behaviour in the 50s to 70s can be attributed directly to the rise in drug use over that period and the opportunities that created for profitable criminal behaviour to flourish. Drug prohibition has been the single biggest social own goal of the past century.



The problem is that few things ever turn out how the zealous advocates of idealised solutions expect. What you are more likely to get with drug legalisation or decriminalisation is parallel drugs markets, the official and the unofficial, with the latter dealing in new chemical concoctions or stronger strains of those that are avaiable legally, and catering for those for whom the offical channels are for whatever reason closed. The drug gangs aren't just going to meekly walk away and get minimum wage jobs or fall for the polyversity debt trap con. Or else they'll move into something else.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is why there is no contradiction between condemning individuals who commit antisocial behaviour and condemning the social conditions that they have grown up in and which, had they been different, would be likely to have led to different behaviour from that same individual.


 
Who has said there is a contradiction?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The problem is that few things ever turn out how the zealous advocates of idealised solutions expect. What you are more likely to get with drug legalisation or decriminalisation is parallel drugs markets, the official and the unofficial, with the latter dealing in new chemical concoctions or stronger strains of those that are avaiable legally, and catering for those for whom the offical channels are for whatever reason closed. The drug gangs aren't just going to meekly walk away and get minimum wage jobs or fall for the polyversity debt trap con. Or else they'll move into something else.



Yep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So if you have large estates round there, then you will have gangs - the type of gangs who in other parts of london kill for infringing a post code. The way you were talking earlier about just 'a small number of viscious gangs' it was if you had been transported back to the '60's. Back then *at least the Krays and the Richardson's tortured or killed for a reason*. What the article is talking about is significant _social_ change. The gangs are really just the lumpen's crack troops. The tip of the spear.



To be fair Joe, one of the reasons, then as now, was "respect". After all, why did Ronnie kill Jack McVitie?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The drug gangs aren't just going to meekly walk away and get minimum wage jobs or fall for the polyversity debt trap con. Or else they'll move into something else.


I think there's something of a logical fallacy there. Take away the opportunity to make money out of selling drugs and you remove a massive source of potential criminal behaviour. Another source doesn't magically take its place.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there's something of a logical fallacy there. Take away the opportunity to make money out of selling drugs and you remove a massive source of potential criminal behaviour. Another source doesn't magically take its place.


 
As I said, there will still be opportunities, with the inevitable introduction of new types of drugs not yet legalised (or perhaps never to be legalised), as well as in catering for those for whom the official channels are closed or prove to be not enough. Etc.

Of course, this is all speculation, but no more so than the grand claims made for the supposed cure-all of legalisation or decriminalisation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

Who said that was a cure-all? IMO drug prohibition has been enormously damaging to our society. Enormously. And reversing that policy is a necessary prerequisite to effectively addressing a whole raft of social problems including pretty much every social problem being talked about on this thread.

You don't agree. Fine. But don't misrepresent my position, please.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 14, 2011)

Interesting article in the Herald, sort of echoes what 39thStep said about intervention in gangs up here...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scottish-gang-scheme-cuts-offending-in-half-1.1117414


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2011)

(going back to the op) given that gangs have not previously been conspicuous in looting or taking on the police, it seems to me rather a large shift in practice for them to suddenly take the lead in looting and rioting, which is what i thought the quote in the op was at least hinting at. the range of people out in the week can be gauged from the court reports, and unless the gangs are better organised than seemed the case - and none of them got caught - i feel that they have been awarded too prominent a role in the debate.

i suspect there's been rather more anti-hierarchical violence going on than has yet been reported - some of you will no doubt recall the chronology of anti-state, anti-hierarchical violence from the mid-1980s. i'm not too sure the iwca were right on this one.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 14, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> (going back to the op) given that gangs have not previously been conspicuous in looting or taking on the police, it seems to me rather a large shift in practice for them to suddenly take the lead in looting and rioting, which is what i thought the quote in the op was at least hinting at. the range of people out in the week can be gauged from the court reports, and unless the gangs are better organised than seemed the case - and none of them got caught - i feel that they have been awarded too prominent a role in the debate.
> 
> i suspect there's been rather more anti-hierarchical violence going on than has yet been reported - some of you will no doubt recall the chronology of anti-state, anti-hierarchical violence from the mid-1980s. i'm not too sure the iwca were right on this one.



It's a myth that the people involved in the disorder are predominately unemployed, all black, members of gangs etc. The court reports thus far show a very diverse cast of characters involved. it was ever thus. The 81 riots were the same, initially demonised as being a race riot, the arrests of white people proved otherwise.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

TopCat said:


> It's a myth that the people involved in the disorder are predominately unemployed, all black, members of gangs etc. The court reports thus far show a very diverse cast of characters involved. <snip>



That was my impression also.

Not that the IWCA article linked in the OP doesn't have interesting stuff to say, but my suspicion is that once the facts about the demographics and composition of these riots are a bit clearer, it'll seem less applicable than people might have assumed.

Hence my remarks earlier about it possibly being a good idea to look for some facts ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What people tend to forget is that those at the forefront of this week's riots are the kind of people who make life in many working class communities a misery, especially for the weakest and most defenceless. For those of us who grew up in the inner-cities, the despicable wanker rifling through the Malaysian student's bag after he'd been attacked is an eminently recognisable character.


It's a big jump to go from that incident to say that he was typical of 'those at the forefront of this week's riots'. How many of the rioters at any time turned on any of the other rioters? Fewer than 1 percent? I would think so.

TBH I think you're being blinded a bit by what you perceive to be the wisdom of your personal experience, which you think trumps the actual evidence.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 14, 2011)

It's a very thoughtful piece. I recollect answering it more fully elsewhere a while back.
I'm not trying to pick holes here. I just think this is one situation where you will find lumpen, working class and not a few middle class people giving "I got caught up in it" explanations in court over the next few months.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who said that was a cure-all? IMO drug prohibition has been enormously damaging to our society. Enormously. And reversing that policy is a necessary prerequisite to effectively addressing a whole raft of social problems including pretty much every social problem being talked about on this thread.
> 
> You don't agree. Fine. But don't misrepresent my position, please.



I wasn't necesarily referring to you, but to the way the zealots normally advocate it. Although if you look at what you say above, and in your previous posts on the subject, you do make some pretty grand claims.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I wasn't necesarily referring to you, but to the way the zealots normally advocate it. Although if you look at what you say above, and in your previous posts on the subject, you do make some pretty grand claims.


Well I do think that drug prohibition has been a public policy disaster. Absolutely. It has caused untold unnecessary misery.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a big jump to go from that incident to say that he was typical of 'those at the forefront of this week's riots'. How many of the rioters at any time turned on any of the other rioters? Fewer than 1 percent? I would think so.
> 
> TBH I think you're being blinded a bit by what you perceive to be the wisdom of your personal experience, which you think trumps the actual evidence.


 
Judging by what went reported, as well as the direct evidence of the film footage, the type of people who set fire to buildings with people still inside, and turn on those who try to put the fires out were pretty much towrds the forefront of what went on. I don't know how many rioters turned on other rioters, and neither do you. Anyway, was the Malaysian a rioter?

I might be relying on 'the wisdom of my own experience,' but you, with your 'fewer than 1%' and suchlike comments, seem to be just guessing.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well I do think that drug prohibition has been a public policy disaster. Absolutely. It has caused untold unnecessary misery.


 
As I said, it leads you to make some grand claims which are as much speculation as anything else said on the subject.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

I'm guessing from the footage I saw, yes. But again, how many buildings were set alight in total? There were thousands of rioters but only a handful of them were arsonists.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there's something of a logical fallacy there. Take away the opportunity to make money out of selling drugs and you remove a massive source of potential criminal behaviour. Another source doesn't magically take its place.


Doesn't it?

And do they stop dealing drugs or just target other "markets" that aren't able to buy legally (ie the underage) and sell cheaper than the state.


----------



## revlon (Aug 14, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Interesting article in the Herald, sort of echoes what 39thStep said about intervention in gangs up here...
> 
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scottish-gang-scheme-cuts-offending-in-half-1.1117414



the frankie vaughan solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GXSyGcDxA


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Doesn't it?
> 
> And do they stop dealing drugs or just target other "markets" that aren't able to buy legally (ie the underage) and sell cheaper than the state.


They would have to stop dealing drugs if their customers were suddenly taken away from them. Many of those who are already used to a life of drug dealing as work will no doubt look for other ways to make money illegally. But how many new recruits will they have to their ranks once the best way of doing that - drugs - has been taken away?

Just as gang-related crime has flourished in the conditions of an illegal drugs market, it will go into decline once that market has been removed.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2011)

Not really sure I fancy the idea of the control of the production of drugs being in the hands of drug companies any more than i fancy it being in the hands of drug dealers tbh


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 14, 2011)

revlon said:


> the frankie vaughan solution
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GXSyGcDxA



A slightly different and comparatively ineffective approach i'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They would have to stop dealing drugs if their customers were suddenly taken away from them. Many of those who are already used to a life of drug dealing as work will no doubt look for other ways to make money illegally. But how many new recruits will they have to their ranks once the best way of doing that - drugs - has been taken away?
> 
> Just as gang-related crime has flourished in the conditions of an illegal drugs market, it will go into decline once that market has been removed.


You wouldn't stop it, they'd just try to undercut the state. A bit like the trade in cheap booze and fags.


----------



## revlon (Aug 14, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A slightly different and comparatively ineffective approach i'm sure you'll agree.



the film's narrative is strangely familiar though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Not really sure I fancy the idea of the control of the production of drugs being in the hands of drug companies any more than i fancy it being in the hands of drug dealers tbh


You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.


I think GPs should be able to prescribe it definitely (the same with cannabis).


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.



I think for medicinal use that's slightly different though, and I agree with you that prohibition policies have caused harm but I'm just not sure that full legalisation of drugs is the way to go tbh


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 14, 2011)

revlon said:


> the film's narrative is strangely familiar though.



Well yes, interestingly some of those who handed their knives in during that amnesty are involved in the current approach.

Btw, i'm not necessarily advocating the approach as seen merely highlighting what seems, at present, to be rather successful in reducing gang/anti-social crime in w/c communities.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.


You've really got to stop this 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" bollocks. It's the most worthless form of arguing. What price would the profiteering companies jack  medical-grade heroin up to? Why would it's availability effect ability to pay for it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You've really got to stop this 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" bollocks. It's the most worthless form of arguing. What price would the profiteering companies jack medical-grade heroin up to? Why would it's availability effect ability to pay for it?


Bollocks. I'm talking about giving access to safe supplies. Where have I said that I think heroin should be on sale in corner shops? Heroin dealers are in the main nasty cunts. I'd like their source of income removed as far as possible.

If you look at the statistics for heroin use, you see a very striking fact: heroin use exploded after it had been made illegal. Decriminalisation would reduce use, imo, because it would reduce the financial rewards of pushing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bollocks. I'm talking about giving access to safe supplies. Where have I said that I think heroin should be on sale in corner shops? Heroin dealers are in the main nasty cunts. I'd like their source of income removed as far as possible.
> 
> If you look at the statistics for heroin use, you see a very striking fact: heroin use exploded after it had been made illegal. Decriminalisation would reduce use, imo, because it would reduce the financial rewards of pushing it.


The post you replied to talked about control by drugs companies rather than dealers - i.e sales  - and the very little  difference between them.It didn't talk about socially provided medical-grade heroin or anything of the sort, that you assumed that it did. I'm not interested in the decriminalisation argument, i'm not interested in the other stuff that you're now bringing in - i was pointing out the lazy form of argument you often use and the misreading it was based on in this case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

Well the answer to that narrow question is simple. Control by drug companies is infinitely preferable because you know what you're buying, thus dramatically reducing ODs. Which was my point, in case you misread it.

But you then have to set the thing into the context of how you would like decriminalisation to be handled - ie how much power and how many profiteering opportunities you are offering to any drug company.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 14, 2011)

God fucking help us. Another really informative discussion goes down the toilet.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well the answer to that narrow question is simple. Control by drug companies is infinitely preferable because you know what you're buying, thus dramatically reducing ODs. Which was my point, in case you misread it.
> 
> But you then have to set the thing into the context of how you would like decriminalisation to be handled - ie how much power and how many profiteering opportunities you are offering to any drug company.


I didn't ask a narrow question. There was no question at all. There was just a pointing out of the form of  'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" that you often adopt. Point's been made now. We can all get back to the ignoring of the OP and other points relating to it.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Nor do I see that anybody has romanticised the Krays or the Richardsons-the point is that when they killed it was about 'business' and not for something as trivial as infringing on a rival gang's perceived territory.



you just did it yourself.  there was a well known family who had a couple of clubs where i grew up.  they beat and tortured people, i dont know if they ever murdered anyone but do know they were the people you went to to buy a gun.  sometimes they beat people up for business, sometimes they did it because one of the younger ones was pissed and someone looked at his pint.  i could say the same about certain families in london, i could even name names, but i wont, because im scared of them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't ask a narrow question. There was no question at all. There was just a pointing out of the form of 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" that you often adopt. Point's been made now. We can all get back to the ignoring of the OP and other points relating to it.


Go fuck yourself, butchers.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

Accepting for a moment that such lumpen elements are a factor in our communities, what role did they have in the riots?  Do we have any factual information on this yet?

What LLETSA was saying about the wanker mugging that Malaysian student and what smokedout just said about his local criminal families is instantly recognisable to me too, so I'm certainly not arguing that there's nothing there.

I'm also very aware that such elements are featuring prominently in media narratives about recent events.

What actual evidence do we have regarding their role in the recent rioting and looting though?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that such elements played a role, but I'm unclear personally exactly what it was in practice and how it may have differed in the various stages that the rioting seems to have gone through from the kick-off to the spreading chaos as last week wore on.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> presumingly your issue is more to do with the use of the term willingly (as opposed to embraced - as i don't think anyone can disagree there has been an embracement)
> 
> to take the view however that people unwillingly embrace the kind of tendencies referred to in the article smacks of a crude kind of economic determinism which robs the working class, both as individuals and collectively as a class, of the agency and potential to be the active subject that is required if any kind of progressive alternative to capitalism is ever to be achieved
> 
> Instead it leaves them as passive objects, conditioned totally by factors external to them, destined to behave & act in a particular predetermined way, like some kind of secular predestination. While socio-economic factors clearly cannot be ignored and form a fundamental part of any analysis - to go too far the other way to the kind of crude determinism that some lefties come out with further consigns an already weakened, demolarised, emaciated, confidence sapped, working class further, as it robs the class of its ability to actually be the class for itself. It's only the crude kind of vulargised marxism that allows us to think that all that's needed is to turn capitalism on, sit back and await the glorious proletarian revolution and emancipation of the working class, like some kind of determined chemical reaction



What I actually meant was that some will have willingly embraced, but others will be more reluctant and others may just be blindly following. I think to attribute one cause or motive to everyone is naive.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Accepting for a moment that such lumpen elements are a factor in our communities, what role did they have in the riots? Do we have any factual information on this yet?
> 
> What LLETSA was saying about the wanker mugging that Malaysian student and what smokedout just said about his local criminal families is instantly recognisable to me too, so I'm certainly not arguing that there's nothing there.
> 
> ...


Fwiw, my view atm is that yer lumpen element was instrumental in it kicking off on each of the three nights in London, but on each night their role subsequent to that initiation diminished quickly as other elements anticipated what would happen and were ready to take advantage.

Events needed the spark they provided though.

Obv. one of the keys in relation to the gangs was/is their organisation, esp. the ability to communicate the where and when, even as that changed in real time.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

I've definitely embraced a non-work ethic but I'm middle class so I think I'm allowed


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What I actually meant was that some will have willingly embraced, but others will be more reluctant and others may just be blindly following. I think to attribute one cause or motive to everyone is naive.



perhaps - one thing for sure however is that the existence of those within that formation who have willingly embraced it, and also have the ability to draw & attract others into 'blindly or reluctantly following' them are a corrosive, poisonous & debilitating element and one that will not be challenged, checked, or reversed by refusing to accept its existence, by seeking to explain it away by deterministic accounts of agency, or by underestimating the detrimental effect that it has on the potential for a confident pro-working class politics to emerge out of the current malaise


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> perhaps - one thing for sure however is that the existence of those within that formation who have willingly embraced it, and also have the ability to draw & attract others into 'blindly or reluctantly following' them are a corrosive, poisonous & debilitating element and one that will not be challenged, checked, or reversed by refusing to accept its existence, by seeking to explain it away by deterministic accounts of agency, or by underestimating the detrimental effect that it has on the potential for a confident pro-working class politics to emerge out of the current malaise


All you see is the negative man. Watch this and take heart


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> perhaps - one thing for sure however is that the existence of those within that formation who have willingly embraced it, and also have the ability to draw & attract others into 'blindly or reluctantly following' them are a corrosive, poisonous & debilitating element and one that will not be challenged, checked, or reversed by refusing to accept its existence, by seeking to explain it away by deterministic accounts of agency, or by underestimating the detrimental effect that it has on the potential for a confident pro-working class politics to emerge out of the current malaise



You're the only one I can see mentioning determinism.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2011)

It's worth remembering the effects that childhood abuse and neglect can have on the development of morality and empathy (and no, I'm not saying all rioters/looters/muggers were abused as children, before anyone starts).


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

i think there is a danger here that people are also jumping into a blanket condemnation of what happened, which i'm not sure i can share.  there seems to be an element developing amongst some sections of the left that rioting's only ok when we do it, because our reasons and tactics are purer than theirs.  we don't know why many people were out rioting but certainly almost all the kids that have been given airtime have spoken of the government, the police and cuts and a feeling of enough is enough.  if there was co-ordination by london street gangs, then to what end?  are we not just second guessing their motives and falling into a simplistic narrative that they can't possibly of had valid grievances cos they is criminals and shit.

that doesnt mean i condone burning out people's flats, but i didnt condone the act of the fire extinguisher chucker either, that doesnt mean he doesnt have my solidarity. if that fire extinguisher had killed a copper, or god forbid a person, then we'd be facing exactly the same kind of witchhunt and blanket condemnation that the kids are now.  this was disorder on an unprecedented scale, of course some people used that as a cover for entirely criminal and reactionary acts, acts that happen everyday without the need for a riot.  but i dont have a problem with the kids who looted argos round my way, good on them, people have got fuck all round here, and im not prepared to second guess their motives which i suspect were slightly more complex than just a desire for a wide screen telly.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

The OP isn't about the riots though. It's about ongoing political organisation in areas with large scale ASB and how we - and i mean we - should and can respond.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i think there is a danger here that people are also jumping into a blanket condemnation of what happened, which i'm not sure i can share. there seems to be an element developing amongst some sections of the left that rioting's only ok when we do it, because our reasons and tactics are purer than theirs. we don't know why many people were out rioting but certainly almost all the kids that have been given airtime have spoken of the government, the police and cuts and a feeling of enough is enough. if there was co-ordination by london street gangs, then to what end? are we not just second guessing their motives and falling into a simplistic narrative that they can't possibly of had valid grievances cos they is criminals and shit.
> 
> that doesnt mean i condone burning out people's flats, but i didnt condone the act of the fire extinguisher chucker either, that doesnt mean he doesnt have my solidarity. if that fire extinguisher had killed a copper, or god forbid a person, then we'd be facing exactly the same kind of witchhunt and blanket condemnation that the kids are now. this was disorder on an unprecedented scale, of course some people used that as a cover for entirely criminal and reactionary acts, acts that happen everyday without the need for a riot. but i dont have a problem with the kids who looted argos round my way, good on them, people have got fuck all round here, and im not prepared to second guess their motives which i suspect were slightly more complex than just a desire for a wide screen telly.


I hesitate to offer my support, sullied as it is by an allegedly liberal dislike of moralising ( ) but I agree with this post.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The OP isn't about the riots though. It's about ongoing political organisation in areas with large scale ASB and how we - and i mean we - should and can respond.



i know, i was going to start a thread called in defence of rioters but i couldnt be arsed with all the general posters steaming in with a load of wank


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

This really is an issue that has divided people along different lines from usual, I think. Generally, I've found myself nodding in agreement with smokedout on this thread, but it seems that there's still no consensus at all about the best way to try to understand these riots. We're all groping in the dark a little, I think.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you just did it yourself. there was a well known family who had a couple of clubs where i grew up. they beat and tortured people, i dont know if they ever murdered anyone but do know they were the people you went to to buy a gun. sometimes they beat people up for business, sometimes they did it because one of the younger ones was pissed and someone looked at his pint. i could say the same about certain families in london, i could even name names, but i wont, because im scared of them.


 
Nothing I said has romanticised anybody or anything. I haven't denied that these kind of people are nasty fuckers; I said that when they murdered people it wasn't usually over relative trivialities.


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You're the only one I can see mentioning determinism.



I'm the only one using the word determinism yes


----------



## Geri (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i know, i was going to start a thread called in defence of rioters but i couldnt be arsed with all the general posters steaming in with a load of wank



Oh no, not the general posters.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The OP isn't about the riots though. It's about ongoing political organisation in areas with large scale ASB and how we - and i mean we - should and can respond.



And as usual, smokedout is arguing against not what people have said but what he wants them to have said.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 14, 2011)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

he argues that the same problem is occurring at the top although the people breaking the rules can usually avoid breaking the law tellingly  millionaires daughter gets to go home proles in the car go to jail.


----------



## love detective (Aug 14, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> All you see is the negative man. Watch this and take heart





smokedout said:


> i think there is a danger here that people are also jumping into a blanket condemnation of what happened, which i'm not sure i can share.



Again, am I reading the same thread as youse

Here what i said about the riots (which as butchersapron has pointed out was not the subject of this thread) on the first page of this thread



> it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves
> 
> while it might be energising/liberating to see the police being so effectively sidelined and shown to be powerless in the face of a mass (albeit of atomised individuals) who share a common purpose - is there anything else positive that can be taken from what's happened, personally I'm struggling​
> as the logic & motivations of the riots seem to be derived from the very same logic & motivations of the society that 'produced' them, there doesn't seem to be much there to actually threaten or dent the foundational basis of the system that they are supposedly reacting against. sure we can all go on about how looters are bypassing & causing ruptures to the normal circuits and flows of capital, but that in and off itself doesn't mean there's anything progressive about it - organised crime does the same thing to an extent and no one sees anything liberating or progressive about that​
> ...



But no point folk actually engaging with what's actually said is there​


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

The OP contained the phrase 'In light of recent events' and suddenly people claim this thread has nothing to do with the rioting? The implication was that the riots had proved the existence of a sinister underclass undermining the class struggle and how can we stand by any longer and let them continue.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> The OP contained the phrase 'In light of recent events' and suddenly people claim this thread has nothing to do with the rioting? The implication was that the riots had proved the existence of a sinister underclass undermining the class struggle and how can we stand by any longer and let them continue.



The riots certainly provided the context for the repost - it wasn't arguing about the riots. It's by def a pre-riot argument. It's about the build up to the riots.

Look, i know you're all hey i'm this revolutionary now man, but please read what people have said.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

I read the op as an attempt to understand the riots, to try to understand who was rioting, why they were rioting and what could be done about it. That's been the basis of all my responses.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

Then you've misread it - it's about how you organise as pro-w/c group in areas with high levels of ASB. What you face, and why.

I'm not fucking kidding, but it pretty much says that in the article. Have any other people on the thread not bothered to read it? We caught brain addict when he mentioned non-work ethic earlier. Any other commentators not read it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Then you've misread it - it's about how you organise as pro-w/c group in areas with high levels of ASB. What you face, and why.


Ok. I did actually get that too. And have been trying to talk about it - and talking about drug laws wrt gangs who deal in drugs is relevant I think. But all this feels as though it is in the context of last week's events. That's why it is being revisited.

Seems to me that the thread has meandered along in a good way...


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

love detective said:


> Again, am I reading the same thread as youse
> 
> Here what i said about the riots (which as butchersapron has pointed out was not the subject of this thread) on the first page of this thread



ok i should probably have started a new thread.  but the confusion reveals a flaw in the piece you posted, which is what exactly is anti-social behaviour.  are we talking about crime, rioting, gangs, loud music, until we can find a consensus on what asb actually is (and its a a phrase i cant stand) then we cant begin to discuss any hopes of remedying it


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> ok i should probably have started a new thread. but the confusion reveals a flaw in the piece you posted, which is what exactly is anti-social behaviour. are we talking about crime, rioting, gangs, loud music, until we can find a consensus on what asb actually is (and its a a phrase i cant stand) then we cant begin to discuss any hopes of remedying it


 
If you don't know what anti-social behaviour is, you've probably never experienced it.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> If you don't know what anti-social behaviour is, you've probably never experienced it.



you see thats just garbage, ive been slashed with a knife across my throat, does that count, or is that crime and are they the same or different

if you asked 20 people what asb is you'll get 20 different answers, perhaps the first step is to start the debate in our communities about exactly what we will and wont accept


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you see thats just garbage, ive been slashed with a knife across my throat, does that count, or is that crime and are they the same or different
> 
> if you asked 20 people what asb is you'll get 20 different answers, perhaps the first step is to start the debate in our communities about exactly what we will and wont accept


Exactly what the malik piece was on about earlier. Making it OUR definitions of morality/behavior/etc.

LLETSA, at the min please assume that other people have similar conditions if they say they have. If they don't it'll become clear pretty quick.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you see thats just garbage, ive been slashed with a knife across my throat, does that count, or is that crime and are they the same or different
> 
> if you asked 20 people what asb is you'll get 20 different answers, perhaps the first step is to start the debate in our communities about exactly what we will and wont accept


 
Being slashed across the throat with a knife sounds pretty anti-social to me.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> LLETSA, at the min please assume that other people have similar conditions if they say they have. If they don't it'll become clear pretty quick.


 
Eh?


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We caught brain addict when he mentioned non-work ethic earlier. Any other commentators not read it?



As usual you are too clever for us. Though it uses both non-work ethic and no-work ethic, if that was what you were referring to. You also apparently didn't notice that my main points on here have been against Working Class Messianism - something this piece demonstrates and that I have been consistently against for a long time - though my arguments against it may have changed.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly what the malik piece was on about earlier. Making it OUR definitions of morality/behavior/etc.



i hadnt read that, i think its a far better piece of analysis than the IWCA piece in the op


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i hadnt read that, i think its a far better piece of analysis than the IWCA piece in the op


Says the same thing really.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Says the same thing really.



the position may be broadly the same, but it doesn't need to evoke a division between the lumpen mass rapists and the working class proper to get there


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> the position may be broadly the same, but it doesn't need to evoke a division between the lumpen mass rapists and the working class proper to get there


It's based on an existing division though.

And your recent posts have been better than that one above. Sort it out eh?


----------



## revlon (Aug 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> the position may be broadly the same, but it doesn't need to evoke a division between the lumpen mass rapists and the working class proper to get there


the weakest part of the text (the first half essentially) is trying to tie behavioural traits with a new class formation. It's clumsy and clunky and doesn't actually do what it sets out to do.  The text only gets interesting and worthwile at the start of the paragraph 'why this is important politically' when it thankfully  reverts to an opinion piece here some kind of resolution is attempted to the current social dynamic.

If anything the social categories remind me more of henry mayhew - respectable working class, deserving, undeserving poor - except more tribal than class based.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 14, 2011)

revlon said:


> the weakest part of the text (the first half essentially) is trying to tie behavioural traits with a new class formation. It's clumsy and clunky and doesn't actually do what it sets out to do.



quite, as i said before im uncomfortable with a class distinction based on morality, and im not sure such a distinction exists in reality.  what about the gang member who works, or has a parent that works, at the risk of repeating myself, who buys the nicked iphones, who imports the drugs

its lazy, and not really helpful which is a shame because the argument behind the piece is sound, but i dont want to have to read between the lines and ignore the hyperbole to get there


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 14, 2011)

dennisr said:


> I lived on the Pembury for about 10 years. Gave up on the shithole and got transfered out eventually - I still get plenty of information on whats going on despite the superficial 'upgrading' of the estate. Like others have said above, I don't think that most of the wee opportunists joining in - and many now paying the price - were conciously 'led' they didn't need to be but, yep, elements on the estate alongside the police have played a big part in creating the situation that has come about.
> 
> One of the down sides of going to that demo in Hackney yesterday was the number of idiots from one particular organisation that still think they have the right to pose on the matter or have anything worth saying. They probably live nearby to the places I live but are a million miles away in their feel for estates like mine. One of the 'demands' they are now making, apparently, is 'police off of our estates'. 'Unrealistic' does not quite cover how i feel when I see these idiots. I'm just glad its a fantasy on their parts. Yep, of course i don't trust the police who have used this estate as a holding pen for decades. Its embarrassing being associated with such fools by being in the same vicinity yesterday.



Police  off our streets is the Workers power line.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there's something of a logical fallacy there. Take away the opportunity to make money out of selling drugs and you remove a massive source of potential criminal behaviour. Another source doesn't magically take its place.



Jesus wept


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2011)

TopCat said:


> It's a myth that the people involved in the disorder are predominately unemployed, all black, members of gangs etc. The court reports thus far show a very diverse cast of characters involved. it was ever thus. The 81 riots were the same, initially demonised as being a race riot, the arrests of white people proved otherwise.


yeh that's what i was getting at, that the early facile claims about it all being acquisitive gangs are a load of bollocks


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 15, 2011)

I tried to raise the issue of


> If pro working class elements had built strong working class community organisations would they have cheered on 'our boys' who looted and smashed up local shops and businesses? Or would that looting be less likely to happen in areas where there were strong working class community organisations?


 
part of that activity by pro working class organsiation might be exactly what Malik mentions in his last para



> Ironically, perhaps, the way forward has been shown by some of those who stood up to the rioters. In many communities, local people patrolled the streets, protected buildings and confronted rioters. They did so largely because the police were unable or unwilling to help.  In one sense, such community action helps camouflage the government’s public expenditure cuts, making up for the services the state should be providing. But, in another sense, such action is much more than an ersatz form of Cameron’s Big Society. In taking matters into their own hands, and in accepting responsibility for their own communities, those who stood up to the rioters were taking the first steps towards restoring the moral deficit by recreating the bonds of social solidarity.



One example in an area that could have seen riots is the IWCA activity on Blackbird Leys estate


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> quite, as i said before im uncomfortable with a class distinction based on morality, and im not sure such a distinction exists in reality.


The distinction itself is not based on morality though - you and others are effectively trying to moralise an assessment of something that is actually based on hard nosed materialist reality

If a working class kid takes a job as a bailiff or scabs on a strike - despite this person being objectively working class in terms of their economic position in society and like the rest of us is at the mercy of the dull economic compulsion of the market, i'm sure no one on here would obejct to someone engaged in this kind of activty being 'excluded' (or de-prioritised if you want to soften the language) from any kind of class solidarity, empathy or progressive pro-working class political project.

This exclusion is not based on idealist/abstract morality, instead it's based on the actual detrimental impact that this person's activities has on working class life. The fact that this person who works as a baillif, or scabs on a strike, has to work to be able to live and to a certain extent does not really have much control over what decisions they make in terms of employment doesn't stop anyone on here instinctively seeing them as a class enemy, and someone to be shunned/excluded, and not turned into an unwilling victim of capitalist social relations. Time after time on here people correctly make the comment that baillifs, police, scabs etc.. have chosen, through their own agency, to do what they do, therefore shouldn't receive sympathy but instead should be attacked for those choices.

So, on the basis that no one has any issues with the exclusion of formal roles such as baillifs, police, prison officers, scabs, etc who either directly or through their membership of such a profession are clearly seen as class enemies - it's surprising that people cannot employ the same logic & rationalising to the type of people & behaviours mentioned in the piece. Why is a scab in the workplace offered no get out of jail free card and are quite correctly held to account for their actions & shunned, but a scab in the community is just as often likely to be treated as victim, rather than perpetrator.

Why are one lot of anti-working class roles & behaviours (which are perpetrated in the main by working class people) instinctively seen for what they are and rightly attacked, yet other anti-working class roles & behavours (again perpetrated in the main by working class people, albeit through less formalised structures) are not seen as part of the overall problem? 

Are your objections to baillifs, police and scabs based on morality or materialism? If the later, why can't you see the need to use the same approach to articulate objections to, and categorise those who routinely take part in, anti-social crime within working class communities?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> You wouldn't stop it, they'd just try to undercut the state. A bit like the trade in cheap booze and fags.


I think the idea is that decriminalisation would drive prices down so low that smuggler/importers and distributors - where the REAL money is, forget the teenage scrote dealing a coupla ounces per week - simply couldn't make a profit from it


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Not really sure I fancy the idea of the control of the production of drugs being in the hands of drug companies any more than i fancy it being in the hands of drug dealers tbh


neither do i; that's why i'd like to see production and distribution in the hands of not-for-profit 3rd sector bodies, and the point of exchange being licensed, independent small retailers


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think the idea is that decriminalisation would drive prices down so low that smuggler/importers and distributors - where the REAL money is, forget the teenage scrote dealing a coupla ounces per week - simply couldn't make a profit from it


Not so much drive the price down as reduce demand. Existing smackheads, for instance, will have an alternative reliable source, so the dealers' customers just disappear, whatever price they're selling at. And there's little value in creating new smackheads to replace them, as they'll just disappear to the safe supplies too. That way, you reduce overall use with destructive drugs like heroin and remove the incentive to deal in them in the first place.

And removing this source of income from illegal means doesn't just mean that the criminals will go elsewhere. If there were another equally good way of making money illegally, it would already be being done. If you reduce the opportunities to make money illegally, fewer people will choose to try to make a living out of it. It becomes a less attractive life choice.

I'm no expert on gang culture (real gangs, that is, not just kids hanging out in the street), but if the status and conspicuous consumption that make joining it so attractive are based primarily on the income from drugs, you're dealing the whole culture a massive blow by taking away its main source of income. You're removing the foundations of the whole thing.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 15, 2011)

Drugs are only one part of what's under discussion here, albeit a major one. It would be a shame to divert the debate down the usual avenues.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> Why are one lot of anti-working class roles & behaviours (which are perpetrated in the main by working class people) instinctively seen for what they are and rightly attacked, yet other anti-working class roles & behavours (again perpetrated in the main by working class people, albeit through less formalised structures) are not seen as part of the overall problem?
> 
> Are your objections to baillifs, police and scabs based on morality or materialism? If the later, why can't you see the need to use the same approach to articulate objections to, and categorise those who routinely take part in, anti-social crime within working class communities?



I'm not objecting to articulating objections to some of this behaviour.  I am objecting to categorising behaviour in the way the piece in the op does.  scab (in it's traditional usage), copper, bailiffs, these are very defined roles and easy to categorise, and indeed make judgements on.  I can add some more, rapist, nonce, murderer - no argument there.  but some are less easy, gangster, thief, benefit fraudster, these are all vague and can mean a variety of different things to different people.  as you go on it gets even more woolly, vandal, someone with a 'no work' ethic, street drinkers, drug users, binge drinkers.  where do we stop? (and how many people do we have left when we do)

i fully support this debate, but that's what it needs to be, and i don't think a real debate can happen if we begin from a position of good vs bad working class - let's focus on behavior that can be easily defined, lets decide what we will and wont accept in our communities, lets decide where we draw a hard line (rapists and murderers for example), where we need to say, okay nick off tesco, but not your neighbours, and where we can offer support and help people to break out of behavior that is often as destructive to the individual as the community.

to create an arbitrary morality based 'lumpen' class (we might as well just call them chavs) is to follow their (as in state and capital's) agenda, when we know that the reality is far more complex.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Drugs are only one part of what's under discussion here, albeit a major one. It would be a shame to divert the debate down the usual avenues.


I agree. But I also think that you cannot debate this particular issue without talking about drugs.

Anyway, I think I've said everything I want to say on that matter.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Drugs are only one part of what's under discussion here, albeit a major one. It would be a shame to divert the debate down the usual avenues.


agreed, should be kept for a different thread


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> agreed, should be kept for a different thread



How? How can you talk about people who choose not to work without talking about the things they choose to do instead? I agree that this thread shouldn't be diverted wholly down that track, but I take issue with the idea, put by butchers first off, that this is some kind of derail. It most emphatically isn't.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> So, on the basis that no one has any issues with the exclusion of formal roles such as baillifs, police, prison officers, scabs, etc who either directly or through their membership of such a profession are clearly seen as class enemies - it's surprising that people cannot employ the same logic & rationalising to the type of people & behaviours mentioned in the piece. Why is a scab in the workplace offered no get out of jail free card and are quite correctly held to account for their actions & shunned, but a scab in the community is just as often likely to be treated as victim, rather than perpetrator.
> 
> Why are one lot of anti-working class roles & behaviours (which are perpetrated in the main by working class people) instinctively seen for what they are and rightly attacked, yet other anti-working class roles & behavours (again perpetrated in the main by working class people, albeit through less formalised structures) are not seen as part of the overall problem?
> 
> Are your objections to baillifs, police and scabs based on morality or materialism? If the later, why can't you see the need to use the same approach to articulate objections to, and categorise those who routinely take part in, anti-social crime within working class communities?


absolutely fantastic post, and i thoroughly agree. looters, thieves and gangs damage my community as much as scabs damage workers


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How? How can you talk about people who choose not to work without talking about the things they choose to do instead? I agree that this thread shouldn't be diverted wholly down that track, but I take issue with the idea, put by butchers first off, that this is some kind of derail. It most emphatically isn't.


because that way we'll have a load of parallel, disparate debates, and the thread will end up a total trainwreck. better to start another thread devoted to drugs and gangs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

They're not disparate. That's the point.

Not going to argue it more though. We'll have to agree to differ.


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

> i fully support this debate, but that's what it needs to be, and i don't think a real debate can happen if we begin from a position of good vs bad working class



it's not beginning from a position of good v bad working class - it's looking at reality and seeing what things are either a help or a hinderence to pro-working class politics & organisation, if as a result of that, the analysis adds other things (i.e. behaviours, tendencies etc, rather than people as such)  to what is traditionaly seen as 'bad working class' i.e. scabs, police, bailiffs - then so be it. Let's call it for what it is and the impact it has.




> let's focus on behavior that can be easily defined, lets decide what we will and wont accept in our communities, lets decide where we draw a hard line (rapists and murderers for example), where we need to say, okay nick off tesco, but not your neighbours, and where we can offer support and help people to break out of behavior that is often as destructive to the individual as the community.



What's the reason for not focussing on behaviour (that you say) can not easily be defined though? That's what in my opinion we should be focused on. And just because it may be difficult to do is no excuse for not doing it and focussing on easy things. Do you really think we need a debate within our communities as to whether we tolerate rapists or murderers? 




> to create an arbitrary morality based 'lumpen' class (we might as well just call them chavs) is to follow their (as in state and capital's) agenda, when we know that the reality is far more complex.



Again, why do you insist on putting morality as a driving factor here, when it's been explained that it's not a process that starts with morality, but one that starts with hard nose materialist reality looking at what kind of behaviours are detrimental to working class communities, life within them, confidence, and the chance of those communities developing a progressive pro working class political outlook?

What's the point being involved in pro-working class poltics if we focus on the easy to define and obvious and shy away from attempting to even analyse, let alone do anything about, the albeit complex & prickly yet equally destructive tendencies, manifestations & behaviours that if allowed to further take root has the potential take any chance of an emboldened & confident working class political organissation of the table for generations


----------



## revlon (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> it's not beginning from a position of good v bad working class -


except that's exactly what the artilce does do. Right from the start it hammers home the distinction.

- it is often tacitly assumed that the perpetrators are representative of alienated working class youth. Not so: what they are more generally representative of is a new -and growing- social formation

- It needs to be recognised that these lumpen elements represent a grouping that is quite separate from, and _actively_ _hostile to_, the interests and well-being of the working class proper.

- where both he, like Alibhai-Brown, gets it wrong is in confusing and conflating the traditional working class with the emergence of the new underclass

- the ‘nouveau lumpen’ -a social and political menace that is deeply corrosive _first and_ _foremost_ to the morale and well-being of working class communities themselves

- the physical proximity between the emerging underclass and the working class proper.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> it's not beginning from a position of good v bad working class - it's looking at reality and seeing what things are either a help or a hinderence to pro-working class politics & organisation, if as a result of that, the analysis adds other things (i.e. behaviours, tendencies etc, rather than people as such) to what is traditionaly seen as 'bad working class' i.e. scabs, police, bailiffs - then so be it. Let's call it for what it is and the impact it has.



i don't think that comes across in the IWCA piece.  i'm not in disagreement with any of the above.



> What's the reason for not focussing on behaviour (that you say) can not easily be defined though? That's what in my opinion we should be focused on. And just because it may be difficult to do is no excuse for not doing it and focussing on easy things. Do you really think we need a debate within our communities as to whether we tolerate rapists or murderers?



perhaps i wasn't clear in this case.  i'm saying that we absolutely should be discussing the difficult things, if you read the full paragraph, just pointing out that there are some behaviors/roles which are easy to start with as a baseline



> Again, why do you insist on putting morality as a driving factor here, when it's been explained that it's not a process that starts with morality, but one that starts with hard nose materialist reality looking at what kind of behaviours are detrimental to working class communities, life within them, confidence, and the chance of those communities developing a progressive pro working class political outlook?



i think we're probably at cross purposes.  my criticism was of the piece in the op, the way it was written, which to me does seem to put morality as the driving factor.



> What's the point being involved in pro-working class poltics if we focus on the easy to define and obvious and shy away from attempting to even analyse, let alone do anything about, the albeit complex & prickly yet equally destructive tendencies, manifestations & behaviours that if allowed to further take root has the potential take any chance of an emboldened & confident working class political organissation of the table for generations



i've argued throughout this thread that that's exactly what we should be doing


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think the idea is that decriminalisation would drive prices down so low that smuggler/importers and distributors - where the REAL money is, forget the teenage scrote dealing a coupla ounces per week - simply couldn't make a profit from it


You don't think it would be taxed to death by the government and drive prices way upwards?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> You don't think it would be taxed to death by the government and drive prices way upwards?


I'd hope they'd show more sense than greed, but I take your point


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

I think it will be  a shame if this gets diverted into a row about drugs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I think it will be a shame if this gets diverted into a row about drugs.


i heard that something like that led to the death of that man shot in croydon


----------



## smokedout (Aug 15, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I think it will be a shame if this gets diverted into a row about drugs.



agreed, im in favour of changing the drug laws, but theres not much we can do about them, this is about bottom up solutions to the situation as it is, not calling on the state to make changes, which should be discussed elsewhere


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

revlon said:


> except that's exactly what the artilce does do. Right from the start it hammers home the distinction.



you're conflating the method of presentation/exposition with the method of enquiry


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Ah the old _Darstellung/__Forschung_ debate


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ah the old _Darstellung/__Forschung_ debate


elaborate pls


----------



## revlon (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> you're conflating the method of presentation/exposition with the method of enquiry



perhaps, but i'm just going off the words that have been written.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

lumpen is clearly a euphemism for black and is therefore inherently racist in its interpretation of the situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> elaborate pls


Not really the right thread, so i'll just post this and leave it: marx identified his method as a process of inquiry/Forschung that builds logically  to expostion/Darstellung. Silly post for me to have made when we look like we're getting back to the debate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> lumpen is clearly a euphemism for black and is therefore inherently racist in its interpretation of the situation.


not in my experience


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> it's not beginning from a position of good v bad working class - it's looking at reality and seeing what things are either a help or a hinderence to pro-working class politics & organisation, if as a result of that, the analysis adds other things (i.e. behaviours, tendencies etc, rather than people as such) to what is traditionaly seen as 'bad working class' i.e. scabs, police, bailiffs - then so be it. Let's call it for what it is and the impact it has.
> 
> What's the reason for not focussing on behaviour (that you say) can not easily be defined though? That's what in my opinion we should be focused on. And just because it may be difficult to do is no excuse for not doing it and focussing on easy things. Do you really think we need a debate within our communities as to whether we tolerate rapists or murderers?
> 
> ...


 
Well I'm pleased to see the IWCA analysis of "the Renegades" now includes the police and prison staff alongside bailiffs and debt collectors. I would not be happy to have discussions yet again from people who should know better saying that the POA deserve support when in conflict with the government.

This does have the likelihood of getting bogged down on the minutia of what behaviours are detrimental to working class people and communities though as it did before in the other place. .

That some equated possession and sale of home grown skunk to the possession and sale of heroin was disingenuous to say the least. Equally a crew of kids who regularly go out and steal to order from chain stores is not equal to that of a chaotic neighbour who breaks into your house and steals your stuff in order to buy controlled drugs.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> you're conflating the method of presentation/exposition with the method of enquiry


Sorry to be rude but have you been studying criminology or similar? Your using terms which are going over my head?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> not in my experience


you don't see this as another 'black culture' is broken piece...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i heard that something like that led to the death of that man shot in croydon


The people who know are either dead or not telling.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you don't see this as another 'black culture' is broken piece...



Definately not - unless you think black people are _the _anti social element in our communities?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you don't see this as another 'black culture' is broken piece...


No. Because a lot of what the piece speaks about applies to all kinds of places, including places where there are virtually no black people at all. I don't agree with the piece - I think it has its categories all mixed up - but it is not some kind of dog-whistle piece.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you don't see this as another 'black culture' is broken piece...


No that's not where this is going at all. This is about the culture if you like of a section of society who's behaviour it is suggested  is detrimental to the interests of working class people. This section is not (in my experience of debates like this) going to be defined by race/colour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you don't see this as another 'black culture' is broken piece...


no, i don't


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Definately not - unless you think black people are _the _anti social element in our communities?



I think that for too long the two have been interchangeable in main stream policy, largley leading to the alienantion which not only the black community feels but also which spreads to their wider community as well as their friends and neighbours.  In that you're freinds with a criminal you must be a criminal mentality which has pervaded the areas of social deprivation which haven't got consentual police services but literal police forces...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

this divide and conqure deserving working class undeserving working class isn't really about solidarity IMHO...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

The article isn't written by people who formulate mainstream policy. You are on the totally wrong track. If you want to talk about people who _do_ formulate mainstream policy then this isn't the thread to do it on.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

This was an area which the IWCA had some success with in Oxford yes?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The article isn't written by people who formulate mainstream policy. You are on the totally wrong track. If you want to talk about people who _do_ formulate mainstream policy then this isn't the thread to do it on.


I don't see what's been written in the OP as a million miles away from mainstream policy tbh...


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Sorry to be rude but have you been studying criminology or similar? Your using terms which are going over my head?



Sorry mate - just meant that the process of investigating things like this in real life doesn't start from some abstract/idealist/a prior position of morality as to what is good or bad, but instead is based on the type of on the ground raw experience the IWCA has gained from organisation in and orientation to working class areas & concerns.

So the results & experiences of that activity, appropriately analysed, then feeds into and informs the positions taken in pieces like dealing with the renegades

Some of the criticisms of the article (and by extenstion the IWCA analysis itself) was that 'it' begins from a position of good v bad. But the point I was making that while the article itself may rhetorically begin from the position of good v bad, the process that lead to this type of article being written doesn't begin with any predermined distinction - it only ends with it, as a result of that on the ground experience etc..

Perhaps this kind of article could have 'shown its workings' a bit more to demonstrate how these conclusions have been arrived at


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

@smokedout

it seems we pretty much agree with each other in the detail - but in summary you (mistakenly in my opinion) ascribe a moral position/distinction to what we would see as a empirical/experience based distinction

If time after time you see things from experience that leads to the drawing of the conclusion that it is detrimental to working class interests & organisation, then it doesn't mean just because you then file that thing/behaviour under some generic category and view that as 'bad' and something to be confronted that this is some kind of a priori moral position being taken. However at the same time there's nothing wrong with effectively creating some kind of (temporary) a posteriori social morality based on the conclusions drawn from actual on the ground experience.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> lumpen is clearly a euphemism for black and is therefore inherently racist in its interpretation of the situation.



Many years ago, the nascent IWCA in Newtown iniated a campaign against a mugging epidemic in the area. Large two hundred strong meetings were held on the estate. The hugely succesful iniative uniting all sections of the community, was naturally denounced by the police and attacked by sections of the left as 'racist'.

Amusingly, the people laying charges of racism were the only ones making the racist assumptions.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you just did it yourself. there was a well known family who had a couple of clubs where i grew up. they beat and tortured people, i dont know if they ever murdered anyone but do know they were the people you went to to buy a gun. sometimes they beat people up for business, sometimes they did it because one of the younger ones was pissed and someone looked at his pint. i could say the same about certain families in london, i could even name names, but i wont, because im scared of them.



Your totally missing the point of the article. Sure there has always been 'well known famiies' etc but what we are talking about here is _scale._ The amount of people that operate at that level now, is vast. For example we know how many murder are attributed to Krays, we can, with effort even recall their names. They were grown men, killers and victims alike.

Now guess how many children/teenagers have been knifed/shot in London in the last few years - by other children/teenagers? 60? 80? 100?

Now - name them.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair Joe, one of the reasons, then as now, was "respect". After all, why did Ronnie kill Jack McVitie?



Not sure. Didn't they think he was a grass? He did shoot George Cornell, because he called him 'a fat poof'.


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your totally missing the point of the article. Sure there has always been 'well known famiies' etc but what we are talking about here is _scale._ The amount of people that operate at that level now, is vast. For example we know how many murder are attributed to Krays, we can, with effort even recall their names. They were grown men, killers and victims alike.
> 
> Now guess how many children/teenagers have been knifed/shot in London in the last few years - by other children/teenagers? 60? 80? 100?
> 
> Now - name them.



I don't think the point of the article is being missed. Morality and working class values should apply no matter the scale, and any moral blind-spots that applied to the 'tradition' crime & gang stuff in the past surely have relevance today.

Some of the popular reactions to the whole Raoul Moat thing may present another opportunity to look at the moral/value picture.

I've also long been interested in the 'hatred of students' thing, and how that affects aspirations.

I'm also interested in what proportion of people get stuck in the underclass, as opposed to going through a phase which may involve plenty of the anti-social and criminal behaviour that articles are associating with the underclass. My place of work has quite a lot of people who got in considerable bother in the past, but have now been workers for many years. Im not sure how much a set of values or morality saved them at all. What saved them was the opportunity to work, coming to terms with new family responsibilities, and frankly just getting a bit more chilled out due to getting older. This was quite noticeable as the number of brawls at the factory christmas do really started to fall off a cliff once certain rowdy types reached a certain age.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 15, 2011)

So far as I can see the OP shares the same fault as just about all the political/media bullshit about the riots/looting. In that it's based on an almost complete absence of communication with any of those involved in the riots, and a selective amnesia about British history.

It's nothing new. It's basically what has happened every time the political authority has stopped bothering to put the work in to ensure that policing the law is done by consent rather than force. You cannot police a city solely by force on a long term basis, the law has to basically be agreed between the vast majority of the people and the political authorities. 16,000 police officers cannot control a city the size of London if a quarter of a million of its inhabitants decide the law  is unjustly only being applied to them. It has happened over and over again over the last thousand years, particularly in London, whenever politicians and/or police have become popularly percieved as corrupt, repressive or irrelevant.

So trying to analyse this as if it is something unique and new simply won't work.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...is-lowest-since-1978-but-gun-killings-rise.do

The Evening Standard as usual attempts to sensationalise the raw statistics to paint a picture of a lawless youth terrifying Londoners, but even so the article shows clearly that Joe Reilly is horrendously misinformed. The thing that differs from the 50s and early 60s is the perception of gang crime more than the extent of it.

Over the next few weeks the post mortem will take place and people will devise plans to make things better. It would be nice to think that they might do so on a basis of fact and objective analysis of reality rather than prejudice and ignorance. I have absolutely no hope that will actually be the case.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 15, 2011)

With such a poor reading of just about everything you touched upon in that post the words no hope are the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Putting that article to one side, I think ej is spot on. You have to take a long view of this to understand recent events. Far more people than the usual suspects are falling for the idea that there are some brand new unique dynamics here to be discovered. I think the OP and others on this thread fall into this trap. It's overthinking it, in fact imo.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 15, 2011)

If so many people are misreading the article, maybe the author should re-write it to make it clearer?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Well that article confused me. I said as much in my first post on this thread. The bits I think I do understand I disagree with.

I would wager that in every riot there's ever been, unsavoury types have been fairly prominent. That isn't actually saying anything very interesting, beyond the fact that juvenile delinquents, to resurrect an old term that is probably as apt as anything to describe them, are likely to enjoy a good riot. Well dur.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

It's not about the fucking riots.


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2011)

Help me out here, I went a little nutty at times reading the article. Such as at the very end of it, what exactly are they saying here?



> It is of course likely that a crushing recession will increase the numbers living in poverty, but the collective conclusions arrived at will also drive a welcome wedge between the working poor and the detritus of what will in time come to be regarded as little more than a  failed social experiment.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> If so many people are misreading the article, maybe the author should re-write it to make it clearer?



how is it that others understand it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

elbows said:


> Help me out here, I went a little nutty at times reading the article. Such as at the very end of it, what exactly are they saying here?


In isolation, that reads like it could have been written by a Tory think-tank looking for a justification to reintroduce the Victorian workhouse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not about the fucking riots.


But I wanted to make a point about the riots. And smokedout and others are right. These categories are fluid. Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase. They'll change as they grow up. They'll reach different conclusions about what they want to do and decide to get a job, in many cases. Of course in other cases, they'll drift in and out of jail and lead self-destructive chaotic lives. That's still no reason to write them off, though, or attempt to subdivide them from the rest of humanity.

I found that article, at its root, deeply misanthropic. Describing people, any people, as detritus. ffs.


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2011)

Sod it, Im going to watch some Marmalade Atkins on youtube, will likely learn as much from that as anything else.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In isolation, that reads like it could have been written by a Tory think-tank looking for a justification to reintroduce the Victorian workhouse.


Are you reading it in isolation? No you're not. You've had people explain over and over. So why respond as if you are?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But I wanted to make a point about the riots. And smokedout and others are right. These categories are fluid. Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase. They'll change as they grow up. They'll reach different conclusions about what they want to do and decide to get a job, in many cases. Of course in other cases, they'll drift in and out of jail and lead self-destructive chaotic lives. That's still no reason to write them off, though, or attempt to subdivide them from the rest of humanity.
> 
> I found that article, at its root, deeply misanthropic. Describing people, any people, as detritus. ffs.


It's not about the particular kids, it's about the behavior and what it means to political organising. Why is this not going in? Why in so many posts have you not once gone near what the OP is talking about?


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2011)

I asked for the explanation. I didn't read it in isolation, but it still tainted the article for me, it made me wonder if I should be reading between the lines a bit more.

In any case there are more important issues raised than that, so I don't want to derail things. So perhaps someone could help me out with this bit instead:



> In a post-industrial world having the ability to confidently define the core working class constituency is a must. Because it is only out of such a process that the political authority to _exclude_ as well as include can emerge.



Has anybody managed to do this very well in recent times, or even a while ago? Any pointers?


----------



## 1%er (Aug 15, 2011)

From what I have read on this board the only political group that has been mentioned as "having gone out to defend their community" is the EDL, is that correct?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Apols elbows, i was reading backwards and didn't realise it referred to a particular para. I didn't realise LBJ was quoting your stuff.

The bit you pick up on:



> It is of course likely that a crushing recession will increase the numbers living in poverty, but the collective conclusions arrived at will also drive a welcome wedge between the working poor and the detritus of what will in time come to be regarded as little more than a failed social experiment.



Sounds mental. Wrong and tactically stupid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> lumpen is clearly a euphemism for black and is therefore inherently racist in its interpretation of the situation.



Lumpen is generally a euphemism for a section of the working class, regardless of their melanin content. Anyone using it to denote "blackness" would be using it out of context and therefore making the people they set out to impress laugh at them instead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Not sure. Didn't they think he was a grass? He did shoot George Cornell, because he called him 'a fat poof'.



Grassing was used as an excuse, but not, IIRC, actually proven, more that he didn't pay sufficient respect to the twins, and did jobs on their territory without sanction.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase. They'll change as they grow up.


 
The kind of sentiment expressed at many a liberal middle class 'dinner party.'

The difference being that the article is looking for a way forward for those who have to put up with crime and anti-social behaviour on their doorsteps right now, as opposed to those who live at a far remove from it (and actually have a hard on about the gang culture in many cases.) Ah well.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 16, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> lumpen is clearly a euphemism for black and is therefore inherently racist in its interpretation of the situation.



What is it about liberal lefties and the urge to racialise everything?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> So far as I can see the OP shares the same fault as just about all the political/media bullshit about the riots/looting. In that it's based on an almost complete absence of communication with any of those involved in the riots



So how are you 'communicating' with those involved in the riots, Eric?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What is it about liberal lefties and the urge to racialise everything?


Can never tell when Garf is joking tbh. "Bintgate" was comedy gold, whether intentional or unintentional.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Can never tell when Garf is joking tbh. "Bintgate" was comedy gold, whether intentional or unintentional.


 
I'm unaware of him as a poster really, but talk about clutching at fucking straws.


----------



## love detective (Aug 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> These categories are fluid. Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase. They'll change as they grow up. They'll reach different conclusions about what they want to do and decide to get a job, in many cases



What the article is pointing towards is the danger of these 'categories' becoming fixed, i.e. the implications of what happens when those kind of behaviours & attitudes take root through different generations - what happens when people don't 'change as they grow up and reach different conclusions' - what happens when those existing attitudes are transmitted down through generations - what this means for attempts at pro-working class organisation

It's not referring to individual people doing one off things at a certain point in their life then moving on, it's about inter-generational ingrained behaviours & attitudes that have a debilatiting impact on confident pro-working class political organisation

Despite the various references in the article to the danger of these things taken root and becoming ingrained over generations - you appear to be reading this at the simplisitic level of it pointing at a couple of kids in the street playing chappie and then saying they'll soon grow out of it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 16, 2011)

love detective said:


> It's not referring to individual people doing one off things at a certain point in their life then moving on


I'm not referring to that either.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

In short the social conditions that produce and reproduce that behaviour, and how to break the logjam. _Priorities_.


----------



## love detective (Aug 16, 2011)

love detective said:
			
		

> It's not referring to individual people doing one off things at a certain point in their life then moving on





littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not referring to that either.



what does this refer to then, if not that?:-

_



			
				littlebabyjesus said:
			
		


			Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase. They'll change as they grow up
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 16, 2011)

love detective said:


> what does this refer to then, if not that?:-



*To say, 'Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase. They'll change as they grow up,' is irrelevant anyway when you consider that 90% of the problem is what they get up to before they grow out of it and the ones that fail to grow out of it and in many cases actually become worse.*

*(Edit: why has this post appeared in bold type?)*


----------



## TopCat (Aug 16, 2011)

Well all you IWCA types here, you put this article out a good while back. What do you draw in the way of conclusions and action plans?


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 16, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So how are you 'communicating' with those involved in the riots, Eric?



A couple of conversations in the street and one on a bus. That's all I am prepared to specify.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> If so many people are misreading the article, maybe the author should re-write it to make it clearer?



Good idea.

Maybe it can conclude that there is a) no lumpen underclass. B) that there is, but its best not mentioned in polite circles, for reasons of morale; of c) there might well be, but as far was we can see, if the rioting gang members (1in 4 of those arrested thus far) are anything to by, there is nothing to worry about, as they are either sincerly political, or jolly nice fellows once you get to know them.

And even the ones that possibly aren't (such as the gang that a attacked a middle aged Asian couple for their van, with a female accomplice screaming; "Burn them! Burn them!")  its probably just a phase (along with the crack-dealing) they are going through?

I'll have a word.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 16, 2011)

Don't normaly quote from the Guardian but can this be justified as necessary collateral damage by misguided allies of the working class?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-en.../uk-riots-aftermath-effects-damage?intcmp=239


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Don't normaly quote from the Guardian but can this be justified as necessary collateral damage by misguided allies of the working class?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-en.../uk-riots-aftermath-effects-damage?intcmp=239


no, i don't think anyone can justify quoting from the guardian


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i don't think anyone can justify quoting from the guardian



I half heartedly re read the post before pressing send and thought mmm 'I wonder if anyone will pick up on that?' before trying to get back to the football scores to see if i was likely to win my bet.


----------



## love detective (Aug 16, 2011)

> Three barricades were placed across main routes by setting industrial wheelie bins alight. They moved up the street breaking into the working men's club to steal the slot machines and a man unlucky to have left the club to smoke was beaten up





> Finally they headed to one of the community centres we manage, The Chestnut Centre in the Deighton area of Kirklees, which was attacked around midnight. About 30 youths smashed through the front doors over powering our two building support officers to steal the free to use ATM we provide to allow local residents to withdraw cash without being charged, and a cash till.


_"Meaningful action is whatever increases the confidence the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification"_


----------



## love detective (Aug 16, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Well all you IWCA types here, you put this article out a good while back. What do you draw in the way of conclusions and action plans?



conclusions from what - the response to the article?

thoroughly predictable i would have said


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 16, 2011)

love detective said:


> conclusions from what - the response to the article?
> 
> thoroughly predictable i would have said



They're not conclusions as regards the article though, simply implied responses to what peoiple have said here.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> A couple of conversations in the street and one on a bus. That's all I am prepared to specify.


 
You were lucky, getting on that bus just when there happened to be rioters on it.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Good idea.
> 
> Maybe it can conclude that there is a) no lumpen underclass. B) that there is, but its best not mentioned in polite circles, for reasons of morale; of c) there might well be, but as far was we can see, if the rioting gang members (1in 4 of those arrested thus far) are anything to by, there is nothing to worry about, as they are either sincerly political, or jolly nice fellows once you get to know them.
> 
> ...



I do think that the critics of the article though like smokedout have a point (even tho I don't necessarily agree with them) in that there are some problems with the article - especially that last bit that elbows pointed out.

also, there's also the question of how you define the "lumpen" (i dont really like using that word, but anyway) because i'm also uncomfortable with defining a class by morality. not that i'm saying that people are doing it, but i'm also wondering how else people would define it, whether there's a "technical" definition, but if it just means criminals, don't these come from all classes? because wasn't the original definition of lumpen including people like the long-term unemployed and sick who most people considering themselves on the left today would consider them part of the working class.

i'm not having a go at anyone here, i'm just wondering how you'd define it tbh.


----------



## love detective (Aug 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> They're not conclusions as regards the article though, simply implied responses to what peoiple have said here.



the conclusions drawn about the particular issue itself are what led to the piece being written in the first place - the conclusions re the issue come prior to, not post, the writing of the piece

the only thing to conclude upon, post publication the article, are the inevitable and thoroughly predictable responses to it


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 17, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You were lucky, getting on that bus just when there happened to be rioters on it.



I live on the bloody Angell Town Estate, where do you think the looters come from, Mayfair?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I live on the bloody Angell Town Estate, where do you think the looters come from, Mayfair?


it's perhaps where they should *go*


----------



## love detective (Aug 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Describing people, any people, as detritus. ffs.



Most people criticising the article will have no problem (quite correctly) describing some working class people as filth, pigs, scab, scum and using all kinds of terms that are specifically intended & carefully constructed to dehumanise them as a result of their choices in life and the impact of those choices on the working class.

And the backdrop to this is always one of choice, not a pre-determined thing - i.e. we don't look to excuse or playdown the impact of the bailliff or the scab by pointing towards structural soci-economic factors - instead it's rightly condemed for what it is and it's effects

So to come out with the mock shock horror at certain terms being used to describe, people, 'any people', is shot through with hypocrisy & contradiction


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I do think that the critics of the article though like smokedout have a point (even tho I don't necessarily agree with them) in that there are some problems with the article - especially that last bit that elbows pointed out.
> 
> also, there's also the question of how you define the "lumpen" (i dont really like using that word, but anyway) because i'm also uncomfortable with defining a class by morality. not that i'm saying that people are doing it, but i'm also wondering how else people would define it, whether there's a "technical" definition, but if it just means criminals, don't these come from all classes? because wasn't the original definition of lumpen including people like the long-term unemployed and sick who most people considering themselves on the left today would consider them part of the working class.
> 
> i'm not having a go at anyone here, i'm just wondering how you'd define it tbh.



The primary aim of the article is, to argue that as a result of 30 years of neo-liberal oppression, one of the consequences is the emergence of an underclass seperate and distinct from the working class and indeed actively hostile to it, even on a day to day basis. It's also points out that one of its distinguishing features is its _lack_ of morality, brazeness, it's egregious sense of entitlement, absense of empathy, - identifying features in other words. It is not about criminality as such, but a philosophical attitude the lumpen have towards it. The lumpen can be made up from all social classes, what unifies them, (apart from the above) is that they ultimately reside at the bottom of the food chain.

Being long term sick or unemployed does not mean you are no longer working class, unless it comes with the core philosophy. However, when one generation follows another over a 30 year period or more, then, inevitably, social and political attitudes are impacted. It matters to the rest of society, but most of all it matters to the working class in whose communities they reside.

Ulimately the question is whether you allow political standards to drop in order to accomodate them within the working class; become in fact apologists for them, as many on here, and in a wider field are doing, which if succesful, will in time destroy entirely working class morale, and with it the ability to think for itself, or you set your face against it. And for reasons of political self-interest, whole-heartedly condemn it.

Ps: as for Elbows and 'the fights at the Xmas social', if that is the point you are making, what he describes, is nothing more than a cameo of working class life at the rougher end, many will be familiar with, and has nothing at all to with the predicament outlined by the IWCA.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 17, 2011)

There is nothing even remotely new in this surely. Read Hegels Philosophy of Right section 244.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The primary aim of the article is, to argue that as a result of 30 years of neo-liberal oppression, one of the consequences is the emergence of an underclass seperate and distinct from the working class and indeed actively hostile to it, even on a day to day basis. It's also points out that one of its distinguishing features is its _lack_ of morality, brazeness, it's egregious sense of entitlement, absense of empathy, - identifying features in other words. It is not about criminality as such, but a philosophical attitude the lumpen have towards it. The lumpen can be made up from all social classes, what unifies them, (apart from the above) is that they ultimately reside at the bottom of the food chain.
> 
> Being long term sick or unemployed does not mean you are no longer working class, unless it comes with the core philosophy. However, when one generation follows another over a 30 year period or more, then, inevitably, social and political attitudes are impacted. It matters to the rest of society, but most of all it matters to the working class in whose communities they reside.
> 
> ...


thanks for the reply, nah i wasn't referring to that bit, i get you, but i was referring more to elbows' reference to "the detritus of a failed social experiment", which i didn't like the overall tone of.

i think there's a difference between being apologists for that kind of behaviour and trying to explain it though. im not sure anyone is trying to make excuses for the kind of behaviour we saw during the riots, with flats being set on fire with people living above them etc.

the question is though, what do we do about it? is there any way of reaching those people (or at least their kids?) i honestly don't know


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 17, 2011)

"apologists", "economic determinism", it strikes me that the misreading goes both ways.


----------



## love detective (Aug 17, 2011)

well when we get responses like this:-



> Many of the people who that article appears to wish to write off are just kids going through a phase



to something that is being described in the article as an inter-generational phenomena and ascribed just as much to adults us to kids - you're left with either two conclusions - a complete misreading of what the article is getting at on the part of the commentator or an attempt by same to apologise for/diminish the impact of the tendencies that the article is getting at


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

i'm honestly not having a go, but i'm just a bit confused about some stuff in the article and i'm still quite confused tbh.

would someone who works for a living and yet harbours the same social attitude as the lumpen (which im not disputing exist) described in the article, and has been known to indulge in anti-social behaviour, stealing from others at work etc, would they be classed as lumpen despite their relationship to the overall means of production being that of the working class? would, for example, people who had a job but were habitual scabs be described as lumpen? and do you accept that in the case of someone who behaves antisocially, that that behaviour can change, and how would you going about trying to "help" them change?

like someone who's engaging in a bit of petty thievery now and again and has that sort of "i can take that phone coz its nothing to do with me" type attitude, like an ex gf i had, but was later able to sort herself out and now has a pretty good job, it strikes me that many people she knew had the same type of attitude, so ostracising her in the sort of way the article may be construed as advocating (which in the area she lived in would of been mostly by older people) might have not done her any good, because the majority of people she was mates with at that time had the same type of attitude, so it would have just made it worse cos they'd think "why should i listen to you anyway?

and what would you suggest to be done to help people who are in danger of falling into that kind of lifestyle, for example the children of the people the article describes? or should they be helped, or whatever.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i'm honestly not having a go, but i'm just a bit confused about some stuff in the article and i'm still quite confused tbh.
> 
> would someone who works for a living and yet harbours the same social attitude as the lumpen (which im not disputing exist) described in the article, and has been known to indulge in anti-social behaviour, stealing from others at work etc, would they be classed as lumpen despite their relationship to the overall means of production being that of the working class? would, for example, people who had a job but were habitual scabs be described as lumpen? and do you accept that in the case of someone who behaves antisocially, that that behaviour can change, and how would you going about trying to "help" them change?
> 
> ...



As with all classes, the relationship between them can be fluid. Some working class people mimic the attitudes of the middle class, while some middle class,  mimic the clothes style, attitudes and behaviour of the lower classes. However, that does not alter the fundamental of where they are. Individual cases can be wrought with contradictions. (For example if someone in work is a habitual thief, then sooner or later they will be caught and sacked. Will struggle to get a reference...and so down the slippery slope. Scabs are i would argue, not lumpen, but do fall into a seperate category of class opponent). Which is why the article attempted to raise the issue from a class perspective. The social base for the underclass is already big. Can anything be done? Again, unless capitalism rights itself, with a return to a manufacturing base, apprenticeships and so forth, then no. That is not say that the young walking wounded shouldn't, where possible, be offered a helping hand, but that requires resources, skill and dedication etc  With Britain entering a recession and the real cuts still to be imposed, this is likely to get considerably worse, (the ratio of lumpen to working class will accelerate) before it gets better. If, indeed it does gets better.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The primary aim of the article is, to argue that as a result of 30 years of neo-liberal oppression, one of the consequences is the emergence of an underclass seperate and distinct from the working class and indeed actively hostile to it, even on a day to day basis. It's also points out that one of its distinguishing features is its _lack_ of morality, brazeness, it's egregious sense of entitlement, absense of empathy, - identifying features in other words. It is not about criminality as such, but a philosophical attitude the lumpen have towards it.



but it's so vague, all of those distinguishing features are subjective, how do they behave, what is the problem we face (and we all know there are problems), how do we deal with it?

without that you just fall into a trap of condemning the nasty people, (nothing to do with lumpen in its original meaning incidentally, so probably not that helpful a term) - you've defined what nasty is, but not how it manifests - this is the difficult bit, well that and then deciding what to do about it


----------



## smokedout (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your totally missing the point of the article. Sure there has always been 'well known famiies' etc but what we are talking about here is _scale._ The amount of people that operate at that level now, is vast. For example we know how many murder are attributed to Krays, we can, with effort even recall their names. They were grown men, killers and victims alike.
> 
> Now guess how many children/teenagers have been knifed/shot in London in the last few years - by other children/teenagers? 60? 80? 100?
> 
> Now - name them.



i think is about personal perception, it seems that 2009/2010 had the lowest murder rate in london in 20 years

i'm not convinced there has been a massive increase in what the iwca's piece describes as a lumpen class - it might look different, fashions change, but im not convinced the streets are any more dangerous than they were when i was growing up.  my great aunt who had down's syndrome and my great granny went through hell in the 80s on her estate because of local kids.  that not acting as an apologist or denying there's a problem, but i don't accept its a new problem - some things are better, some are worse because societal attitudes have changed (every asian shop in bradford outside of manningham used to be boarded up and covered in racist graffiti for example, people were regularly hospitalised leaving the one and only gay club, and there was virtual armed on warfare on the streets every saturday night in town)

i'm not sure even radicals are immune from worrying about kids today


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 17, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i think is about personal perception, it seems that 2009/2010 had the lowest murder rate in london in 20 years
> 
> i'm not convinced there has been a massive increase in what the iwca's piece describes as a lumpen class - it might look different, fashions change, but im not convinced the streets are any more dangerous than they were when i was growing up. my great aunt who had down's syndrome and my great granny went through hell in the 80s on her estate because of local kids. that not acting as an apologist or denying there's a problem, but i don't accept its a new problem - some things are better, some are worse because societal attitudes have changed (every asian shop in bradford outside of manningham used to be boarded up and covered in racist graffiti for example, people were regularly hospitalised leaving the one and only gay club, and there was virtual armed on warfare on the streets every saturday night in town)
> 
> i'm not sure even radicals are immune from worrying about kids today



All about perception. True. But this is a two way street as many working class communities don't even call police these days. Complete waste of time.

Apart from that 'knife-enabled' crime and 'gun enabled crime' are steady or even upward, while far more tellingly ABH and GBH offences have almost _doubled_ since 1999.

Moreover teens on teen murder for which there is, no statistical precedent historically, is totally off the charts.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> All about perception. True. But this is a two way street as many working class communities don't even call police these days. Complete waste of time.



they never did though in fairness.  id suggest that people are more likely to involve the police these days,



> Apart from that 'knife-enabled' crime and 'gun enabled crime' are steady or even upward, while far more tellingly ABH and GBH offences have almost _doubled_ since 1999.



it does point out that is due to a reclassification - rior to NCRS minor injuries were counted as common assault although post NCRS any assault with injury would be categorised as ABH.



> Moreover teens on teen murder for which there is, no statistical precedent historically, is totally off the charts.



it can't be off the charts if there is no statistical precedent, there isnt a chart.  id agree it does seem to be a problem at the moment, although in the absence of data its difficult to know how much worse, if at all, it has got.  but since its an easily identifiable phenomena that seems a good place to start - how can we address that, can we be more effective than the police, if not is working with the police justified?

see, its getting tricky already


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I do think that the critics of the article though like smokedout have a point (even tho I don't necessarily agree with them) in that there are some problems with the article - especially that last bit that elbows pointed out.
> 
> also, there's also the question of how you define the "lumpen" (i dont really like using that word, but anyway) because i'm also uncomfortable with defining a class by morality. not that i'm saying that people are doing it, but i'm also wondering how else people would define it, whether there's a "technical" definition, but if it just means criminals, don't these come from all classes? because wasn't the original definition of lumpen including people like the long-term unemployed and sick who most people considering themselves on the left today would consider them part of the working class.
> 
> i'm not having a go at anyone here, i'm just wondering how you'd define it tbh.



 Not my quote (I have probably mis quoted it) ,and not a definition in its self but a step in that direction  : Rather than The Wire being the nightmare it was , for some its an aspiration


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 17, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they never did though in fairness. id suggest that people are more likely to involve the police these days,
> 
> it does point out that is due to a reclassification - rior to NCRS minor injuries were counted as common assault although post NCRS any assault with injury would be categorised as ABH.
> 
> ...



Broadly i would agree with your first view but generally confidence in the criminal justice ssytem, the Police and Council dealing with asb , perceptions of asb are all lower  in deprived areas than others.Even with lower levels of reporting crime and asb in these areas are higher than borough averages. Take out city and town centre figures ( in which evening economy violence inflates the figures) and you will find violence is generally higher as well.

The fact that even under this government there is money about ( alebit to the third sector) for gun, knife and gangs work shows something .


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Not my quote (I have probably mis quoted it) ,and not a definition in its self but a step in that direction : Rather than The Wire being the nightmare it was , for some its an aspiration


I don't disagree with that at all, but can you really classify a class by its overall *attitude* towards these kinds of issues rather than more objective criteria?

im not saying you can or can't, btw, but these seem to be more psychological rather than economic characteristics? Or does the psychological aspect feed into the economic aspect and vice versa?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I don't disagree with that at all, but can you really classify a class by its overall *attitude* towards these kinds of issues rather than more objective criteria?
> 
> im not saying you can or can't, btw, but these seem to be more psychological rather than economic characteristics?



Its not just an economic relation to capital that defines the working class as the agent of change , it defines it potential to  set out what unites it and the potential to develop a set of  politics that defend its class interests. Surely the SP have some discussion about what the issue of a class being for itself is all about?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 17, 2011)

This is the quote btw


> They’ve created a sub strata of society for whom ‘The Wire’ is an inspiration rather than a nightmare.”



and its in this stimulating article which follows some of the IWCA thinking :
http://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/thoughts-on-the-british-riots/


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Its not just an economic relation to capital that defines the working class as the agent of change , it defines it potential to set out what unites it and the potential to develop a set of politics that defend its class interests. Surely the SP have some discussion about what the issue of a class being for itself is all about?



Yeah, and we have had discussions about it, but to be honest i am still quite confused about this stuff. I understand the whole thing about how the lumpen class don't have the same interests as the working class, frequently don't see themselves as part of the working class and don't have the same sort of shared common lifestyle such as the discipline of going to work, etc, and also why there wouldn't be the same sense of shared solidarity that you may have ordinarily had (something that the demise of very large workplaces like mining etc has also contributed to, and the increased atomisation of society). But to be honest, it's not something that's been discussed that much (or that I've discussed).

I think part of the problem here (and this is just on the left more generally) is that i think that some people have become almost scared of discussing this whole issue, as LD pointed out many middle class people, but also some working class people as well, so there hasn't been as much discussion over it as there has been over other aspects of capitalism, and also partly as a reaction I think to the whole media bullshit about "chavs" etc. I think that the riots have shown the need to have some sort of proper discussion about it and I think that will take place.

I will admit though to feeling quite confused about all of this though. thats more to do with me though.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> This is the quote btw
> 
> and its in this stimulating article which follows some of the IWCA thinking :
> http://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/thoughts-on-the-british-riots/



That's a very good and interesting article. the comments are also interesting especially the second one

i dont really think i can go whole-heartedly with the original article tho


----------



## cantsin (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The primary aim of the article is, to argue that as a result of 30 years of neo-liberal oppression, one of the consequences is the emergence of an underclass seperate and distinct from the working class and indeed actively hostile to it, even on a day to day basis. It's also points out that one of its distinguishing features is its _lack_ of morality, brazeness, it's egregious sense of entitlement, absense of empathy, - identifying features in other words. It is not about criminality as such, but a philosophical attitude the lumpen have towards it. The lumpen can be made up from all social classes, what unifies them, (apart from the above) is that they ultimately reside at the bottom of the food chain.
> 
> Being long term sick or unemployed does not mean you are no longer working class, unless it comes with the core philosophy. However, when one generation follows another over a 30 year period or more, then, inevitably, social and political attitudes are impacted. It matters to the rest of society, but most of all it matters to the working class in whose communities they reside.
> 
> ...



.

Anyone interested in a response to the "working class morale " sapping "lumpens" rioting in LA 50 years ago, one that has arguably more to say about last weeks events than the OP in this thread  ever could , check out Guy Debords at the time unattributed response to the Watts riots here :

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/decline.html


----------



## newbie (Aug 17, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Ulimately the question is whether you allow political standards to drop in order to accomodate them within the working class; become in fact apologists for them, as many on here, and in a wider field are doing, which if succesful, will in time destroy entirely working class morale, and with it the ability to think for itself, or you set your face against it. And for reasons of political self-interest, whole-heartedly condemn it.


Interesting.

I thought this was just about words on the screen, but that last sentence gives pause for thought. The quotes elbows questioned about "_the political authority to exclude as well as include_" and "_drive a welcome wedge between the working poor and the detritus_" trouble me too, because I don't know what's meant. Where's this going, what's the objective?

What would the society you're striving for look like?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I live on the bloody Angell Town Estate, where do you think the looters come from, Mayfair?



Oh the Angell Town Estate. And the looters just happened to be on that bus.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

cantsin said:


> .
> 
> Anyone interested in a response to the "working class morale " sapping "lumpens" rioting in LA 50 years ago, one that has arguably more to say about last weeks events than the OP in this thread ever could , check out Guy Debords at the time unattributed response to the Watts riots here :
> 
> http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/decline.html



One of those terribly ambitious articles that 60 years later is frankly embarrasing


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> That's a very good and interesting article
> i dont really think i can go whole-heartedly with the original article tho



Given the redline analysis fully endorses the IWCA article - how do you reconcile feeling comfortable with the former but not the later?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they never did though in fairness. id suggest that people are more likely to involve the police these days,
> 
> it does point out that is due to a reclassification - rior to NCRS minor injuries were counted as common assault although post NCRS any assault with injury would be categorised as ABH.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> Given the redline analysis fully endorses the IWCA article - how do you reconcile feeling comfortable with the former but not the later?



presentation, style, content, words used etc. The IWCA article seems to go out of it's way to 'label' and condemn with an almost Blairite mesdsianic zeal (ironic given Blair was so hot on presentation and style). The RL article whilst ostensibly arguiing the same points is, imho, better written and as such less affusive in it's seeming desperation to attack and condemn. Surely, as an organisation that has ritually attacked Left groups for the way they write and articulate, amongst other things the IWCA can take things on the chin about their writing and style can't they?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 18, 2011)

I was interested in Joe Reilly's assertion that one in four of the arrested rioters was a gang member. I assume that this figure was taken from the Evening Standards reporting this week? Whatever the validity of this police supplied "fact" it certainly made me interested in the numbers of people estimated to be part of gangs in London. I'm staggered by the (estimated) numbers.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> presentation, style, content, words used etc. The IWCA article seems to go out of it's way to 'label' and condemn with an almost Blairite mesdsianic zeal (ironic given Blair was so hot on presentation and style). The RL article whilst ostensibly arguiing the same points is, imho, better written and as such less affusive in it's seeming desperation to attack and condemn. Surely, as an organisation that has ritually attacked Left groups for the way they write and articulate, amongst other things the IWCA can take things on the chin about their writing and style can't they?



Well, what he said really. I think the language used has a big part of it IMO, I admit like other posters to feeling quite uncomfortable with the use of things like "detritus of a failed social experiment" etc.


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

right so we are moving away from a criticism (and disagreement of) the substance & core & essential message of the article itself to the fact that some people don't like the specific language used to express that substance

so it's not the message, it's the way it's delivered?

It should be more polite?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> right so we are moving away from a criticism (and disagreement of) the substance & core & essential message of the article itself to the fact that some people don't like the specific language used to express that substance
> 
> so it's not the message, it's the way it's delivered?
> 
> It should be more polite?



Yeah that's it? 

What was that about predictable responses again?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

Given that it's addressing a problem that pretty much everyone knows exists and that is spoken about by politicians of all hues including, at length, by Ian Duncan Smith, I would have thought that the language used to talk about such a widely recognised phenomenon is absolutely crucial. In fact I don't see how you can separate the language used by the article from the article's message - it is a part of the article's message.


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Yeah that's it?
> 
> What was that about predictable responses again?!



In your own words

_presentation, style, content, words used etc_

Don't start greeting when I just regurgitate what you replied


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given that it's addressing a problem that pretty much everyone knows exists



Some of the more recent criticisms on here (smokedout etc..) have appeared to put forward the argument that the problem in fact does not exist or is too 'subjective' to actually define and find out whether it does exist


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> Some of the more recent criticisms on here (smokedout etc..) have appeared to put forward the argument that the problem in fact does not exist or is too 'subjective' to actually define and find out whether it does exist


That's not how I read smokedout's position. I don't think he is denying the existence of a problem so much as wanting a bit more rigour in identifying exactly what kind of problem it is. Anyway, he can speak for himself. That's certainly my position, however.


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not how I read smokedout's position. I don't think he is denying the existence of a problem so much as wanting a bit more rigour in identifying exactly what kind of problem it is. Anyway, he can speak for himself. That's certainly my position, however.



The comments I was referring to seem fairly straightforward in their meaning to me:-

_i think is about personal perception_

_i'm not convinced there has been a massive increase in what the iwca's piece describes as a lumpen class_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

Right, well he's questioning whether this is a new phenomenon and if not whether it is worse now that it was.

Again, I can't speak for smokedout, but it clearly isn't a new problem. Is it worse now than it was? Possibly, as a result of the pretty much permanently high new levels of unemployment that we've seen since 1980. Taking a long view, it certainly isn't worse than Victorian times, but it might be worse than, say, the 1950s. I don't know, though. I'd like to see more evidence of that. For instance, it could be that the size and activity of the 'lumpen' really is just a function of the level of unemployment (that plus the availability of a potentially attractive way of working illegally - namely drug-dealing). Just as you expect burglaries to increase as unemployment increases, so you also expect other forms of anti-social behaviour to increase.

btw I am absolutely not trying to imply any kind of determinism here. Not at all. But place x thousand people in a particular set of social conditions and you can expect y proportion of them to take certain options. That's all. At the same time, every one will be making individual decisions for which they can potentially be held to account. But the children of millionaires don't generally get given asbos. That's not because the children of millionaires are morally superior to the children of the poor.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> The comments I was referring to seem fairly straightforward in their meaning to me:-
> 
> _i think is about personal perception_
> 
> _i'm not convinced there has been a* massive increase* in what the iwca's piece describes as a lumpen class_



pretty straight forward to me too


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> In your own words
> 
> _presentation, style, content, words used etc_
> 
> Don't start greeting when I just regurgitate what you replied



Who is greeting? I never once mentioned 'polite', what was that about wondering if people are reading the same stuff as you? It is imho badly written, enthusiastically writing about these brutal lumpens in the same damning tones as Blair and Co. To me it doesn't read as well and as politically astute as the RL piece. Politically it's got a better pro-working-class position that some of the hysterical guff written as near paeans to the 'uprising'. But, I don't like the way it's written. Not something you need to get prissy about, but hey ho.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 18, 2011)

poorly written perhaps as bait, to elicit the response expected and wanted, so that the writer can moan about it


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 18, 2011)

So, is lumpen the new PC term for Chavs then?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2011)

not sure lumpen has ever been pc tbh


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> poorly written perhaps as bait, to elicit the response expected and wanted, so that the writer can moan about it



yeah that was the overriding political purpose of the article


----------



## smokedout (Aug 18, 2011)

call me a cynic


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Who is greeting? I never once mentioned 'polite', what was that about wondering if people are reading the same stuff as you? It is imho badly written, enthusiastically writing about these brutal lumpens in the same damning tones as Blair and Co. To me it doesn't read as well and as politically astute as the RL piece. Politically it's got a better pro-working-class position that some of the hysterical guff written as near paeans to the 'uprising'. But, I don't like the way it's written. Not something you need to get prissy about, but hey ho.



fair enough - you don't like the way it's written, you don't like the tone of it

that was my original point to you - you don't seem to disagree with the substance, just the way it's expressed - not something you need to go all rolly eyed about


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> call me a cynic



i thought you were smarter than that for sure


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> poorly written perhaps as bait, to elicit the response expected and wanted, so that the writer can moan about it



I doubt it, the article, politically speaking, has a far better outlook than most things written on the riots.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> fair enough - you don't like the way it's written, you don't like the tone of it
> 
> that was my original point to you - you don't seem to disagree with the substance, just the way it's expressed - not something you need to go all rolly eyed about



It's too 'black and white' uses language that seems happy to 'divide'. I reckon it coulda been better written, the RL article I think says the same things better.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> So, is lumpen the new PC term for Chavs then?



not one of natures most brightest are you?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given that it's addressing a problem that pretty much everyone knows exists and that is spoken about by politicians of all hues including, at length, by Ian Duncan Smith, I would have thought that the language used to talk about such a widely recognised phenomenon is absolutely crucial. In fact I don't see how you can separate the language used by the article from the article's message - it is a part of the article's message.



Duncan-Smith thinks that lumpen anti social criminal elements are a threat to social solidarity in working class areas? Don't think so chum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Duncan-Smith thinks that lumpen anti social criminal elements are a threat to social solidarity in working class areas? Don't think so chum.


He wouldn't use those words. He would be more likely to talk about things like social cohesion or 'community values'. It's still talking about the same thing, just from a different perspective.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He wouldn't use those words. He would be more likely to talk about things like social cohesion or 'community values'. It's still talking about the same thing, just from a different perspective.



Isn't that the point? We are talking about it from an entirely different perspective.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 18, 2011)

love detective said:


> i thought you were smarter than that for sure



its obviously written to be a provocative piece, which is generally a good thing imo, but i dont think it is in this case.  11 pages in and we're still discussing the merits of the words used and things that dont really matter (like whether this is a new phenomena or not).  there is a lot of agreement on this thread, but we're still nowhere close to discussing solutions, or even how to precisely identify the problems


----------



## love detective (Aug 18, 2011)

your initial claim was that the piece was intentionally written in a poor manner in order to elicit an expected response, which would then allow the author to moan about it

do you honestly think that is the case?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> not one of natures most brightest are you?



These lumpen really don't have a sense of humour, do they?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I was interested in Joe Reilly's assertion that one in four of the arrested rioters was a gang member. I assume that this figure was taken from the Evening Standards reporting this week? Whatever the validity of this police supplied "fact" it certainly made me interested in the numbers of people estimated to be part of gangs in London. I'm staggered by the (estimated) numbers.



One figure mentioned by David Davis on Question Time was about 240 criminal gangs in London, substantially up from the last count in 2006. What I'm 'staggered about' is not just the numbers but their banal visciousness. Another 14 year old stabbed to death today. As the article points out the sociopathic nihilism they display has no parallel in recent history. The studied insouciance of the so-called liberal left at the carnage (with some particularly choice comments on here) is about standard for another set of people without a compass, moral or otherwise. Imagine for a moment the brouhaha if the perpetrators were white? But becuase the perps, as well the victims are overhwhelmingly black, in the absence of any obvious political advantage they cynicaly choose to ignore it entirely. Can there be a better example of unconscious racism? At least the 'institutionally racist' police actually address the problem.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Well, what he said really. I think the language used has a big part of it IMO, I admit like other posters to feeling quite uncomfortable with the use of things like "detritus of a failed social experiment" etc.



If intention of the neo-liberal experiment was as oft stated, to make 'us all middle class', or at the least some pastiche of it, how else to describe that section of the population,  who instead of climbing the social ladder, broke off from the working class alright - but in the opposite direction?

For what its worth it dosen't actually describe them as 'detritus' per se - though many would.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 19, 2011)

smokedout said:


> call me a cynic



There are other words that spring to mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> One figure mentioned by David Davis on Question Time was about 240 criminal gangs in London, substantially up from the last count in 2006. What I'm 'staggered about' is not just the numbers but their banal visciousness. Another 14 year old stabbed to death today. As the article points out the sociopathic nihilism they display has no parallel in recent history. The studied insouciance of the so-called liberal left at the carnage (with some particularly choice comments on here) is about standard for another set of people without a compass, moral or otherwise. Imagine for a moment the brouhaha if the perpetrators were white? But becuase the perps, as well the victims are overhwhelmingly black, in the absence of any obvious political advantage they cynicaly choose to ignore it entirely. Can there be a better example of unconscious racism? At least the 'institutionally racist' police actually address the problem.


re the last count in 2006: i'm sure there was something in the standard last year about this. i will have a look in the morning.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> One figure mentioned by David Davis on Question Time was about 240 criminal gangs in London, substantially up from the last count in 2006. What I'm 'staggered about' is not just the numbers but their banal visciousness. Another 14 year old stabbed to death today. As the article points out the sociopathic nihilism they display has no parallel in recent history. The studied insouciance of the so-called liberal left at the carnage (with some particularly choice comments on here) is about standard for another set of people without a compass, moral or otherwise. Imagine for a moment the brouhaha if the perpetrators were white? But becuase the perps, as well the victims are overhwhelmingly black, in the absence of any obvious political advantage they cynicaly choose to ignore it entirely. Can there be a better example of unconscious racism? At least the 'institutionally racist' police actually address the problem.



Exactly and that laissez faire attitutude that says 'they'll grow out of it' is based on the notion of individual liberty overriding (working) class interest .

The unconcious racism bit made me think about how youth are percieved/portrayed say in Eltham and how they are percieved in Tottenham.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Exactly and that laissez faire attitutude that says 'they'll grow out of it' is based on the notion of individual liberty overriding (working) class interest .
> 
> The unconcious racism bit made me think about how youth are percieved/portrayed say in Eltham and how they are percieved in Tottenham.


badly in both cases


----------



## smokedout (Aug 19, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> One figure mentioned by David Davis on Question Time was about 240 criminal gangs in London, substantially up from the last count in 2006. What I'm 'staggered about' is not just the numbers but their banal visciousness. Another 14 year old stabbed to death today. As the article points out the sociopathic nihilism they display has no parallel in recent history.



but you've failed to demonstrate this. anyone can point to one or a spate of horrific crimes and point to a moral decline. people have been doing that for hundreds of years.



> The studied insouciance of the so-called liberal left at the carnage (with some particularly choice comments on here) is about standard for another set of people without a compass, moral or otherwise. Imagine for a moment the brouhaha if the perpetrators were white? But becuase the perps, as well the victims are overhwhelmingly black, in the absence of any obvious political advantage they cynicaly choose to ignore it entirely. Can there be a better example of unconscious racism? At least the 'institutionally racist' police actually address the problem.



lol, you have to think they're detritus or you're a RACIST!!!


----------



## smokedout (Aug 19, 2011)

love detective said:


> your initial claim was that the piece was intentionally written in a poor manner in order to elicit an expected response, which would then allow the author to moan about it
> 
> do you honestly think that is the case?



I was being a bit sarky, I do think the piece was written to provoke a reaction, but i won't second guess the motives of the author.  it's being used that way though, on this thread - you have to accept not just the premise of the piece, but the assumptions and the tone of the piece or you're a liberal/racist


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Exactly and that laissez faire attitutude that says 'they'll grow out of it' is based on the notion of individual liberty overriding (working) class interest .


Is this a reference to what I wrote? If it is, it is bad misrepresentation of it.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2011)

love detective said:


> right so we are moving away from a criticism (and disagreement of) the substance & core & essential message of the article itself to the fact that some people don't like the specific language used to express that substance
> 
> so it's not the message, it's the way it's delivered?
> 
> It should be more polite?


Nah not so fast. I have afew things to say about the content. Let me get a bit of work done and i will come back to this.


----------



## revlon (Aug 19, 2011)

love detective said:


> right so we are moving away from a criticism (and disagreement of) the substance & core & essential message of the article itself to the fact that some people don't like the specific language used to express that substance
> 
> so it's not the message, it's the way it's delivered?
> 
> It should be more polite?



the problem is there is little substance to it, and the nuggets of clarity get lost by the social anthropology work out (which takes up over half the article). This diminishes any message in the meat and gristle of the latter part.

The article would work as a personal opinion on 'a comment is free' type platform, as a strategy forward it needs a lot more work (and maybe a stronger editiorial process)


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2011)

The argument that people who make choices that impinge on working class people and communities in an adverse manner shoud be identified and opposed is seemingly straightforward.

Yes I have always regarded balliffs, debt collectors and to a lesser extent police and screws as scum. I have never applied this same label to gang members for several reasons and perhaps I am wrong not to have done so.

Motivations for making the choices to become a bailiff or gang member are crucial here. It is often the unaligned who get attacked in gang related conflict and this fear of attack will be a motivating factor for people to join. Opportunities for young men are few and far between and for young black men non existent in many places.

Contrast this with say a certified bailiff or a police man. By the nature of the job they have been able to secure, they have many more opportunities open to them for example no criminal record, references, basic qualifications etc. So to make the step of becoming a copper or a bailiff is to exercise a choice knowing other choices that do not cause harm to working class people are available.

Add to this the rhetoric expressed in the article, this rhetoric is to many an observer uncomfortably close to the anti working class rhetoric expressed by the whole spectrum of politicians in the UK. This is the root of the criticisms made with regard to the words and phrases used.

Further there is a feeling that the article is trying to rail road the reader into agreeing with it's position with perhaps a sense of disquiet that the IWCA will then say "well if you agree with this analysis then this plan of action is logical and appropriate". When people of all parties have called for "something to be done" about gangs and youth initiated violence, the _something or solution _is usually unpleasant and generally racist in application. It's understandable for people to be wary on this even knowing the considerable history of the IWCA in progressive anti racist politics.

This proffered solution (by the mainstream parties) will also impact on more people that the target group (in this case gangs), for example all young working class people get the solution applied to them, increased stop and search, mandatory minimum sentences, general harassment by the police etc.

In order to gather support for actions against an identified grouping that undermine working class organisation and impact detrimentally on working class people, it will be necessary to be very careful with the choice of words used and efforts should be made to set out as much of the thinking behind the approach in order to contextualise it and set clear blue water between it and the attacks on the same grouping that are motivated by racism or class hatred.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Motivations for making the choices to become a bailiff or gang member are crucial here. It is often the unaligned who get attacked in gang related conflict and this fear of attack will be a motivating factor for people to join. Opportunities for young men are few and far between and for young black men non existent in many places.
> 
> Contrast this with say a certified bailiff or a police man. By the nature of the job they have been able to secure, they have many more opportunities open to them for example no criminal record, references, basic qualifications etc. So to make the step of becoming a copper or a bailiff is to exercise a choice knowing other choices that do not cause harm to working class people are available.



this is important.  if there is a moral divide in the working class then there is also an economic one, not in terms of relation to capital, but in terms of lived experience - a teacher in a council flat, or a skilled unionised worker has a very different time of it to someone dependent on benefits or minimum wage/casual work.  now how many of those of the latter group represent what the piece would consider to be lumpen is open to debate, as is whether there is a correlation, and if so why.


----------



## love detective (Aug 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> The argument that people who make choices that impinge on working class people and communities in an adverse manner shoud be identified and opposed is seemingly straightforward.



Absolutely - and that is pretty much what the core of the piece is saying




> Yes I have always regarded balliffs, debt collectors and to a lesser extent police and screws as scum. I have never applied this same label to gang members for several reasons and perhaps I am wrong not to have done so.



It does seem illogical & politically incoherent to regard some (working class) people whose choices impinge on other working class people & communties in an adverse manner as scum (or any other manner of dehumanised term) but not others. This is one of the things I can't get my head around in terms of opposition to the article. I can understand the argument that because of the more formalised structures that some scum operate through then they are easier to define & react against than other scum. But that doesn't detract from the basic premise that we both seem to agree with. 




> Motivations for making the choices to become a bailiff or gang member are crucial here. It is often the unaligned who get attacked in gang related conflict and this fear of attack will be a motivating factor for people to join. Opportunities for young men are few and far between and for young black men non existent in many places.





> Contrast this with say a certified bailiff or a police man. By the nature of the job they have been able to secure, they have many more opportunities open to them for example no criminal record, references, basic qualifications etc. So to make the step of becoming a copper or a bailiff is to exercise a choice knowing other choices that do not cause harm to working class people are available.



It's a fair point to look at the motivations involved in the carrying out of acts that are a blight on working class communites. But at the end of the day, it's the act itself that does the damage - differing motivating factors behind the same particular act don't diminish the damage caused by that act. So while looking at the motivations behind such things (may) help to understand or explain why those things happen, it doesn't excuse them or diminsh the damage they cause. And the damage being caused needs to be taken seriously for anyone who is serious about the need for strong confident working class community organisation. 

Also i'd say intiatives like the IWCA Athletics club in Oxford which has a strong focus on getting youngsters involved, shows that the IWCA approach does take seriously the need to engage with (rather than write off, as some here seem to be implying), and try and provide alternative kinds of communal & collective outlets/focus/attractions/ to working class kids who are at risk from making the kind of choices in life that leads to them becoming a blight upon the wider community. So it's not just outright condemning - but as the article says, _we need to understand a little more and condem a little more_

The other thing about focussing too much on motivations is that it detaches too much the impact of the act from the person committing it. Most capitalists for example genuinely don't believe they are exploiting those who work for them. Most capitalists think the riches they accumulate are a just reward for the efforts & risks that they have put in, and see themselves as providing jobs for those less fortunate than themselves. Most capitalists are not intentionally evil. Most capitalists believe their activity results in a win-win situation for capital & labour. But just because they don't deliberately set out to exploit the working class, doesn't detract from the fact that their activities do just that. And rightly so, regardless of these capitalists' subjective motivations & intentions, they are seen as the class enemy that they objectively are. I realise this is not a neat parallel with the point you were making, but I think the point about focussing on the actual act, just as much as the intentions behind the act are important. Otherwise the whole thing just collapses into crude determinism which strips us all of any kind of agency or free will or personal & collective responsibility.




> In order to gather support for actions against an identified grouping that undermine working class organisation and impact detrimentally on working class people, it will be necessary to be very careful with the choice of words used and efforts should be made to set out as much of the thinking behind the approach in order to contextualise it and set clear blue water between it and the attacks on the same grouping that are motivated by racism or class hatred.



Yep agree completely with this - it was what I was getting at earlier when I made the comment about perhaps the article could have 'shown it's workings' a bit more to hammer home this point. There's always a danger of assuming too much on the part of the reader and leaving things implied but unstated that should be could perhaps be stated more explicitly.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 19, 2011)

love detective said:


> Also i'd say intiatives like the IWCA Athletics club in Oxford which has a strong focus on getting youngsters involved, shows that the IWCA approach does take seriously the need to engage with (rather than write off, as some here seem to be implying), and try and provide alternative kinds of communal & collective outlets/focus/attractions/ to working class kids who are at risk from making the kind of choices in life that leads to them becoming a blight upon the wider community. So it's not just outright condemning - but as the article says, _we need to understand a little more and condem a little more_



but what does 'condemn more' mean, how do we condemn more?


----------



## BlackArab (Aug 19, 2011)

The three riots this year in my community have been led by the anarchists, at the last one they were encouraging the local youth to riot and even dishing out bottles to chuck. As a result those youths arrested will be convicted and have criminal records thus making them unemployable and forcing them to make a living any way they can, generally crime within their own communities. So todays rioters will become tomorrows gang members and drug dealers as a result of the anarchists.

How do we (the community) deal with these renegades (the anarchists). Oh and before anyone screams evidence I was there and have since spoken to youngsters who corroborated what I saw.


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2011)

Apart from the ugly wedge stuff, my problem with these sorts of articles is that I'm not actually sure if they are giving us anything new to get our teeth into.

Its almost like a formula. Start with look back at the forces that screwed people in recent decades. Look at the gross failings of those movements that should be a shield against this stuff. Talk about the perceived threats in the future. Then find  a worrying symptom of the present, and hype up quite what a threat this will be in future, and how it will blend with other threats and crush people hideously. Then hint that this situation offers opportunities, if only we can seize them.

Such a formula is understandable, and history does suggest that this is one of the ways that change comes about. I've probably used such a structure myself when pondering the future implications of economic & energy woes.

Problem is that all the wake up calls and grim warnings don't seem to lead to any action on a scale necessary to make a difference, whatever the flavour of warning. No change of direction that makes it possible to think we could avoid the day when opportunity knocks, with a bloody fist, reeking of ignorance.

What is the use of writing the left off as a failure, as one of the articles did, unless you are prepared to at least hint as to what could be done instead? Are you actually writing off left-wing economic & policy beliefs, or just the failings of many left-leaning organisations in recent decades?

The call to organise is utterly empty without more detail. It does not deal with the suffocating lack of ideas that people are strongly motivated to get behind. Perhaps it is a race against time to lay some sound groundwork ahead of major events that will cause mass desperation and motivate people to act, is there a way to prepare the ground to encourage maximum sanity and guard against the worst that reactionary tendencies have to offer, or are we doomed to remain unprepared until the woe time is upon us?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 19, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is this a reference to what I wrote? If it is, it is bad misrepresentation of it.



If you wrote that then it is. if you didn't then either agree or disagree. To be honest i don't religiously read each post of yours.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 19, 2011)

smokedout said:


> this is important. if there is a moral divide in the working class then there is also an economic one, not in terms of relation to capital, but in terms of lived experience - a teacher in a council flat, or a skilled unionised worker has a very different time of it to someone dependent on benefits or minimum wage/casual work. now how many of those of the latter group represent what the piece would consider to be lumpen is open to debate, as is whether there is a correlation, and if so why.



How on earth does a moral divide depend on if you are on benefits/casual work or full time employment?


----------



## smokedout (Aug 19, 2011)

where did i say it did.  I asked the question, is there an economic factor to the nouveau lumpen, are they poorer?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2011)

BlackArab said:


> The three riots this year in my community have been led by the anarchists, at the last one they were encouraging the local youth to riot and even dishing out bottles to chuck. As a result those youths arrested will be convicted and have criminal records thus making them unemployable and forcing them to make a living any way they can, generally crime within their own communities. So todays rioters will become tomorrows gang members and drug dealers as a result of the anarchists.
> 
> How do we (the community) deal with these renegades (the anarchists). Oh and before anyone screams evidence I was there and have since spoken to youngsters who corroborated what I saw.


Why don't you start another thread posing exactly the question: How do we (the community) deal with these renegades (the anarchists). It deserves it's own thread.


----------



## BlackArab (Aug 19, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Why don't you start another thread posing exactly the question: How do we (the community) deal with these renegades (the anarchists). It deserves it's own thread.



Because this one is about gangs causing a nuisance in wc communities which how I see them.

ps that stuff ain't strong enough if you can still make intelligent posts or maybe I'm a lightweight as I'd be dribbling by now


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 20, 2011)

How communities might deal with the renegades or might prevent renegades should be discussed. The last paragraph in Keenan Maliks article on morality and the riots and a discussion that was on the IWCA yahoo group might be a good starting point.



> There can be no possibility of a political or economic vision of a different society without a moral vision too. Moral arguments lie at the heart of our understanding of social solidarity, and of the distinction between notions of social solidarity and pious rightwing claims of ‘we’re all in it together’. And that is why it also has to be at the heart of our understanding of the riots. The questions about economic and social poverty, about unemployment and the cuts, are closely related to the questions about moral poverty, about the breakdown of social solidarity and the rise of a nihilistic culture. There can be no challenge to mass unemployment and imposition of austerity without restoration of bonds of social solidarity. We cannot, in other words, challenge economic poverty if do not also challenge moral poverty.
> Ironically, perhaps, way forward shown by those who stood up to rioters. In many communities in Britain last week, local people patrolled the streets, protected buildings and confronted the rioters. They did so largely because the police were unable or unwilling to help. In one sense, such community action helps camouflage the government’s public expenditure cuts, help making up for the services the state should be providing. But, in another sense, such action is much more than an ersatz form of Cameron’s Big Society.* In taking matters into own hands, and in accepting responsibility for own communities, those who stood up to the rioters were taking the first steps towards restoring the moral deficit by recreating the bonds of social solidarity.*





> A decade ago on Blackbird Leys we proved that working class activists can also set the agenda. By exposing and challenging the authorities policy of containment of crack and heroin dealing/yardie murders/gang rapes etc on our estate - and especially by putting into place (or often merely threatening to) our own, popular strategies to deal with the problem - we too had the political establishment/police/housing authories desperate to be seen to address a problem that they had hitherto been happy to pretend didn't exist.
> 
> It is significant that before the IWCA started the campaign against them, the yardies and their fellow travellers as good as controlled the area around their community centre base, which included the Blackbird pub and the main parade of shops. (Incidentally, this area was where the notorious scenes of joyriding - that gave groups such as Class War a collective hard on at the time - were captured by national news cameras a decade earlier). It seems inconcievable that without the efforts of IWCA activists from Oxford, London and beyond, that - monkey see, monkey do - the 'top shops' area would not have suffered the same fate as other such areas acoss the country.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> One of those terribly ambitious articles that 60 years later is frankly embarrasing



You think that the SI analysis of Watts is "frankly embarrassing"?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think that the SI analysis of Watts is "frankly embarrassing"?



sure do honey, take it you are a fan?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

> a rebellion against the commodity, against the world of the commodity in which worker-consumers are _hierarchically_ subordinated to commodity standards. Like the young delinquents of all the advanced countries, but more radically because they are part of a class without a future, a sector of the proletariat unable to believe in any significant chance of integration or promotion, [they] take modern capitalist propaganda, its publicity of abundance, _ literally_. They want to possess _now_ all the objects shown and abstractly accessible, because they want to _use_ them. In this way they are challenging their exchange-value, the _commodity reality_ which molds them and marshals them to its own ends, and which has _preselected everything_. Through theft and gift they rediscover a use that immediately refutes the oppressive rationality of the commodity, revealing its relations and even its production to be arbitrary and unnecessary. The looting of the Watts district was the most direct realization of the distorted principle: “To each according to their _false_ needs” — needs determined and produced by the economic system which the very act of looting rejects. But once the vaunted abundance is taken at face value and directly _seized,_ instead of being eternally pursued in the rat-race of alienated labor and increasing unmet social needs, real desires begin to be expressed in festive celebration, in playful self-assertion, in the _potlatch_ of destruction. People who destroy commodities show their human superiority over commodities. They stop submitting to the arbitrary forms that distortedly reflect their real needs. The flames of Watts _consummated_ the system of consumption. The theft of large refrigerators by people with no electricity, or with their electricity cut off, is the best image of the lie of affluence transformed into a truth _in play_. Once it is no longer bought, the commodity lies open to criticism and alteration, whatever particular form it may take. Only when it is paid for with money is it respected as an admirable fetish, as a symbol of status within the world of survival.
> Looting is a _natural_ response to the unnatural and inhuman society of commodity abundance. It instantly undermines the commodity as such, and it also exposes what the commodity ultimately implies: the army, the police and the other specialized detachments of the state’s monopoly of armed violence. What is a policeman? He is the active servant of the commodity, the man in complete submission to the commodity, whose job is to ensure that a given product of human labor remains a commodity, with the magical property of having to be paid for, instead of becoming a mere refrigerator or rifle — a passive, inanimate object, subject to anyone who comes along to make use of it. In rejecting the humiliation of being subject to police, they are at the same time rejecting the humiliation of being subject to commodities. The  youth, having no future in market terms, grasped another _quality_ of the present, and that quality was so incontestable and irresistible that it drew in the whole population — women, children, and even sociologists who happened to be on the scene. Bobbi Hollon, a young black sociologist of the neighborhood, had this to say to the _Herald Tribune_ in October: “Before, people were ashamed to say they came from [....] They’d mumble it. Now they say it with pride. Boys who used to go around with their shirts open to the waist, and who’d have cut you to pieces in half a second, showed up here every morning at seven o’clock to organize the distribution of food. Of course, it’s no use pretending that food wasn’t looted. . . . All that Christian blah has been used too long against blacks. These people could loot for ten years and they wouldn’t get back half the money those stores have stolen from them over all these years. . . . Me, I’m only a little black girl.” Bobbi Hollon, who has sworn never to wash off the blood that splashed on her sandals during the rioting, adds: “Now the whole world is watching [...]”
> How do people make history under conditions designed to dissuade them from intervening in it?



With a few tweaks it could be a description of the riots this month -


----------



## love detective (Aug 22, 2011)

I'd say the bit below couldn't be further away in substance from a description of this month's riots to be honest - something that no amount of tweaks would bridge the gap on (edit: in fact i'd say it was the reverse of what happened this month)


> needs determined and produced by the economic system which the very act of looting rejects. But once the vaunted abundance is taken at face value and directly _seized,_ instead of being eternally pursued in the rat-race of alienated labor and increasing unmet social needs, real desires begin to be expressed in festive celebration, in playful self-assertion, in the _potlatch_ of destruction. People who destroy commodities show their human superiority over commodities. They stop submitting to the arbitrary forms that distortedly reflect their real needs. The flames of Watts _consummated_ the system of consumption. The theft of large refrigerators by people with no electricity, or with their electricity cut off, is the best image of the lie of affluence transformed into a truth _in play_. Once it is no longer bought, the commodity lies open to criticism and alteration, whatever particular form it may take. Only when it is paid for with money is it respected as an admirable fetish, as a symbol of status within the world of survival.


----------



## love detective (Aug 22, 2011)

> Boys who used to go around with their shirts open to the waist, and who’d have cut you to pieces in half a second, showed up here every morning at seven o’clock to organize the distribution of food.



I think this may need tweaked a bit as well articul8


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

there are differences in contexts - of course.  And I wouldn't say that the SI piece is _sufficient_ as an analysis of the UK riots.  But it does strike me as an aspect of what was going on - which wasn't entirely indiscriminate eg. how many Primarks were looted?


----------



## love detective (Aug 22, 2011)

the differences are not just in context, but in substance

this wasn't so much a riot against the commodity but a riot for the commodity - it wasn't undermining the commodity but reaffirming it - it wasn't lifting the veil and removing the admirable fetish of the commodity as the SI piece suggests, if anything it was the opposite - it wasn't rejecting the needs that are determined and produced by the system but embracing them


----------



## articul8 (Aug 22, 2011)

love detective said:


> the differences are not just in context, but in substance
> 
> this wasn't so much a riot against the commodity but a riot for the commodity - it wasn't undermining the commodity but reaffirming it - it wasn't lifting the veil and removing the admirable fetish of the commodity as the SI piece suggests, if anything it was the opposite



it was a celebration of the suspension of the law (that protects existing class relations and its phantasmagoria of commodity images).


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

erm right you are....your looking for something that isn't there in attempting to shoe horn in the riots this month to the framework of the rather idealistically pure SI piece

Never been a fan of zizek but I think he sums up the nature & substance of what happened far better than the SI piece



> _If the commonplace that we live in a post-ideological era is true in any sense, it can be seen in this recent outburst of violence. This was zero-degree protest, a violent action demanding nothing. In their desperate attempt to find meaning in the riots, the sociologists and editorial-writers obfuscated the enigma the riots presented._





> _The fact that the rioters have no programme is therefore itself a fact to be interpreted: it tells us a great deal about our ideological-political predicament and about the kind of society we inhabit, a society which celebrates choice but in which the only available alternative to enforced democratic consensus is a blind acting out. Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst. What is the point of our celebrated freedom of choice when the only choice is between playing by the rules and (self-)destructive violence?_




_
_


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

I don't think it was purely meaningless - the fact that no-one loots Primark is not accidental. Which isn't to say that it can the riots this time can be simply celebrated as incipient progressive rebellion - I don't think that.

There is a clear link between the temporary suspension of law/policing and the opportunity to cross the space between the commodity-sphere and the reality of material impoverishment. The problem is that this space is traversed by atomised individuals - asocially - without any real sense of collective empowerment.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> it was a celebration of the suspension of the law (that protects existing class relations and its phantasmagoria of commodity images).



Thank heavens you aren't defending any of the looters.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

? Something can be contradictory without being meaningless


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Thank heavens you aren't defending any of the looters.



its only ok to riot when we do it


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> the differences are not just in context, but in substance
> 
> this wasn't so much a riot against the commodity but a riot for the commodity - it wasn't undermining the commodity but reaffirming it - it wasn't lifting the veil and removing the admirable fetish of the commodity as the SI piece suggests, if anything it was the opposite - it wasn't rejecting the needs that are determined and produced by the system but embracing them


i wonder if you'd say the same thing if it had been a food riot.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

your're wondering if I would describe a completely different type of riot, differently

absolutely yes


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> your're wondering if I would describe a completely different type of riot, differently
> 
> absolutely yes


no, what i was wondering was whether the notion of commodity extended to food or whether you were simply beguiled by the number of trainers and televisions purloined. given that a large number of food stores were broken into, i thought that might have some impact on your analysis.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2011)

Been away from this thread cos it got circular a bit too quick. But I just read this
http://www.metamute.org/en/news_and..._foundation_and_the_chelsea_ives_youth_centre
And thought of you.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, what i was wondering was whether the notion of commodity extended to food or whether you were simply beguiled by the number of trainers and televisions purloined. given that a large number of food stores were broken into, i thought that might have some impact on your analysis.



it wasn't a food riot though was it (and if it was, as I said previously, my analysis of it would have been different)

the primary motivations behind most involved wasn't driven by a need or desire for food - ergo it wasn't a food riot (just as the primary motivations behind most involved wasn't the burning people out of their homes, the running over & murdering muslims, pulling folk of scooters or rifling the backpacks of injured bystanders - despite these things clearly happening - nonethelss to describe any of these things as a primary motivating factor in what happened would be absurd, as it would be to call it a food riot)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> it wasn't a food riot though was it (and if it was, as I said previously, my analysis of it would have been different)
> 
> the primary motivations behind most involved wasn't driven by a need or desire for food - ergo it wasn't a food riot (just as the primary motivations behind most involved wasn't the burning people out of their homes, the running over & murdering muslims, pulling folk of scooters or rifling the backpacks of injured bystanders - despite these things clearly happening - nonethelss to describe any of these things as a primary motivating factor in what happened would be absurd, as it would be to call it a food riot)


i didn't call it a food riot. i think you're picking one strand of the riots and broadening it more than it will stretch.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> it wasn't a food riot though was it (and if it was, as I said previously, my analysis of it would have been different)
> 
> the primary motivations behind most involved wasn't driven by a need or desire for food -



pretty daft looting greggs when argos is next door


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't call it a food riot. i think you're picking one strand of the riots and broadening it more than it will stretch.



you didn't call it a food riot but you wondered out loud if I would analyse it differently if it was a food riot, to which I confirmed that I would

picking one strand of the riot and stretching it beyond what it actually was - would be to say conuterpose the SI piece over it as a reasonable description of what happened


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> pretty daft looting greggs when argos is next door



pretty daft looting a food place when you want a telly


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> pretty daft looting a food place when you want a telly


 what's wrong with wanting a telly?


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

where did i say there was?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

interesting bit doing the rounds about incidents in the Blitz ("our finest hour"):

It didn’t take long for a hardcore of opportunists to realise there were rich pickings available in the immediate aftermath of a raid – and the looting wasn’t limited to civilians.
In October 1940 Winston Churchill ordered the arrest and conviction of six London firemen caught looting from a burned-out shop to be hushed up…
In April 1941 Lambeth juvenile court dealt with 42 children in one day, from teenage girls caught stripping clothes from dead bodies to a seven-year-old boy who had stolen five shillings from the gas meter of a damaged house. In total, juvenile crime accounted for 48 per cent of all arrests in the nine months between September 1940 and May 1941 and there were 4,584 cases of looting…
Perhaps the most shameful episode of the whole Blitz occurred on the evening of March 8 1941 when the Cafe de Paris in Piccadilly was hit by a German bomb…
“Some of the looters in the Cafe de Paris cut off the people’s fingers to get the rings,” recalled Ballard Berkeley, a policeman during the Blitz who later found fame as the ‘Major’ in Fawlty Towers. Even the wounded in the Cafe de Paris were robbed of their jewellery amid the confusion and carnage.​


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2011)

cantsin said:


> .
> 
> Anyone interested in a response to the "working class morale " sapping "lumpens" rioting in LA 50 years ago, one that has arguably more to say about last weeks events than the OP in this thread ever could , check out Guy Debords at the time unattributed response to the Watts riots here :
> 
> http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/decline.html


This article is a straw man if I ever saw one. What's the relevance to the events of recent times? Their have been loads of articles written about riots in the UK, why bother posting this up except to try and get people to defend it out of nostalgia for the Situationists?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

It has a relevance (the psychology of commodification and the suspension of reification in rioting etc.) - it isn't a sufficient analysis for understanding what happened here (or in Watts in all likelihood).  But it says something important that's missed by the equally one-sided, though not entirely wrong, dismissal of rioters as lumpen detritus.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

you do know the article under discussion isn't about the riots articul8?

As to categorising those who are in agreement with the IWCA analysis as one sided then you clearly haven't read this thread (although given your recent inability on this and other threads to be able to digest & comprehend simple arguments put across in the simplest of english, perhaps you have. Perhaps we need to use long drawn out wanky phrases like you've taken to recently )

For example my first post on the thread here is nowhere near your description above


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

My post above wasn't specific to the IWCA or this article (which I know was written long before the riots) but to a tendency that exists more generally in those who would simply condemn.

OK your first post was somewhat more balanced but even there you say


> the only thing to come from this will be to further bolster the confidence of the lumpen elements that are already making life a misery for a large element of the working class proper.



which begs a number of questions
a) what is the "working class proper" and who is authorised to police its boundaries
b) [an ambiguity in the IWCA piece too] are lumpen elements renegade elements of the w/c, internal 5th columnists - or declassed fragments, detritus of all classes and none (as in Marx) standing outside and potentially in opposition to, the w/c
c) why should it be the "only" thing to come out of it? Lots might come out of it - good, bad and indifferent? Obviously there's things very unlikely to come out of it - like the criminal gangs of Hackney and Haringey all joining up en masse to Workers Power. But there's a danger of reading every symptom as a symptom of collective inadequacy rather than as a spur to rethink and re-organise.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

> a) what is the "working class proper" and who is authorised to police its boundaries




Would you categorise police, baillifs, and serial scabs (who despite being working class in terms of having to sell their labour-power, relationship to means of production blah blah blah zzzz), as those who deserve to be part of any progressive working class project? If not then in principle you have no problem with excluding those whose actions are detrimental to progressive working class organisation. Anything beyond this is just arguing over semantics & labels




> b) [an ambiguity in the IWCA piece too] are lumpen elements renegade elements of the w/c, internal 5th columnists - or declassed fragments, detritus of all classes and none (as in Marx) standing outside and potentially in opposition to, the w/c



See answer to (a) above




> c) why should it be the "only" thing to come out of it? Lots might come out of it - good, bad and indifferent? Obviously there's things very unlikely to come out of it - like the criminal gangs of Hackney and Haringey all joining up en masse to Workers Power. But there's a danger of reading every symptom as a symptom of collective inadequacy rather than as a spur to rethink and re-organise.



Well you're taking things out of context (and then being pedantic with the english). The point I made immediately prior to the bit you quote was about some of the misguided optimism that was emenating from the left/anarchism in the immediate aftermath of the riots as to what they signified etc.... - to counter that optimism I then made the point about (the only thing to come out of it being the) bolstering of the confidence of certain elements that already make life a misery for working class people & communities


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> Would you categorise police, baillifs, and serial scabs (who despite being working class in terms of having to sell their labour-power, relationship to means of production blah blah blah zzzz), as those who deserve to be part of any progressive working class project? If not then in principle you have no problem with excluding those whose actions are detrimental to progressive working class organisation. Anything beyond this is just arguing over semantics & labels



are you prepared to address the point about the economic divide between the nouveau lumpen and the working class proper - is there one, how does/should that affect the analysis, does this make them a different category from bailiffs and coppers

few people on very low incomes/benefits can survive without being drawn into some degree of criminality, whether thats not paying for a telly licence, earning a few quid on the side, selling a bit of pot or the odd bit of shoplifting - how does this affect the class consciousness of those (whom by and large) are children?


----------



## romeo2001 (Aug 23, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> One figure mentioned by David Davis on Question Time was about 240 criminal gangs in London, substantially up from the last count in 2006. What I'm 'staggered about' is not just the numbers but their banal visciousness. Another 14 year old stabbed to death today. As the article points out the sociopathic nihilism they display has no parallel in recent history. The studied insouciance of the so-called liberal left at the carnage (with some particularly choice comments on here) is about standard for another set of people without a compass, moral or otherwise. Imagine for a moment the brouhaha if the perpetrators were white? But becuase the perps, as well the victims are overhwhelmingly black, in the absence of any obvious political advantage they cynicaly choose to ignore it entirely. Can there be a better example of unconscious racism? At least the 'institutionally racist' police actually address the problem.


 
not sure i agree with the race analysis tho - there are numerous white estates that have been abandoned to gangs and criminality for a really long time


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

hmm... I'm not sure that (eg.) a UDM miner in the strike was any less working class for that - he'd just be acting in a way that was contrary to the self interest of his class.   Unless he's relationship to the employer materially changed as a result of his membership of a scabby union.  He'd be part of the working class (in itself) but not of the political organisation developed by that class to express its political interests (for itself).

Otherwise you go down the road of saying that anyone whose behaviour or ideas you disagree with is somehow objectively less working class than you are - either lumpen or petty-bourgeois.  And suggests some kind of hierarchy where one group of workers which you happen to agree with most suddenly becomes more "working class" in its outlook than another.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> hmm... I'm not sure that (eg.) a UDM miner in the strike was any less working class for that - he'd just be acting in a way that was contrary to the self interest of his class. Unless he's relationship to the employer materially changed as a result of his membership of a scabby union. He'd be part of the working class (in itself) but not of the political organisation developed by that class to express its political interests (for itself).


 So you're happy describing most of the police as working class, in other words?


----------



## romeo2001 (Aug 23, 2011)

i'm not sure moralising about whose riots are better and more "right" is of much particular use
In the same way that were people with a lust for violence in the poll tax riots there were in these riots as well andf in the same way that there were people who were sticking it up the arses of capitalists there would have been in this one as well.
Do people ever riot for just one reason?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> are you prepared to address the point about the economic divide between the nouveau lumpen and the working class proper - is there one, how does/should that affect the analysis, does this make them a different category from bailiffs and coppers
> 
> few people on very low incomes/benefits can survive without being drawn into some degree of criminality, whether thats not paying for a telly licence, earning a few quid on the side, selling a bit of pot or the odd bit of shoplifting - how does this affect the class consciousness of those (whom by and large) are children?



What evidence is there for that? Are you claiming that most people engage in selling pot and shoplifting?


----------



## past caring (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> hmm... I'm not sure that (eg.) a UDM miner in the strike was any less working class for that - he'd just be acting in a way that was contrary to the self interest of his class. Unless he's relationship to the employer materially changed as a result of his membership of a scabby union. He'd be part of the working class (in itself) but not of the political organisation developed by that class to express its political interests (for itself).
> 
> Otherwise you go down the road of saying that anyone whose behaviour or ideas you disagree with is somehow objectively less working class than you are - either lumpen or petty-bourgeois. And suggests some kind of hierarchy where one group of workers which you happen to agree with most suddenly becomes more "working class" in its outlook than another.



Eh? The exclusion is from "being part of any progressive working class project" - there's no suggestion that the scab or bailiff ceases to be working class. The point has already been dealt with.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

sorry, misunderstood.  Obviously I agree with that.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> are you prepared to address the point about the economic divide between the nouveau lumpen and the working class proper - is there one, how does/should that affect the analysis, does this make them a different category from bailiffs and coppers


You were the one who brought it up - i don't really understand what you mean by it to be honest



> few people on very low incomes/benefits can survive without being drawn into some degree of criminality, whether thats not paying for a telly licence, earning a few quid on the side, selling a bit of pot or the odd bit of shoplifting - how does this affect the class consciousness of those (whom by and large) are children?


the issue is not about whether an act is illegal or not - it's about the impact of that act on the wider working class community. Using a formal definition of criminality gets us nowhere in this discussion as it collapses into one category, acts & behaviours which can be both debilatating and helpful to progressive working class organisation

Your raising a point that doesn't exist in the analysis - no one is using legality or a formal definition of criminality to define or analysis anything - surely this much is obvious no?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

Random said:


> So you're happy describing most of the police as working class, in other words?



The police, army, prison officers etc can recruit from unpolitical working class families - but I don't buy the full "workers in uniform" theory, there's a certain slippage in class interests that occurs.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What evidence is there for that? Are you claiming that most people engage in selling pot and shoplifting?



thats not what i said is it


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The police, army, prison officers etc can recruit from unpolitical working class families - but I don't buy the full "workers in uniform" theory, there's a certain slippage in class interests that occurs.



Jesus wept - I know loads of lads who are in the army from Birmingham. Their families are no more or less political than any other on the estates on which they live.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The police, army, prison officers etc can recruit from unpolitical working class families - but I don't buy the full "workers in uniform" theory, there's a certain slippage in class interests that occurs.


Did you really

say this:



> unpolitical working class families


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

I think highly politicised, class-conscious environments are less likely to produce recruits for the state - which isn't to say that all families whose kids don't are all super-militant or that families that self-identify as working class wouldn't also willingly see their sons sign up.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did you really
> say this:


people  have greater or lesser degrees of political consciousness.  It wasn't meant perojatively.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

They might well well, do, after posting the Si stuff you have the bottle to post this:



> unpolitical working class families



You need to re-read, not anyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> people have greater or lesser degrees of political consciousness. It wasn't meant perojatively.


It never is is it? Thanks for the standard.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> hmm... I'm not sure that (eg.) a UDM miner in the strike was any less working class for that - he'd just be acting in a way that was contrary to the self interest of his class. Unless he's relationship to the employer materially changed as a result of his membership of a scabby union. He'd be part of the working class (in itself) but not of the political organisation developed by that class to express its political interests (for itself).
> 
> Otherwise you go down the road of saying that anyone whose behaviour or ideas you disagree with is somehow objectively less working class than you are - either lumpen or petty-bourgeois. And suggests some kind of hierarchy where one group of workers which you happen to agree with most suddenly becomes more "working class" in its outlook than another.



Do you ever fucking read what people post:-




			
				me said:
			
		

> Would you categorise police, baillifs, and serial scabs (who despite being working class in terms of having to sell their labour-power, relationship to means of production blah blah blah zzzz), as those who deserve to be part of any progressive working class project?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

Families whose politics are less clearly articulated around class interests.  You know what I meant.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Families whose politics are less clearly articulated around class interests. You know what I meant.


Fucking right i did. Enjoy  the bubble.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

> highly politicised, class-conscious environments are less likely to produce recruits for the state.



You disagree?  No, you don't.  You just leapt on a clumsy expression and infer something that wasn't intended.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2011)

I am getting a bit pissed off with all the social work speak in this thread. Keep it accessible eh?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> thats not what i said is it



What you said was "few people on very low incomes/benefits can survive without being drawn into some degree of criminality, whether thats not paying for a telly licence, earning a few quid on the side, selling a bit of pot or the odd bit of shoplifting" and what I am asking is what evidence you have for stating that everyone bar a 'few people' on low incomes/benefits is at times a petty criminal and/or minor drug dealer?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You disagree? No, you don't. You just leapt on a clumsy expression and infer something that wasn't intended.


I disagree full stop - it was a point beyond the way you expressed it, it was abput the assumptions behind however clumsily you posted it.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

what fucking assumptions?  If you want to accuse me of something, come out with it.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> what I am asking is what evidence you have for stating that everyone bar a 'few people' on low incomes/benefits is at times a petty criminal and/or minor drug dealer?



the massive over-representation of benefit claimants in the criminal justice system for a start


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> what fucking assumptions? If you want to accuse me of something, come out with it.


I did, that politics is only politics when you get to label and grade it - when people like you get to _see_ it. You really did not read what you're demanding that others read.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

What bodies are you on now A8?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

There are behaviours which aren't compatible with holding certain ideas to be true.  Like scabbing and believing in the the strength of collective w/c organisation.  Obviously that's an extreme example.  But in a similar but more nuanced way, other forms of behaviour can imply a particular relationship to political goals, without being expressed in overtly formally "political" ways.

All practices are capable of implying a political outlook on the world.  So yes describing families as being "unpolitical" is to that extent being unwilling to see the politics that are actively expressed in that situation.  So I was contradicting myself.  But not out of any desire to control or determine what constitutes politics "proper", any more than does the IWCA when it refers to the "working class proper".


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> the massive over-representation of benefit claimants in the criminal justice system for a start



Eh? So?

The point I think you were trying to slyly make is that all working class people bar a 'few' are petty criminals and small time drug dealers themselves and therefore would instinctively recognise the behaviour of the looters and would be supportive of it. I think this is total shite and, in fact, the opposite in every sense in the case.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What bodies are you on now A8?



Political bodies?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

Yer


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> what fucking assumptions? If you want to accuse me of something, come out with it.



My assumption is that you are a student, possibly slumming it  - correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. My family are 'unpolitical working class' by the way. Do you think that makes them scum?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> My assumption is that you are a student, possibly slumming it - correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. My family are 'unpolitical working class' by the way. Do you think that makes them scum?


wrong - I'm afraid. And I'm from a working class family but "political" in the sense that were active in local Labour politics - of course I don't mean people that weren't were scum.  Ever.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yer


well I'm on the editorial board of Red Pepper, and its governing Board too. That's about it - so no "political" officeholder.  Why do you ask?


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> You were the one who brought it up - i don't really understand what you mean by it to be honest



do the nouveau lumpen have less money than some sections of the working class, does the analogy with coppers and bailiffs hold up given this, does this push them into criminality?

i agree a formal definition of criminality gets us nowhere, but thats where many people, especially young people draw the line - we need to look beyond that and actually set out what is/isnt acceptable criminality, what impacts the working class and what doesnt (does looting from argos, what about small shops)  that hasnt been done in the iwca piece or here so far beyond rape and murder


----------



## smokedout (Aug 23, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The point I think you were trying to slyly make is that all working class people bar a 'few' are petty criminals and small time drug dealers themselves and therefore would instinctively recognise the behaviour of the looters and would be supportive of it. I think this is total shite and, in fact, the opposite in every sense in the case.



no that is a million miles away from the point ive been making


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> do the nouveau lumpen have less money than some sections of the working class, does the analogy with coppers and bailiffs hold up given this, does this push them into criminality?



Not necessarily no - I don't understand your attempt to define this on pure economic terms - as you say below it's about what kind of behaviours & activities impact working class communities adversely and what doesn't



> i agree a formal definition of criminality gets us nowhere, but thats where many people, especially young people draw the line - we need to look beyond that and actually set out what is/isnt acceptable criminality, what impacts the working class and what doesnt (does looting from argos, what about small shops) that hasnt been done in the iwca piece or here so far beyond rape and murder



what you've said above is exactly what I said to you in the post that your post above replied to - so how can you say it hasn't been touched on here - all you've done is repeat back to me what I said to you in the previous post!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2011)

The rhetoric hots up and the nuances start to get missed. Oh dear.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What bodies are you on now A8?


did i give the wrong answer?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> did i give the wrong answer?


No you didn't. You made it worse, you're an unelected voice of liberal intern london bubble now.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

Were Debord, or Brinton, or Castoriadis, or Tronti (etc etc "elected"?  - you'd be the first to slag off any pretensions at elected office).
What bodies are you on btw?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2011)

Were any of them an unelected voice of the liberal intern london bubble ?

Politics, it means _other_ people.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2011)

it ain't me babe - I'm out of london liberal intern bubbles


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> no that is a million miles away from the point ive been making



The point I'm making is that the left has - with depressing predictability - firmly placed itself on the wrong side of the debate and in doing so has missed the significant points.

Most people, in fact, do not support the actions of the rioters/looters - they despise them.

Most people don't share their warped values, sense of entitlement or unthinking involvement in the mindless trashing of working class areas.

Your point seems to be that what has happened is actually just a more concentrated form of normal behaviour for our class, most of whom go on the rob or deal from time to time. In fact whilst there is a growing underclass for whom such activity is routine there is a far greater number - the class 'proper' - who look on in horror and despair.

Anyone who actually lives in these areas knows that the continued unfettered antics of this grouping both demoralises our class and hampers the development of pro working class politics.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

rioter = criminal?

How is this any different from David Cameron's position?


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

did you read what he posted?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't think it was purely meaningless - the fact that no-one loots Primark is not accidental. Which isn't to say that it can the riots this time can be simply celebrated as incipient progressive rebellion - I don't think that.
> 
> *There is a clear link between the temporary suspension of law/policing and the opportunity to cross the space between the commodity-sphere and the reality of material impoverishment. The problem is that this space is traversed by atomised individuals - asocially - without any real sense of collective empowerment.*


 
So having transversed this space how would you overcome this problem of atomisation that lacls any real sense of collective empowerment and leads to asocial behaviour of  looting of charity shops , small corner shop businesses ,stealing MacMillan charity collections, smashing up third sector social enterprisee , the housing office, local pubs , car jacking, pulling a motor cyclist off his bike then driving it off, mugging students etc?

Support the labour party like the rope supports a hanged man?
Build the party? Patiently explain ?
Recruit them to anti cuts campaigns?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> rioter = criminal?
> 
> How is this any different from David Cameron's position?


ask local residents in Manchester or Salford where the Tories don't get a look in, they will use the same language.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> rioter = criminal?
> 
> How is this any different from David Cameron's position?



Who cares what David Cameron thinks? Does everybody have to take the opposite poll of opinion to the Tories to play safe? That to me is ultra leftism. An infantile knee jerk reaction with a heavy dose of denial added to the equation.

Most working class people, who I know, both black and white, left wing and apolitical, are disgusted with the rioters and consider them to be criminals and that is a conclusion they have reached by being near the events and not thru media manipulation. They rightly see them as selfish, to put it mildly. The people who participated cannot be equated with say, the poll Tax rioters, who had a cause and on being arrested were, in effect, political prisoners with the sympathy of millions.

For most people the riots played out with an uncanny resemblance to the film *28 days later*, as the mobs got nearer and nearer to peoples homes in a whirlwind of nightmarish Darwinism, preying on the weak, until they were virtually coming thru your window.

Somebody mentioned Single parent mums stealing trainers.

Watch this video.* IGNORE* the title and go straight to minute 4.59. *Turn off* the sound. *Turn off* the Annotations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMfG-Fyrxk


----------



## Anudder Oik (Aug 23, 2011)

Any research that tries to map out the profile of the looters should take into account the time of arrest. I have the impression that most people who were caught red handed were the soppy copycat opportunists going in for sticky seconds later on and that the hardcore were on their toes sharpish.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

I think Cameron is wrong. I think the people going through the courts right now show that he is wrong. And you will find a diversity of opinions in the areas where the riots happened. So what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2011)

love detective said:


> did you read what he posted?


You're a broken record on this. Yes, I did read what he posted. And it seemed pretty clear to me. The riots were caused by 'sheer criminality'. No nuance. No ambiguity.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Who cares what David Cameron thinks? Does everybody have to take the opposite poll of opinion to the Tories to play safe? That to me is ultra leftism. An infantile knee jerk reaction with a heavy dose of denial added to the equation.
> 
> Most working class people, who I know, both black and white, left wing and apolitical, are disgusted with the rioters and consider them to be criminals and that is a conclusion they have reached by being near the events and not thru media manipulation. They rightly see them as selfish, to put it mildly. The people who participated cannot be equated with say, the poll Tax rioters, who had a cause and on being arrested were, in effect, political prisoners with the sympathy of millions.
> 
> ...



the young scamps in that video were clearly just taking the opportunity, during the suspension of the law (that protects existing class relations and its phantasmagoria of commodity images), to traverse the space between the commodity-sphere and the reality of material impoverishment - these acts (which unveil the psychology of commodification and the suspension of reification in rioting) should be celebrated for what they clearly are - a new beginning in class politics


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think Cameron is wrong. I think the people going through the courts right now show that he is wrong. And you will find a diversity of opinions in the areas where the riots happened. So what?



Look I'm getting the feeling that this is pointless but;

1. You are wrong - come to West Brom, Wolverhampton or Birmingham. Outside of lefty circles you'll need to travel a long way to find anyone else who wants to 'understand' or 'not condone but empathise' or who thinks the looting was as a direct result of the EMA/job cuts/poverty. There is, in fact, a near uniformity of opinion - and guess what, your on the wrong side of it.
2. Ask yourself this were the local communities in London and Birmingham who came out on the streets to protect their homes and areas wrong to do so? Why do you think they did it?
3. Even if you were right - so what? - this OP states that the huge growth of the underclass is a huge impediment to our class and to the interests of our class an therefore is automatically a bad thing that needs to be tackled head on.


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're a broken record on this. Yes, I did read what he posted. And it seemed pretty clear to me. The riots were caused by 'sheer criminality'. No nuance. No ambiguity.



you may have read the words but clearly what they mean are lost on you


----------



## Anudder Oik (Aug 23, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Look I'm getting the feeling that this is pointless but;
> 
> 1. .......
> 2. Ask yourself this were the local communities in London and Birmingham who came out on the streets to protect their homes and areas wrong to do so? Why do you think they did it?
> 3. .......



Yeah, what do people think about them in general?

The attitude that they are ok as long as they aren't made up of white working class makes me wanna puke, and is extremely damaging for the image of the left.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 23, 2011)

romeo2001 said:


> not sure i agree with the race analysis tho - there are numerous white estates that have been abandoned to gangs and criminality for a really long time



Don't disagree. However the black on black, teen on teen murder rate in London is exceptional. The lumpen, for those unduly sensitive on such matters, is both multiracial and multiculural.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 23, 2011)

romeo2001 said:


> i'm not sure moralising about whose riots are better and more "right" is of much particular use
> In the same way that were people with a lust for violence in the poll tax riots there were in these riots as well andf in the same way that there were people who were sticking it up the arses of capitalists there would have been in this one as well.
> Do people ever riot for just one reason?



Just ask yourself one question and you have your answer: How much looting was involved in the Poll Tax 'riot'? I personally saw one window kicked in in Shaftsbury Avenue and some one ran off with a single boot! And that was it. Compare that with Croydon. In other words, how political a riot is, and the motivations of those involved comes down what risks are taken for personal gain. Setting fire to the SA embassy for example. Huge risk zero return.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Just ask yourself one question and you have your answer: How much looting was involved in the Poll Tax 'riot'? I personally saw one window kicked in in Shaftsbury Avenue and some one ran off with a single boot! And that was it. Compare that with Croydon. In other words, how political a riot is, and the motivations of those involved comes down what risks are taken for personal gain. Setting fire to the SA embassy for example. Huge risk zero return.


there was a considerable amount of looting involved in the poll tax riot. i walked up tottenham court road and saw a load of looted electronics shops. i saw at least two looted off licences. i saw looted music shops. i saw a jewellers getting looted. and even if you didn't actually see it, there were the reports of looting. so if your argument is there was fuck all looting in the poll tax riot, you either chose to ignore it, didn't see it or have preferred to rewrite history.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2011)

love detective said:


> the young scamps in that video were clearly just taking the opportunity, during the suspension of the law (that protects existing class relations and its phantasmagoria of commodity images), to traverse the space between the commodity-sphere and the reality of material impoverishment - these acts (which unveil the psychology of commodification and the suspension of reification in rioting)[



Jesus I can write like a pompous prick at times  I don't really talk like this



> should be celebrated for what they clearly are - a new beginning in class politics


but this wasn't what i said - i wasn't saying the riots should be celebrated just understood in their complexity. This means avoiding gushing excitement AND the Cassandra-like tendency to read in every event the proof of our own powerlessness.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Just ask yourself one question and you have your answer: How much looting was involved in the Poll Tax 'riot'? I personally saw one window kicked in in Shaftsbury Avenue and some one ran off with a single boot! And that was it. Compare that with Croydon. In other words, how political a riot is, and the motivations of those involved comes down what risks are taken for personal gain. Setting fire to the SA embassy for example. Huge risk zero return.


There was _loads_ of looting in the poll tax riot.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> how would you overcome this problem ... leads to asocial behaviour of looting of charity shops , small corner shop businesses ,stealing MacMillan charity collections, smashing up third sector social enterprisee , the housing office, local pubs , car jacking, pulling a motor cyclist off his bike then driving it off, mugging students etc?



Million dollar question. I don't have easy answers - there aren't any. The conditions that produce this kind of behaviour of structural and complex . Doesn't mean they can be excused or easily overcome by just pushing the same old solutions harder.


----------



## love detective (Aug 24, 2011)

> i wasn't saying the riots should be celebrated just understood in their complexity. This means avoiding gushing excitement AND the Cassandra-like tendency to read in every event the proof of our own powerlessness.



i would say my first post on this thread about the riots avoided both of those things that you claim that we're doing

(In that it acknowledged the energising & liberating potential of collective (if atomised) power to so easily & effectively sideline day to day state power. While at the same time refusing to celebrate unconditionally the ends to which that power was actually put to use and lamenting the current impossibility of that power to be channeled towards progressive ends. And highlighting that difficulty/current inability and the obstacles in the way of doing such a thing brings us back full square to the issue raised in the OP itself)


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2011)

fair do's.  It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided.  But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2011)

articul8 said:


> fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.


Leninist phrase in general iirc.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> there was a considerable amount of looting involved in the poll tax riot. i walked up tottenham court road and saw a load of looted electronics shops. i saw at least two looted off licences. i saw looted music shops. i saw a jewellers getting looted. and even if you didn't actually see it, there were the reports of looting. so if your argument is there was fuck all looting in the poll tax riot, you either chose to ignore it, didn't see it or have preferred to rewrite history.



Perhaps Joe meant looting by non anarchists


----------



## smokedout (Aug 24, 2011)

love detective said:


> Not necessarily no - I don't understand your attempt to define this on pure economic terms - as you say below it's about what kind of behaviours & activities impact working class communities adversely and what doesn't



i'm not attempting to define this purely on economic terms, i'm pointing out there is an economic dimension which is important. im sure neither of us would have much problem with knightsbridge getting looted, but to many of these kids the people who run local shops are the rich - or at least the most obvious and accessible target of the class divide. i remember winding up the late balders on here about enfield being posh. by and large it isnt, but much of it is upper working/lower middle class, skilled workers, tradesmen, teachers, home owners - many of them would be described as working class proper. but when i worked in tottenham the kids thought enfield was posh, thats probably why they went there after tottenham the other week. what we're seeing is inter-class conflict based around economic power which in some may lead to an (im)moral position, kids with no stake in their communities, no chance of a future, who've learnt the only way to get anything is to nick it, often from the people they see as having what they don't - their 'class enemies' are small shop keepers.

what that means for our practice, how it should be addressed i dont know, but im not sure that pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing the underlying economics is very helpful. in short, theres a lot more thinking to be done.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 24, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Perhaps Joe meant looting by non anarchists


The crowd looted Europa Foods on Trafalgar square first. As the crowds got pushed up Charing Cross Road and also Regent Street, widespread looting took place. Pockets of looting happened right across the West End throughout the night.


----------



## love detective (Aug 24, 2011)

articul8 said:


> fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.


yeah you're right, i shouldn't have said that that would be the 'only' outcome - but in the context of the thing I was talking about I was using it to counter the more positive analysis & fawnings from some parts of the left - so perhaps i stretched the language too far - but I think that phrase when taken in context is not as extreme as you make out when taken out of context

Clearly there will be other outcomes in addition to the bolstering of confidence amongst existing anti-social elements:-

- a more politicised approach to sentencing that will capture a wider range of activities than these narrow riots

- the potential for the far right to capitalise on the racialising of the aftermath (i.e. the liberal/left tendency to equate turkish/sikh/muslim groups which mobilised to protect their area as positive but to view the same tendency as negative if done by anyone who happened to be white and working class), 

- an opening up of academic/liberal riot analysis/research industry (ironically commodifying an event/tendency that some on the left see as an unconditional revolt against the commodity and a positive rupture of the circuit of capital)

- higher car & home insurance premiums (in particular in the worst hit areas) to recoup insurance losses at a time of declining real wages, stubborn unemployment and economic stagnation

- an opening up of space for further political & economic attacks on the working class in general under the narrow cover of responding to what happened

Fair enough these are all negative, so your accusation of one-sidedness probably remains - but feel free to add a list of positive things to come out of it to balance out my dour analysis


----------



## love detective (Aug 24, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i'm not attempting to define this purely on economic terms, i'm pointing out there is an economic dimension which is important. im sure neither of us would have much problem with knightsbridge getting looted, but to many of these kids the people who run local shops are the rich - or at least the most obvious and accessible target of the class divide. i remember winding up the late balders on here about enfield being posh. by and large it isnt, but much of it is upper working/lower middle class, skilled workers, tradesmen, teachers, home owners - many of them would be described as working class proper. but when i worked in tottenham the kids thought enfield was posh, thats probably why they went there after tottenham the other week. what we're seeing is inter-class conflict based around economic power which in some may lead to an (im)moral position, kids with no stake in their communities, no chance of a future, who've learnt the only way to get anything is to nick it, often from the people they see as having what they don't - their 'class enemies' are small shop keepers.





smokedout said:


> what that means for our practice, how it should be addressed i dont know, but im not sure that pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing the underlying economics is very helpful. in short, theres a lot more thinking to be done.



ah right, I thought you were bringing in some economic definition in relation to the topic of the article which this thread was started to discuss

re what you say it collapses down even further than that - I saw some looters at the back of argos in catford being confronted by others who looted them of their looted gear - so again those looting the looters saw those primary looters as their 'class enemies' nicking things from the people they see as having what they didn't

as for pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing/understanding the underlying - i think the phrase 'understand a little more and condem a little more' succintly captures the two things that need to be done here while avoiding the fuckwitted approaches of both the right (understand  less and condem more) and the conservative/cobweb left (understand next to nothing and never condem/always victimise/always predetermine all behaviour/remove scope for any kind of personal/collective responsibility)

I've already given one practical example of an IWCA initiative at setting up an athletics club with a focus on getting youngsters on the estate involved - this doesn't fit with the accusations of writing people off from the get-go. i'd say it's very much a two pronged approach of attempting to create collective/communal structures that can give people ways of using their energies in more positive ways that can go some small way to rebuilding the kinds of communal solidarity that used to exist and has been systematically detroyed over the last 30 yeasr - while at the same time being prepared to draw a line where the persistent behaviour & activities of a minority make life even more miserable for the wider community, and to support ways in which the wider community can regain the confidence required to attempt to deal with some of these issues on their own terms


----------



## theCIA (Aug 24, 2011)

Im reading the article OP posted, can someone please help explain to me what is meant by "_Atomising social relations" ? _I have a vague idea, but would like clarification. 

Thanks...


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2011)

theCIA said:


> Im reading the article OP posted, can someone please help explain to me what is meant by "_Atomising social relations" ? _I have a vague idea, but would like clarification.


 Capitalism making society into a bunch of people fighting each other for money, basically.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2011)

theCIA said:


> Im reading the article OP posted, can someone please help explain to me what is meant by "_Atomising social relations" ? _I have a vague idea, but would like clarification.
> 
> Thanks...


Making them appear as individual rather than collective, fuck you jack with meat on it. And in doing so helping make sure that responses are also individual or based on individual decided priorities rather than collectively constructed needs.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2011)

love detective said:


> Fair enough these are all negative, so your accusation of one-sidedness probably remains - but feel free to add a list of positive things to come out of it to balance out my dour analysis



I don't doubt that lots of shit things could and probably will happen under the cloak of the "response".  But I'd talk about opportunities - good things that *might* come out them, rather than things that are likely to:
- General association in public mind between Tory governments and social disorder/destruction is reinforced
- Attacks on police cuts broadening out into a more general public consciousness of the effects of cuts to essential services
- Space opening for discussion of new forms genuinely accountable community (self-?)-policing
- Review of SuS laws and operations
- demands for more jobs and facilities for young people getting people linked up with anti-cuts campaigns and politicised (nb. I'm not talking about minority who looted charity shops etc, but less purely anti-social elements).


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2011)

love detective said:


> ah right, I thought you were bringing in some economic definition in relation to the topic of the article which this thread was started to discuss
> 
> re what you say it collapses down even further than that - I saw some looters at the back of argos in catford being confronted by others who looted them of their looted gear - so again those looting the looters saw those primary looters as their 'class enemies' nicking things from the people they see as having what they didn't
> 
> ...



no one could question the good intent and practical contribution this/these kinds of initiatives could make on a localised, grassroots level, but could any progressive political grouping, of any sort, realistically hope to be able to be addressing the bigger picture ( as presumably any political grouping has to, or else it becomes a community group / voluntary group / part of the' big soc 'etc *) *whilst devoting it's energies day to day to trying to help plug the endless holes in community fabric that 30 years of neo libs. has created ? i*
*


----------



## love detective (Aug 24, 2011)

i think one thing for sure is the only way to even attempt to do such a thing is from the bottom up, brick by brick

your post there seems to suggest that the kind of things the IWCA has been involved in doing is a distraction from some wider/nobler (more exciting?) project - I see it more as putting in place the types of things that need to be in place to even attempt to do the things you mention - how else could they be done otherwise (assuming we want to see it done in both a progressive & prefigurative (!?) manner)?

So it's not a distraction from the wider picture, it's a building block towards being in a position to actually do anything about the wider picture


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2011)

TopCat said:


> The crowd looted Europa Foods on Trafalgar square first. As the crowds got pushed up Charing Cross Road and also Regent Street, widespread looting took place. Pockets of looting happened right across the West End throughout the night.



This is true (though I happened to witness the same incident Joe did on Shaftesbury Avenue) and I saw the windows of Marcari's go and someone grab a guitar. What was different though is this - the looting wasn't the main event and didn't really start in earnest until the police had succeeded in pushing people out of Trafalger Square. And even when it did start, it remained marginal to the main proceedings of the day - and there were lots of people having a go at the looters for their individualism - I had a go at the bloke taking the guitar, a couple of people came out with the standard trite response of "property is theft" - and when I said, "That's as maybe, but we're here fighting the police and this selfish cunt is going to leave us to it - he's got to, he's got no choice now" the bloke was so ashamed he ended up stashing the guitar under a car, saying he'd come back for it later.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 24, 2011)

past caring said:


> This is true (though I happened to witness the same incident Joe did on Shaftesbury Avenue) and I saw the windows of Marcari's go and someone grab a guitar. What was different though is this - the looting wasn't the main event and didn't really start in earnest until the police had succeeded in pushing people out of Trafalger Square. And even when it did start, it remained marginal to the main proceedings of the day - and there were lots of people having a go at the looters for their individualism - I had a go at the bloke taking the guitar, a couple of people came out with the standard trite response of "property is theft" - and when I said, "That's as maybe, but we're here fighting the police and this selfish cunt is going to leave us to it - he's got to, he's got no choice now" the bloke was so ashamed he ended up stashing the guitar under a car, saying he'd come back for it later.


I don't think anyone was arguing that the levels of looting were similar on the Poll tax riot to that of the recent disorder. Certainly the main event of the poll tax riot (and I would argue the Brixton riots of 1985) was fighting the police. This was depressingly not the case with the recent stuff especially the Croydon disturbances but that said this was also down to the fact that in Croydon at least, the police did not come out to play but threw everything into defending Centrale and the Whitgift Centre.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 24, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I don't think anyone was arguing that the levels of looting were similar on the Poll tax riot to that of the recent disorder. Certainly the main event of the poll tax riot (and I would argue the Brixton riots of 1985) was fighting the police. This was depressingly not the case with the recent stuff especially the Croydon disturbances but that said this was also down to the fact that in Croydon at least, the police did not come out to play but threw everything into defending Centrale and the Whitgift Centre.



Which is exactly the opposite of what they did in the Poll Tax 'riot' - they held a group back until about 7pm and then drove them unescorted up the Haymarket (if memory serves) into Piccadilly, Shaftsbury Avenue Regent St and Oxford St.  Immediately, bank windows were crashed (there was a conveninet load a off rubble enroute) and so forth. Police did not respond. Though plain clothes police were very much in evidence during the day itself. Was the crowd released into Piccadilly and Regent St in order to cause looting the better to discredit the resistance of the demo earlier? It certainly worked out that way.
In addition it was essentially a police riot.

An entirely peaceful demonstation divided in two by police - who then attacked first one section then the other. In any event, I only described what looting i witnessed, whatever else happened after that was very much after the Lord Mayor's show so to speak, and was certainly not representative in any way, shape or form of the demo itself. Overall, the contrast between it, and the actions and intentions of the August rioters could hardly be more striking.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Which is exactly the opposite of what they did in the Poll Tax 'riot' - they held a group back until about 7pm and then drove them unescorted up the Haymarket (if memory serves) into Piccadilly, Shaftsbury Avenue Regent St and Oxford St. Immediately, bank windows were crashed (there was a conveninet load a off rubble enroute) and so forth. Police did not respond. Though plain clothes police were very much in evidence during the day itself. Was the crowd released into Piccadilly and Regent St in order to cause looting the better to discredit the resistance of the demo earlier? *It certainly worked out that way.*
> In addition it was essentially a police riot.
> 
> An entirely peaceful demonstation divided in two by police - who then attacked first one section then the other. In any event, I only described what looting i witnessed, whatever else happened after that was very much after the Lord Mayor's show so to speak, and was certainly not representative in any way, shape or form of the demo itself. Overall, the contrast between it, and the actions and intentions of the August rioters could hardly be more striking.



what do you mean ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Which is exactly the opposite of what they did in the Poll Tax 'riot' - they held a group back until about 7pm and then drove them unescorted up the Haymarket (if memory serves) into Piccadilly, Shaftsbury Avenue Regent St and Oxford St. Immediately, bank windows were crashed (there was a conveninet load a off rubble enroute) and so forth. Police did not respond. Though plain clothes police were very much in evidence during the day itself. Was the crowd released into Piccadilly and Regent St in order to cause looting the better to discredit the resistance of the demo earlier? It certainly worked out that way.
> In addition it was essentially a police riot.
> 
> An entirely peaceful demonstation divided in two by police - who then attacked first one section then the other. In any event, I only described what looting i witnessed, whatever else happened after that was very much after the Lord Mayor's show so to speak, and was certainly not representative in any way, shape or form of the demo itself. Overall, the contrast between it, and the actions and intentions of the August rioters could hardly be more striking.


you're speaking a load of bollocks. i can't tell you precisely what time the sun set on 31 march 1990: but this year it set at about 1930, and i imagine it was much the same in 1990. by 1900 on 31 march 1990 there had been fuck loads of window smashing in regent street, oxford street etc etc etc. there'd been running battles in the haymarket and round piccadilly circus by then, i was round there probably half five or so and saw them. and it must have been before seven because i had an amusing encounter with some posh people on the way to the theatre. i met the drummer out of culture shock as i started going up regent street - and there were loads of people up ahead.

what you seem to have difficulty grasping is that a lot of the people who were on the march, a lot of the people who were rioting for that matter, were smashing windows and doing a spot of looting. it really shouldn't come as a surprise after what, 21 years since the event? people were looting the offie on the corner of whitehall and trafalgar square before anything had actually kicked off - people were opening and up and drinking cans in the shop, taking out bottles, all sorts. there was a period of 'dual power' while some people were still paying for stuff and other people were removing things from the shop.

your post is the first claim i've seen since the ptr that the police encouraged looting to discredit the earlier resistance. it's barking nonsense.

oh - and by the way the square was cleared by five. where were these people who were thrust up the haymarket kept?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Aug 24, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't doubt that lots of shit things could and probably will happen under the cloak of the "response". But I'd talk about opportunities - good things that *might* come out them, rather than things that are likely to:
> - General association in public mind between Tory governments and social disorder/destruction is reinforced
> - Attacks on police cuts broadening out into a more general public consciousness of the effects of cuts to essential services
> - Space opening for discussion of new forms genuinely accountable community (self-?)-policing
> ...


 
People claim that stop and search and SUS are somehow racist because they target young black males more than any other group. But people who say this seem to forget that London has a very high level of black on black gun crime that needs to be dealt with. They keep finding 14 year olds slumped dead in playgrounds, bystanders get caught in crossfires in shop shootouts.

What would be an effective and realistic alternative to the random and somewhat desperate tactic of SUS?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 25, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're speaking a load of bollocks. i can't tell you precisely what time the sun set on 31 march 1990: but this year it set at about 1930, and i imagine it was much the same in 1990. by 1900 on 31 march 1990 there had been fuck loads of window smashing in regent street, oxford street etc etc etc. there'd been running battles in the haymarket and round piccadilly circus by then, i was round there probably half five or so and saw them. and it must have been before seven because i had an amusing encounter with some posh people on the way to the theatre. i met the drummer out of culture shock as i started going up regent street - and there were loads of people up ahead.
> 
> what you seem to have difficulty grasping is that a lot of the people who were on the march, a lot of the people who were rioting for that matter, were smashing windows and doing a spot of looting. it really shouldn't come as a surprise after what, 21 years since the event? people were looting the offie on the corner of whitehall and trafalgar square before anything had actually kicked off - people were opening and up and drinking cans in the shop, taking out bottles, all sorts. there was a period of 'dual power' while some people were still paying for stuff and other people were removing things from the shop.
> 
> ...



Yeah, your probably right, it must have been about 5pm.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> People claim that stop and search and SUS are somehow racist because they target young black males more than any other group. But people who say this seem to forget that London has a very high level of black on black gun crime that needs to be dealt with. They keep finding 14 year olds slumped dead in playgrounds, bystanders get caught in crossfires in shop shootouts.
> 
> What would be an effective and realistic alternative to the random and somewhat desperate tactic of SUS?



Stop and search is only ever going to try in vain to limit a whole tidal wave.  Does stop and search it have the support of the communities mostly targeted by it?  Maybe ask them how best to tackle it?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.



it is a swappie phrase yeh, ive never heard anyone else use it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 25, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> People claim that stop and search and SUS are somehow racist because they target young black males more than any other group. But people who say this seem to forget that London has a very high level of black on black gun crime that needs to be dealt with. They keep finding 14 year olds slumped dead in playgrounds, bystanders get caught in crossfires in shop shootouts.
> 
> What would be an effective and realistic alternative to the random and somewhat desperate tactic of SUS?


Thing is, if Stop and Search is so effective why are so many teenagers are still being killed?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 25, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> your post is the first claim i've seen since the ptr that the police encouraged looting to discredit the earlier resistance. it's barking nonsense.



What you think it beneath them or simply too sophisticated? Or is it that the looting/violence wasn't later used by police and News International in particular, in order to discredit the entire anti-Poll tax campaign? The fact is police ran they day the way they wanted up until 5 - can't see why they would have lost control of it afterwards. For example the much used footage of riot police apparently retreating from the enraged mob - has to be set against the hundreds and hundreds  of police sitting idly in their carriers some casually drinking coffee sitting in the open doorways, in Whitehall at the same time.
Finally of the 200,000 or so involved in the march, what percentage would you say was involved in looting? And what percentage of the remainder would be as inordinately proud of it as you appear to be?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> What you think it beneath them or simply too sophisticated? Or is it that the looting/violence wasn't later used by police and News International in particular, in order to discredit the entire anti-Poll tax campaign? The fact is police ran they day the way they wanted up until 5 - can't see why they would have lost control of it afterwards. For example the much used footage of riot police apparently retreating from the enraged mob - has to be set against the hundreds and hundreds of police sitting idly in their carriers some casually drinking coffee sitting in the open doorways, in Whitehall at the same time.
> Finally of the 200,000 or so involved in the march, what percentage would you say was involved in looting? And what percentage of the remainder would be as inordinately proud of it as you appear to be?


i am sorry for my intemperate language before.

i do not have a chronology of the poll tax riot before me: but things had kicked off before 5. i do not think the police 'ran the day they wanted up until 5'. i do not doubt they wanted a scrap - that was evident from what i saw before getting to trafalgar square. but they decided to kick it off attacking a sit-down protest outside downing street. their subsequent decision to force people away from westminster, into the west end, wasn't i think motivated by a machiavellian scheme to produce bad publicity for the anti-poll tax movement, but to prevent downing street being stormed and parliament attacked. p a j waddington said in his book 'liberty and order', about public order policing in london, that there were some things the police would 'die in a ditch' to protect, two of which are parliament and downing street. but police tactics on the day were confused: i remember being charged (along with many others!) by horses that came south down charing cross road - and the famous footage of the police riding someone down in trafalgar square shows them charging south. there seems to me to have been a front where there was fighting with the police which was pushed ever further north, and a hinterland where, erm, other things were taking place.

it is difficult to estimate how many people took part in the fighting, which i would say was about 10%: remember a lot of people never made it out of kennington common, let alone north of the river. the people who took part in the looting? given its extent - from at least covent garden in the east to at least piccadilly and probably marble arch in the west, and at least as far north as goodge street - thousands of people must have taken part. i didn't think i came across as 'inordinately proud' of the looting, simply there was a lot of looting, and not just the occasional boot. as this was my first demonstration it came as rather a surprise to me to see that sort of thing going on, but given that things were rather precisely targeted it's never given me a great weight on my conscience.

turning briefly to these hundreds of police lounging about, i don't suppose the quality of police leadership then was any greater than it is now. there is something of a dearth of talent at the top of the met's public order branch, and given half a chance to fuck things up they will. seems to me cock-up explains these things better than conspiracy. although the cops are not too fussed about losing a van or two to make a propaganda point, i think they'd shy from apparently losing control of central london for a number of hours as they did on 31 march 1990. i don't think they thought your idea beneath them, or too sophisticated, i just don't believe they thought of it at all. it had been quite some time since any previous march had ended in such disorder - perhaps you'd have to go back to the protestant association march which led to the gordon riots. anyway, i suspect that these police lounging about hadn't received orders and as police seem loath to act in such circumstances on their own initiative they might have been being used as a reserve or were the next shift waiting to come on.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i am sorry for my intemperate language before.



Well knock me down with a feather, Trevor!


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i am sorry for my intemperate language before.
> 
> i do not have a chronology of the poll tax riot before me: but things had kicked off before 5. i do not think the police 'ran the day they wanted up until 5'. i do not doubt they wanted a scrap - that was evident from what i saw before getting to trafalgar square. but they decided to kick it off attacking a sit-down protest outside downing street. their subsequent decision to force people away from westminster, into the west end, wasn't i think motivated by a machiavellian scheme to produce bad publicity for the anti-poll tax movement, but to prevent downing street being stormed and parliament attacked. p a j waddington said in his book 'liberty and order', about public order policing in london, that there were some things the police would 'die in a ditch' to protect, two of which are parliament and downing street. but police tactics on the day were confused: i remember being charged (along with many others!) by horses that came south down charing cross road - and the famous footage of the police riding someone down in trafalgar square shows them charging south. there seems to me to have been a front where there was fighting with the police which was pushed ever further north, and a hinterland where, erm, other things were taking place.
> 
> ...



If 200,000 taking part in the demonstration is agreed, then a 10 per cent taking part in the fighting comes out as 20,000. From what I witnessed a considerable inflation. I would have said that there were at the very most 2,000 involved in the skirmishes with the police in the square. Which is still a considerable number. However the police were the ones to take the iniative throughout. The split the march in Whitehall. Then attacked the marchers there. When in Trafalfar Sq they charged, the crowd fled. It was only when the police _retreated_ that the crowd advanced. It is my belief that they deliberately used insufficient officers to clear the area in order to create the impression of being over run. It was police that held the crowd in Trafalgar Square against their will. It was also the police decision to release them. No where, that I saw, were police overstretched. You could also see that ordinary people taking part in the demo were totally shocked at police aggression. They just wanted to get away. Many i would suggest never to come back. which was no doubt the point of the excercise (kettling is more passive version of the same strategem). The scandal of the 'police riot' never came to be addressed largely due to News of the World running a front page story involving a certain Mr Murphy, who claimed that far from being a police conspiracy the police were in fact the victims of an anarchist one.

In Welling in 1993 the police announced in advance on the regional news _exactly_ where the violence would occur. Accordingly the area in question was carpeted with cameras. On the day, all side roads from the route march were manned by riot police, (preventing anyone leaving the march)while the junction previously identified by police as the potential site of conflict had a curiously thin line of wooden tops. In addition, likely suspects, such as AFA for instance were 'body-mapped' prior to arriving on the march by SB. The London Evening Standard and World in Action later blamed AFA for the riot. Similar formula. Coincidence or cock-up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> If 200,000 taking part in the demonstration is agreed, then a 10 per cent taking part in the fighting comes out as 20,000. From what I witnessed a considerable inflation. I would have said that there were at the very most 2,000 involved in the skirmishes with the police in the square. Which is still a considerable number. However the police were the ones to take the iniative throughout. The split the march in Whitehall. Then attacked the marchers there. When in Trafalfar Sq they charged, the crowd fled. It was only when the police _retreated_ that the crowd advanced. It is my belief that they deliberately used insufficient officers to clear the area in order to create the impression of being over run. It was police that held the crowd in Trafalgar Square against their will. It was also the police decision to release them. No where, that I saw, were police overstretched. You could also see that ordinary people taking part in the demo were totally shocked at police aggression. They just wanted to get away. Many i would suggest never to come back. which was no doubt the point of the excercise (kettling is more passive version of the same strategem). The scandal of the 'police riot' never came to be addressed largely due to News of the World running a front page story involving a certain Mr Murphy, who claimed that far from being a police conspiracy the police were in fact the victims of an anarchist one.
> 
> In Welling in 1993 the police announced in advance on the regional news _exactly_ where the violence would occur. Accordingly the area in question was carpeted with cameras. On the day, all side roads from the route march were manned by riot police, (preventing anyone leaving the march)while the junction previously identified by police as the potential site of conflict had a curiously thin line of wooden tops. In addition, likely suspects, such as AFA for instance were 'body-mapped' prior to arriving on the march by SB. The London Evening Standard and World in Action later blamed AFA for the riot. Similar formula. Coincidence or cock-up?


interesting points. i would very much agree with you about welling. i remember watching the news when they announced the change of route and saying it would definitely kick off. there was the recent revelation about the undercover cop who'd been knocking round with yre (iirc) at the time who'd apparently managed to get the route changed.

i think you make some solid points about the poll tax riot, i'll come back to this later.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> In Welling in 1993 the police announced in advance on the regional news _exactly_ where the violence would occur. Accordingly the area in question was carpeted with cameras. On the day, all side roads from the route march were manned by riot police, (preventing anyone leaving the march)while the junction previously identified by police as the potential site of conflict had a curiously thin line of wooden tops. In addition, likely suspects, such as AFA for instance were 'body-mapped' prior to arriving on the march by SB. The London Evening Standard and World in Action later blamed AFA for the riot. Similar formula. Coincidence or cock-up?



the YRE Away Team-mate of mine was interviewed-and some of Panther also got blamed for the violence in the World in Action programme. Plod spent months denying they closed off the official route, ie Lodge Hill upto the enforced endpoint at Bostall Hil. They also denied they had lines of police across Okehampton Crescent only allowing people to be taken to the ambulances that were already stationed there......


----------



## love detective (Aug 29, 2011)

will be an IWCA article on the riots out tomorrow

so we can do another 16 pages of exactly the same thing on that


----------



## cogg (Aug 30, 2011)

love detective said:


> will be an IWCA article on the riots out tomorrow
> 
> so we can do another 16 pages of exactly the same thing on that


Ha, ha...


----------



## revlon (Aug 30, 2011)

love detective said:


> will be an IWCA article on the riots out tomorrow
> 
> so we can do another 16 pages of exactly the same thing on that



stop the author doing a hari and inventing quotes by marx to suit the article and you should be alright


----------



## love detective (Aug 30, 2011)

I've seen two references to Marx calling it the 'the dangerous class' (one in communist manifesto and the other in chapter 25 of capital vol1 in the section on the 'different forms of the relative surplus population). In both cases it's referred to as 'the' dangerous class rather than 'a' dangerous class - in both cases, regardless of phrasing the substance of meaning is clear

It's also referred to in the 18th Brumaire and spoke about in the same context as that referred to in the dealing with the renegades article and the forthcoming one:-



> On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,[*] pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10.
> 
> A "benevolent society" - insofar as, like Bonaparte, all its members felt the need of benefiting themselves at the expense of the laboring nation. This Bonaparte, who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognizes in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally
> 
> * Lazzaroni – a contemptuous name for declassed proletarians, primarily in the Kingdom of Naples. These people were repeatedly used by reactionary governments against liberal and democratic movements.


----------



## revlon (Aug 30, 2011)

love detective said:


> I've seen two references to Marx calling it the 'the dangerous class' (one in communist manifesto and the other in chapter 25 of capital vol1 in the section on the 'different forms of the relative surplus population). In both cases it's referred to as 'the' dangerous class rather than 'a' dangerous class - in both cases, regardless of phrasing the substance of meaning is clear
> 
> It's also referred to in the 18th Brumaire and spoke about in the same context as that referred to in the dealing with the renegades article and the forthcoming one:-


 
but marx didn't call them _the most dangerous class of all_ (put in inverted commas by the author), which gives it a very different emphasis and a very different meaning. And given what we know about the petit-bourgeois and fascism, and in fact of what marx warned us about the capitalist class, it's a weird thing to make up.

And as you quoted above in brumaire marx refers to the lumpen as the 'refuse of all classes' and "this scum of the decaying elements of all classes" which negates the comparison somewhat.

The lumpen were only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte (who marx describes - "Bonaparte knows how to pose as the Chief of the Society of December 10, as the representative of the lumpen proletariat to which he himself, his entourage, his government, and his army belong".

The reference to the dangerous class in communist manifesto was in quotation marks.

As i say, get rid of the attempts to create a new class formation, especially one that needs to misquote marx to do it, and you've got the start of a decent article.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 30, 2011)

revlon said:


> but marx didn't call them _the most dangerous class of all_ (put in inverted commas by the author), which gives it a very different emphasis and a very different meaning. And given what we know about the petit-bourgeois and fascism, and in fact of what marx warned us about the capitalist class, it's a weird thing to make up.
> 
> And as you quoted above in brumaire marx refers to the lumpen as the 'refuse of all classes' and "this scum of the decaying elements of all classes" which negates the comparison somewhat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 30, 2011)

revlon said:


> As i say, get rid of the attempts to create a new class formation, especially one that needs to misquote marx to do it, and you've got the start of a decent article.



Your objection distilled, is not to the use of the word 'most' but the use of the word 'class'.


----------



## love detective (Aug 30, 2011)

revlon said:


> but marx didn't call them _the most dangerous class of all_ (put in inverted commas by the author), which gives it a very different emphasis and a very different meaning. And given what we know about the petit-bourgeois and fascism, and in fact of what marx warned us about the capitalist class, it's a weird thing to make up.
> 
> And as you quoted above in brumaire marx refers to the lumpen as the 'refuse of all classes' and "this scum of the decaying elements of all classes" which negates the comparison somewhat.
> 
> ...



To be honest nitpicking about what Marx did or did not say 150 years ago (and the meaning of the usage of the definitive article in front of dangerous class) shouldn't really be the substance of discussion about the article. The essence of the article remains the same whatever Marx said or did not say

What's clear though, is that Marx saw the reactionary potential and inherent danger of the activities that this particular grouping posed towards any kind of progressive working class movement.

Any roads, for Marx class analysis was not a tool for identifying and labeling specific individuals with anyway. It was about understanding roles played in society, and the impact of the activity & actions stemming from those roles on others and on society itself. So back to the point of the article again - what's important is identifying what activities are a help or a hindrance to independent pro working class organisation.

(btw, don't understand your point about the activities & actions of the lumpen being only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte - obviously in the 18th Brumaire the context was in the way Bonaparte used them, but are you implying that in all times previous and since, and in all other places they have never been used in this way? Surely the reference to Lazzaroni in the post I quoted shows this not to be the case? Why would the term exist otherwise)


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2011)

The use of the term 'Lazzaroni' has one big problem however as is often the case with historical analogies. What is certainly true that during the French Revolutionary period the then Lazzaroni were overwhelmingly pro Monacrchy and the then Bourbon monarchy. However years later when Garibaldi and his revolutionary redshirt movement moved into Naples the Lazarroni were overwhelmingly Pro-Republic and Pro-Garibaldi. One commentator of the time even commented how Garibaldi was their patron saint. Even those who seem to be written off historically were in fact most certaoinly capable of being swept up with and into progressive even revolutionary political movements..


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> The use of the term 'Lazzaroni' has one big problem however as is often the case with historical analogies. What is certainly true that during the French Revolutionary period the then Lazzaroni were overwhelmingly pro Monacrchy and the then Bourbon monarchy. However years later when Garibaldi and his revolutionary redshirt movement moved into Naples the Lazarroni were overwhelmingly Pro-Republic and Pro-Garibaldi. One commentator of the time even commented how Garibaldi was their patron saint. Even those who seem to be written off historically were in fact most certaoinly capable of being swept up with and into progressive even revolutionary political movements..


Well fuck me sideways with a dead donkey. It seems ill-defined groups in different places with vague similarities can behave differently at different times.

I hate to generalise, but in general this thread is rubbish.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2011)

I would also add that the estimates for the numbers of Neapolitan Lazzaroni is upwards of 40,000 in the one city at the time of the French Revolution. The use of such a comparison is especially poor given the history and continuing history of the Neapolitan poor and how they are enmeshed sadly in a criminality that is effectively big business across the world. It is like no other and was at that time like no other. What is also true is that many had proper-as proper as it could be then-work and paid employment, it's not as simple as Marx claims.


----------



## love detective (Aug 30, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Even those who seem to be written off historically were in fact most certaoinly capable of being swept up with and into progressive even revolutionary political movements..



if only Marx had acknowlegded such a possiblity and written something like the below:-



> The “dangerous class”, [_lumpenproletariat_] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, *may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution*; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.



Anyway, as i said above - what's important is looking at the activities & impacts of the actions of those being discussed in the here & now and identifying whether these are a help or a hinderance to independent pro working class organisaiton. Surely you're not suggesting the material conditions of the here & now should be ignored because there's a chance in a different context in a different time in a different place, things could be different?


----------



## love detective (Aug 30, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Well fuck me sideways with a dead donkey. It seems ill-defined groups in different places with vague similarities can behave differently at different times..



and the article, in which this this thread is a discussion about, talks about the particular behaviour of a particular group at this particular time

problem is?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2011)

love detective said:


> if only Marx had acknowlegded such a possiblity and written something like the below:-
> 
> Anyway, as i said above - what's important is looking at the activities & impacts of the actions of those being discussed in the here & now and identifying whether these are a help or a hinderance to independent pro working class organisaiton. Surely you're not suggesting the material conditions of the here & now should be ignored because there's a chance in a different context in a different time in a different place, things could be different?



No, I think Marx was too proscriptive not the above bit. It merely highlights the danger of using Marx as some kind of infallible totem rather than how his ideas should be used.

And the Lazzarinos weren't 'here and there swept up' they were almost totally won over to the side of revolution...


----------



## love detective (Aug 30, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It merely highlights the danger of using Marx as some kind of infallible totem rather than how his ideas should be used.



I agree

Something the IWCA in general or this article in particular could be accused off though?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 30, 2011)

is the IWCA riots piece out yet then (link?)


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2011)

love detective said:


> I agree
> 
> Something the IWCA in general or this article in particular could be accused off though?



Not especially, you (you even highlighted the word lazzaroni) and revlon had a bit of a duel over the issue and that's why I thought the issue was worth referring to


----------



## revlon (Aug 30, 2011)

love detective said:


> *To be honest nitpicking about what Marx did or did not say 150 years ago (and the meaning of the usage of the definitive article in front of dangerous class)* shouldn't really be the substance of discussion about the article. The essence of the article remains the same whatever Marx said or did not say
> 
> What's clear though, is that Marx saw the reactionary potential and inherent danger of the activities that this particular grouping posed towards any kind of progressive working class movement.
> 
> ...



i agree entirely. I don't know why it's there, or why the bulk of the article (if not the substance) is taken up with trying to convince the reader there's a new social class on the prowl (without any supporting evidence beyond listing certain behavioural traits). If it had just said "the reorientation of the underclass during late capitalism" you would've covered all your bases, and left yourself free to pose the pertinent questions.

Marx's lumpen covered a lot of social class distinctions - there was the literary lumpen, the noble lumpen, the irish catholics in england, and of course louis bonaparte and his crew. I suppose their common features were - socially parasitic, both on the working and ruling class, excluded from the dialectical class antagonisms, no class loyality beyond personal gain and individual preservation. I meant, as with the lazzaroni, they were not dangerous simply by being lumpen but became dangerous when employed directly by the ruling class as a political and physical force.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 30, 2011)

revlon said:


> the irish catholics in england,


woah there - on what basis were Irish catholics "lumpens"?


----------



## revlon (Aug 30, 2011)

articul8 said:


> woah there - on what basis were Irish catholics "lumpens"?



on engels say so


----------



## articul8 (Aug 30, 2011)

Coming over here with their lumpen starvation and joblessness....


----------



## revlon (Aug 30, 2011)

In England Catholicism has its few supporters in the two extremes of society, the aristocracy and the lumpenproletariat. The lumpenproletariat, the mob, which is either Irish or of Irish ancestry, is Catholic by descent.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/11/01.htm


----------



## articul8 (Aug 30, 2011)

that's a drastic oversimplification - although it's true that at times there has been an alliance of landowning and peasant/working classes against middle class puritanism.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 30, 2011)

revlon said:


> ... they were not dangerous simply by being lumpen but became dangerous when employed directly by the ruling class as a political and physical force.



As we head toward a double dip is an acute political danger in proclaiming a potential enemy, as either the real revolutionary deal already, or failing that someone the working class could or should align itself with against the common enemy. That apart as has been pointed out on numerous occassions, there very existence is utterly corrosive to working class morale on a day to day basis.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2011)

That makes no sense at all. The first sentence especially.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 31, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> As we head toward a double dip is an acute political danger in proclaiming a potential enemy, as either the real revolutionary deal already, or failing that someone the working class could or should align itself with against the common enemy. That apart as has been pointed out on numerous occassions, there very existence is utterly corrosive to working class morale on a day to day basis.



And that is the point - one which most of the 'left' is too quesy to acknowledge let alone grapple with. Looking forward to the article.


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> That makes no sense at all. The first sentence especially.



In times of economic crisis (or any other times I would argue) it would be dangerous to look upon what is in effect a potential (or actual I would argue) enemy as having some kind of aligned revolutionary potential with which the majority of the working class could find common cause with


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

articul8 said:


> is the IWCA riots piece out yet then (link?)



should be up this evening


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 31, 2011)

any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 31, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?


Not yet, the latest issue of Workers Power isn't out yet tho.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 31, 2011)

love detective said:


> should be up this evening


Look forward to it.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?


I agree with Marx - it's the literati we need to be watching out for.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 31, 2011)

_Let me rephrase that.._



Joe Reilly said:


> As we head toward a double dip recession there is an acute political danger in proclaiming an enemy with the potential for considerable growth, as either the real revolutionary deal already, or failing that, as someone with whom the working class could or should align itself with against the common enemy. That apart as has been pointed out on numerous occassions, their very existence is utterly corrosive to working class morale on a day to day basis.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 31, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?



Isn't that inverting the relationship?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 31, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> _Let me rephrase that.._



Cheers Joe.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2011)

> As we head toward a double dip recession there is an acute political danger in proclaiming an enemy with the potential for considerable growth, as either the real revolutionary deal already, or failing that, as someone with whom the working class could or should align itself with against the common enemy.


Is anyone actually doing that though - saying that they're the "real revolutionary deal"? And can everyone who took part in the riots really be said to be lumpen and therefore the enemy? (i'm not saying you're saying that btw - but is there much evidence that that was the dominant social class which took part in the riots?)​


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

here's the IWCA article


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 1, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Isn't that inverting the relationship?



That's a good point. many years ago after some SWP members were taxed at the Nottinghill Carnival Tony Bogues in Flame , the SWP black group,came out with some tosh that street robbery was some form of anti racist fightback payback and a rejection of the capitalist labour process.

Not knowing this at the time made me and my mate feel counter revolutionary when we head butted two youths who approached us with 'Give me your money Star' on the platform of Harlesden railway station a few weeks before.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 1, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> when we head butted two youths


----------



## articul8 (Sep 1, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?


who said that they would be?  I didn't


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> who said that they would be? I didn't



The world isn't built around you young man


----------



## articul8 (Sep 1, 2011)

that's my animistic worldview shattered


----------



## revlon (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> here's the IWCA article



well written piece.


----------



## revlon (Sep 1, 2011)

just to add, the paris lumpens of marx day were fiercely loyal to the prevailing aristocracy/monarchy and as such could be utilised politically as a physical force. Todays lumpen seem to be wholly 'anti-authority' and in that respect apolitical. If today's lumpen are the enemy of working class then they are equally the enemy of the ruling class?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> here's the IWCA article



politically it's okay as it goes, but its still tied in to a very narrow analysis.  it gives a nod to poverty, exclusion etc, but thats it, just a nod, and then tries to ram home that the riots werent about that, and absolutely werent about the education cuts,  - they werent just about those things either (far from it), but we shouldnt be falling into the trap of second guessing the motives of every kid who was out on the streets that night - there were many similar kids at the student protests last year and some of them fought fiercely against the police, was that not about politics for them either, and whats changed in their heads between the two riots?

it also falls short because we still dont actually know what this underclass represents, is it teen gang members or big issue sellers - this has to be more clearly defined before it can be discussed - if the underclass composes both street drinkers and gangsters then the argument about the class division being based on morality falls apart - beyond the next can most street drinkers are the least materialistic people out there and often have a strong community bond - so we're left only with economic indicators as a trait that both these groups share

the piece isnt strengthened by some flimsy details either - do we know mark duggan was a 'major player', if so how?  you cant just throw something like that out there.  240 street gangs in london, based on what, a tory mp on question time, you really believe this crap (this weeks standard had the Met saying the figure was about 100, but many of these were splinter groups, inactive, the same gang under another name or not particularly criminal in nature, ie just teenagers fucking about like they do).  the broad claim that 'it was only the organised elements in the gangs who had the necessary authority and swagger to give the impetus to the riots.' comes from an analysis of what someone saw on the fucking telly (was the author actually there at any of these disturbances)

also the claim that "The police were not the target, but were instead a force to be circumvented." - well this wasnt true at all in catford where the police came under heavy attack for some time, i cant speak for elsewhere

the part about the work done in oxford is good, it offers solutions, even if only superficial ones (thats reads unfairly harsh, but the crack dealers, and the crack are still there, its the creation of a localised sticking plaster, admirable as that is, without a wider analysis based not just on morality but resource allocation and poverty then the problem as a whole is unlikely to improve)

stylistically btw the phrase 'why not oxford?' draws a bit of a belly laugh to the lay reader in the same way 'why not surrey' might - people wont get past that and its such an obvious point of attack that it should have been phrased and structured differently


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

revlon said:


> If today's lumpen are the enemy of working class then they are equally the enemy of the ruling class?



are they the enemy of the ruling class, or just useful idiots?

one things for sure they share the same_ instincts, values and aspirations _


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> are they the enemy of the ruling class, or just useful idiots?
> 
> one things for sure they share the same_ instincts, values and aspirations _


The rioters share the same instincts, values and aspirations as the ruling class? What do you base that on?

TBH I still don't see where 'identifying an opponent' in the rioters gets anyone.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The rioters share the same instincts, values and aspirations as the ruling class? What do you base that on?


out for themselves and fuck anyone else???


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> out for themselves and fuck anyone else???


Perhaps some of them, yes. The idea that they share the aspirations of the ruling class doesn't compute with me, though.


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

> The rioters share the same instincts, values and aspirations as the ruling class? What do you base that on?




why not read the article to find out



> Such a state of affairs would be bad enough in itself, but when the old values of solidarity, community and hard work are not just lost but increasingly replaced by neo-liberal morality –greed, avarice, pathological self regard- it leads to the creation of the sub-set that made their presence felt three weeks ago. Those who attempt to paint these riots ‘red’ –as some kind of political response to the cuts, or youth poverty and hopelessness- misunderstand both their character and how defeated and broken the last thirty years has left our side. These were neo-liberal riots in every sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2011)

What is that characterisation based on?


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

just to add, revlon introduced the term Ruling class into the discussion and made the comparison - it's not a term I like and would prefer to use something more like the dominating logic of capital/neo-liberalism or some such other wanky phrase - anything's better than this ruling class, men in top hats type stuff


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is that characterisation based on?



it's based on the IWCA's analysis of what happened, and what has been happening over a longer period of time


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2011)

This is a group of people who that article admits have had a rough deal in life. Whatever you think of the choices they've made, given the limits to their choices, I don't like the idea of a political movement that identifies them as an opponent.


----------



## revlon (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> just to add, revlon introduced the term Ruling class into the discussion and made the comparison - it's not a term I like and would prefer to use something more like the dominating logic of capital/neo-liberalism or some such other wanky phrase - anything's better than this ruling class, men in top hats type stuff



if it's good enough for marx's dialectic...

The ruling class incorporates the functionaries of the state, rather than it just being the capitalists.

The working class, men in flat caps type stuff


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a group of people who that article admits have had a rough deal in life. Whatever you think of the choices they've made, given the limits to their choices, I don't like the idea of a political movement that identifies them as an opponent.



I think this demonstrates the vast difference between the kind of materialist approach taken by the likes of the IWCA and your disconnected/distanced neat & tidy idealist textbook notion as to how you'd like things to be

The logic for identification as an opponent is set out fairly clearly -



> the working class wasn’t just to go through _embourgeoisment_ at one end, but also lumpenisation at the other, and in all cases were to internalise the same neo-liberal values. While one may feel greater sympathy with the latter grouping (the former are soon to receive a particularly rude shock, as the economic crisis inexorably works itself out), from a tactical point of view once the neo-liberal mindset has been accepted the individual has to be viewed as being in the enemy camp.



You wondered out loud a few weeks ago as to why people thought you were a liberal - this is one example of why. The persistence in treating as victim (and the sheer horror in seeing them as an opponent) the type of people who can make life a misery for the majority of the working class, whether that be through drug related activity/dealing, gang related activity & intimidation, colonisation of public spaces, robbing & stealing, the creation of a climate of fear & intimidation in public areas etc and a whole host of anti-social crime & behaviour.

For you the activities of these people should not be condemned and seen as something to confront, but instead they should be excused as they are purely playing out the deterministic role set out for them by the social relations we all live under


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> just to add, revlon introduced the term Ruling class into the discussion and made the comparison - it's not a term I like and would prefer to use something more like the dominating logic of capital/neo-liberalism or some such other wanky phrase - anything's better than this ruling class, men in top hats type stuff


given the banality of bureaucracy and governance you're unlikely to see many of the ruling class in top hats.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 1, 2011)

smokedout said:


> the piece isnt strengthened by some flimsy details either - do we know mark duggan was a 'major player', if so how? you cant just throw something like that out there. 240 street gangs in london, based on what, a tory mp on question time, you really believe this crap (this weeks standard had the Met saying the figure was about 100, but many of these were splinter groups, inactive, the same gang under another name or not particularly criminal in nature, ie just teenagers fucking about like they do).



Either you genuinely misread it, or your, lets call it, bias  for 'just kids messing about' is showing. In the Evening Standard piece the Met said there were 267 gangs, 'some splinter groups etc'  The figure of 100 (some 100 strong remember) was reserved for the really serious criminal enterprises. As for the 240 figure quoted in the artcile, Brian Paddick, former top copper concurred with the tory, indeed he my actually have been quoting him: "I think that's right Brian'?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 1, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Either you genuinely misread it, or your, lets call it, bias for 'just kids messing about' is showing. In the Evening Standard piece the Met said there were 267 gangs, 'some splinter groups etc' The figure of 100 (some 100 strong remember) was reserved for the really serious criminal enterprises. As for the 240 figure quoted in the artcile, Brian Paddick, former top copper concurred with the tory, indeed he my actually have been quoting him: "I think that's right Brian'?



the evening standard piece said both: 



> More than 100 street gangs are thought to be active in London.
> Criminologist Dr John Pitts, whose book Reluctant Gangsters studies London gangs, says it is difficult to give an accurate picture of gangs in the capital.
> According to one police estimate there are as many as 257 but many are off-shoots of other gangs or simply not active.
> In Waltham Forest, for instance, there are said to be 17 groups described as gangs but they range from a group of youngsters from a children's home who cause a nuisance to groups who are engaged in drug dealing and serious violence.
> ...



why over-egg the pudding?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 1, 2011)

revlon said:


> just to add, the paris lumpens of marx day were fiercely loyal to the prevailing aristocracy/monarchy and as such could be utilised politically as a physical force. Todays lumpen seem to be wholly 'anti-authority' and in that respect apolitical. If today's lumpen are the enemy of working class then they are equally the enemy of the ruling class?



The Paris lumpen were 'fiercely loyal' because they were handsomely rewarded. If the proleteriat had the funds to buy them they would be fiercely loyal to them too. And have a merry old time butchering the artistocracy for as long as it lasted.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Is anyone actually doing that though - saying that they're the "real revolutionary deal"? And can everyone who took part in the riots really be said to be lumpen and therefore the enemy? (i'm not saying you're saying that btw - but is there much evidence that that was the dominant social class which took part in the riots?)​



The article is not saying is that everyone who too part in the riots was lumpen, but that the lumpen, with the organised gangs as the driving force, were the primary class involved. Afterall it wasn't a middle class riot was it? And is anyone saying that this is how the working class organises, operates and thinks?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 1, 2011)

I


Joe Reilly said:


> The article is not saying is that everyone who too part in the riots was lumpen, but that the lumpen, with the organised gangs as the driving force, were the primary class involved. Afterall it wasn't a middle class riot was it? And is anyone saying that this is how the working class organises, operates and thinks?


 
 I think you're forgetting the difference between the actual working class and certain peoples' concept of the working class.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The article is not saying is that everyone who too part in the riots was lumpen, but that the lumpen, with the organised gangs as the driving force, were the primary class involved. Afterall it wasn't a middle class riot was it? And is anyone saying that this is how the working class organises, operates and thinks?


oh ok - gotcha. and no, i don't think anyone is. the point i'm making is that a lot of the people involved in the riots were under 18 right? and some of them may have come from working class, or even middle class families, not "lumpen" backgrounds. how many people in the uk today really are from families where *nobody* has worked for several *generations* (not several years)?i'm not saying that they don't exist, but are there really that many people around where parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc all have absolutely *no* experience of work and the workplace of any kind - it must be quite a small minority surely?

my ex gf could well have been classified as lumpen btw. when i met her she was the only one in the family that was working and the rest had not worked for several years? at the time i met her, she was mates with all of the local car thieves in the area and had a lot of stolen goods. none of her family was working and she was involved in some low level dodgy stuff, as well as having a criminal record. she now has a really good job as a chef thanks to supportive friends and work mates etc (as well as having moved away from the area with mates which probably has done her the world of good tbh). At the time I last spoke to her properly which was a few years ago now, she was getting involved in community campaigns to improve the conditions in the area she lived in, she was writing letters to the council and knocking up petitions about street lighting and the like. i'm aware that doesn't count as much as "evidence" but the article seems at times to be suggesting that EVERYONE in this category must be looked upon as an enemy as soon as they do something criminal and doesn't seem to consider the fact that people can change at times. Likewise as smokedout says

i do think that the article did have some good analysis and made some good - and uncomfortable - points - but i think it does run the risk of falling into the trap of the "determinism" that it rightly criticises elsewhere


----------



## articul8 (Sep 1, 2011)

> The scale of the backlash *may* have been a result of gang leaders in Tottenham and Hackney deciding that the shooting of Duggan (_who was a major player, and perhaps tellingly also something of an elusive pimpernel_) and mass arrests were all part of the same dance. Prior to the riots the Met were moving against gangs across five London boroughs simultaneously. Though for operational reasons the boroughs have not been identified, it’s safe to *assume* that Haringey and Hackney are amongst them. So the united front *may* have come about in response to an escalation made against them by a common enemy, and would have been put together prior to riots in order to maximise impact and drive the message home to both police and politicians that ’leaving sleeping dogs lie’ is generally a wise adage.
> Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester confirmed that rioters in Salford were specifically looking to “get back at police” after a clampdown on them *[who - gangs?]* in that area. In Newtown in Birmingham, police claim that they were shot eleven times, from four different guns. While in London, police estimate that of the 1500 arrested in the first week or so, ‘one in four’ were either gang members or ‘affiliates’ [*so 75% were in no way affiliated?]*. In 2007 there were an estimated 170 streets gangs in London, according to Scotland Yard’s Barry Norman. But on Question Time, Tory MP David Davis flagged up a figure of 240 (some of them up to a hundred strong).



It all seems highly speculative - a police move on Pembury *might* have led to organised violence in the wake of the Duggan killing...more than one gang *may* have converged in Tottenham - all like a guessing game. There's a laughable line about thousands of TV hours showing that swaggering gang leaders led the way. Who's been watching all that CCTV footage to make such a sweeping claim?

The ruling class have been quick to point to causal factors (it's street-gangs, it's all social networking etc) in order to simplify events and slot them into their convenient narratives. Seems that IWCA are upto the same trick. It's not that the article doesn't have any substance. It does - but the general explanatory value is stretched to breaking point and only allows cursory acknowledgment of other causal elements. It wasn't an incipiently political - still less revolutionary - outbreak of rioting, but factors like youth unemployment, taking away EMA allowances, closing youth services etc aren't exactly irrelevant background details.


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

smokedout said:


> it also falls short because we still dont actually know what this underclass represents, is it teen gang members or big issue sellers - this has to be more clearly defined before it can be discussed - if the underclass composes both street drinkers and gangsters then the argument about the class division being based on morality falls apart - beyond the next can most street drinkers are the least materialistic people out there and often have a strong community bond - so we're left only with economic indicators as a trait that both these groups share.



where on earth do you get the impression that street drinkers & big issue sellers are a target of, or included in, the article's analysis?

i'm sure you've got enough ability to genuinely critique the article without resorting to the straw man of above


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

from here maybe



> The riots and looting of three weeks ago mark the emergence of that renegade section onto the national stage. It became newsworthy because its actions have, for the first time, impacted on the middle class, particularly for those who choose to live in areas they like to describe as ‘edgy’. Previously reassured by the deference of Big Issue sellers and the unfailing good manners of street drinkers, the stepping up onto the stage of the militant wing will have caused profound shock.



doesn't this imply that the street drinkers and big issue sellers are a part of the lumpen class to which the article refers (and iirc in traditional marxist analysis they were)


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

where in that statement does it indicate that street drinkers & big issue sellers are a target of, or included in, the article's analysis?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> from here maybe
> 
> doesn't this imply that the street drinkers and big issue sellers are a part of the lumpen class to which the article refers (and iirc in traditional marxist analysis they were)


The argument is that there's been qualitative change beyond street drinkers and the official homeless and that the middle class view of the lumpen easily imagines that the latter is the former and therefore not dangerous, not a threat, not seeing the full picture. To them it ain't and they don't have to. It's not a political reality or priority staring them in the face.

(edit: full disclosure, not read the full article yet, just the quote that you used)


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

why mention them at all then? i read it as implying that the street drinkers and big issue sellers are part of the lumpen which the rioters represent the "militant wing" of


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The argument is that there's been qualitative change beyond street drinkers and the official homeless and that the middle class view of the lumpen easily imagines that the latter is the former and therefore nor dangerous, not a threat. To them it ain't.



Oh, OK. cheers


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

> why mention them at all then? i read it as implying that the street drinkers and big issue sellers are part of the lumpen which the rioters represent the "militant wing" of



does it suggest anywhere that street drinkers & big issue sellers are a threat to indepedent pro working class organisation? No

does it suggest street drinkers & big issue sellers make life a misery for the majority of the working class through drug related activity/dealing, gang related activity & intimidation, colonisation of public spaces, robbing & stealing, the creation of a climate of fear & intimidation in public areas etc and a whole host of anti-social crime & behaviour? No

Is the article and the one that preceeded it mainly concerned with elements & activities that are a threat to independent pro working class organisation and the need to confront those same elements & behaviours that pose a threat to, and make life a misery for, the rest of the working class? Yes


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

fair enough - and no its not part of the analysis in the article proper - but do you not realise how that sentence could have came across?


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

> but do you not realise how that sentence could have came across?



i can't understand how anyone who has understood the substantive objective of both articles (even if in disagreement with the conclusions/analysis) could have thought that it was saying that the activities of big issue sellers & street drinkers represented a raw expression of neo-liberal morality and a threat to the potential for the development of pro working class progressive politics


----------



## smokedout (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> Is the article and the one that preceeded it mainly concerned with elements & activities that are a threat to independent pro working class organisation and the need to confront those same elements & behaviours that pose a threat to, and make life a misery for, the rest of the working class? Yes



yes but i only know that because i can assume that the IWCA are not about to launch an attack on street drinkers or homeless people - someone coming to the piece cold could easily summise that this is an attack on the 'underclass' as perceived en masse (of which the rioters are the militant wing), which very much includes street drinkers, homeless folk, travellers and benefit claimants - this is provocative writing (and rightly so), you cant make presumptions on the part of the reader



> does it suggest street drinkers & big issue sellers make life a misery for the majority of the working class through drug related activity/dealing, gang related activity & intimidation, colonisation of public spaces, robbing & stealing, the creation of a climate of fear & intimidation in public areas etc and a whole host of anti-social crime & behaviour? No



no but neither does it suggest they dont.  you've done it, youve just defined what we should be regarding as unacceptable (not so sure about colonisation of public places) but thats a position - the IWCA needs to set that out, because bandying about terms like lumpen and underclass which from both pieces appears to mean anything from selling the big issue to gang rape to rioting - its not clear and it needs to be - id suggest there is a conflict in the writers mind between the attraction of creating an other - a lumpen (an identifiable and easily understood target), rubs against the reality that the situation is far more complex


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> i can't understand how anyone who has understood the substantive objective of both articles (even if in disagreement with the conclusions/analysis) could have thought that it was saying that the activities of big issue sellers & street drinkers represented a raw expression of neo-liberal morality and a threat to the potential for the development of pro working class progressive politics



i didn't say that i think the article says that the street drinkers and big issue sellers represent the neo-liberal morality the lumpen (according to this piece) embody, i read it as saying that the rioters represented the "militant wing" of the same class (presumably the lumpen) as the homeless and street drinkers (never mind the fact that *some* of the rioters would probably be the types to beat up the homeless for a few quid)

it therefore implicitly groups them together and implies that one is intrinsicly like the other - do you see?


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

The first paragraph of the article, before the infamous big issue sellers or street drinkers are even mentioned, says:-




> the IWCA analysis made clear that not only is the ‘underclass’ _not_ synonymous with or representative of the working class, its instincts and actions are often opposed to the working class (who tend to constitute its primary prey)


Do you genuinely think that our deferential big issue sellers & well mannered street drinkers fall into a grouping which you (personally) would describe in such terms as is used in the above quote?

If so then I can see the reason for your confusion (however you then need to explain why you see big issue sellers/street drinkers in such a light) - if not however, how can you then go onto to say that they are?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

erm, not really 

as smokedout said before, i can't really accept defining a class by morality tbh, although fair enough different classes could have overall tendencies to behave in particular ways - im probably not putting this right but i do agree with a lot of the basic analysis on this thread -
but this is what i always thought they were:

working class = works for a wage
middle class/petite bourgoisie - owns their own business / small landlord etc (perhaps in addition to working)
bourgoisie - owns a large business / is the head of a large business / has shares/investments etc
lumpen - doesn't work / very casual work / begging / petty crime
aristocracy - inherited wealth from centuries ago
(possibly the "lumpen bourgoisie" - slum landlords/colonialists/rentier capitalists/big deal mafiosos)

in which case, the street drinkers you mention, while they're not technically economically working class (or aren't AT THE PRESENT TIME) are not engaged in any activity that's harmful. the more i read this thread the more i think that you are defining class by morality tbh, which is not something im comfortable with really. in addition, given that many of the rioters were under 18, and presumably many of them belonged to families that worked, do they then become lumpen simply by virtue of taking part in a riot even though they may come from a working class (or middle class for that matter) family? i am not having a go i just think that it ought to be clearer what you mean because it's very important to get these things right

as i mentioned before, my ex gf probably fell into that category of being a "renegade" when she was young, she did have a criminal record as well as all the other things i've mentioned and she definitely did a lot of things in a way that was semi legal or not legal at all (at the time of my knowing her that is). but that's not to say that people can't change, and frequently even if someone is engaged in petty crime and thieving etc their attitudes towards their community can be quite complicated, for example, once she was in a steady job and despite the things that i mentioned she spent two hundred quid on buying educational toys for her brothers kid - it's not as simple as that they don't give a fuck about their community or anyone else, frequently they do but have blind spots elsewhere, and it's also not as if they can't DEVELOP the right attitudes, given support

and i just think that the article is somewhat simplistic and dismissive of that (or appears to be)


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

how many times does it need to be said that nothing is being defined by morality in and off itself - behaviours & actions are the driving force behind the analysis (and if in turn some kind of morality is drawn from that then fair enough, but it's a consequence not a cause)

likewise no one is making any analysis based on the legality or otherwise of people's actions - some activities/actions can be legal and harmful to working class communities/organisation. other activities/actions illegal, but not harmful or indeed supportive of same - so again your drawing and projecting a false & unhelpful distinction that isn't being made

(and whether or not your bird bought some toys for her niece doesn't really seem to be here nor there really)

as for your analysis of various classes it's less than useless to be honest - unemployed, housewifes, retired workers, the unemployed infirm aren't working class no? as to bourgoiseie you equate someone who might own a handful of shares (due to say a profit sharing scheme at their work) or a pension or an ISA with someone who owns a large business? no one actually own's large businesses these days anyway - we're not in the 19th century anymore

and i noticed you avoided actually answering the question asked of you in my previous post (which in turn was directly addressing your query)

as for the rollyeyes, well.....


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

yes regarding that, you're absolutely right (re the shares/pensions etc) and should have put that to mean that that was their primary source of income. mine probably wasnt the best and most well-thought out post.
i was making the point that peoples behaviour wasn't as simple as being anti-social and only that, that people can behave helpfully and unhelpfully at the same time and that someone who's engaged in a bit of petty thievery could still, for example care about their neighbourhood and try to take action to improve it (and in so doing the attitudes about that stuff could improve - which is actually not so different to what the iwca is saying tbf) because ive seen it happen

i'm sorry i'm not putting this across very well, i'm going to need to come back to this later i think. as for the street drinkers - well according to the classical marxist definition if it they would be "lumpen" wouldn't they? but i don't think they're engaged in behaviour which harms everyone else, they're not the same grouping as what the article describes. they're not engaged in that behaviour and certainly not in the organised manner which the article describes gangs etc as being. so i don't think their interests as the same as like some scum drug dealer. their interests would be more in common with working class interests.

to be honest i do agree with a lot of the analysis in the article, but its just the fact that some of it is really unclear and i did get the wrong impression, the article reads like its sneering at people for being fooled by the politeness etc of the street drinkers whereas in reality they're the "un militant wing" of the lumpen and therefore tacitly agreed/had the same interests as the rioters burning peoples shops and houses, and other utter twats, now i know now that butchers explained it that that's not what it was meant to say at all, but that's what it appeared, if you wanted to separate the two groupings then you should have made it clear they werent the same thing, rather than imply that they were


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

> if you wanted to separate the two groupings then you should have made it clear they werent the same thing, rather than imply that they were


and where exactly does it imply that they were?

you say yourself :-



> as for the street drinkers.......i don't think they're engaged in behaviour which harms everyone else, they're not the same grouping as what the article describes. they're not engaged in that behaviour and certainly not in the organised manner which the article describes gangs etc as being. so i don't think their interests as the same as like some scum drug dealer. their interests would be more in common with working class interests.


So in the space of one post you've both claimed that the article implies they both are and aren't at the same time

It's difficult to debate this to be honest - i've no idea what you're actually trying to say


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2011)

did you write the article LD?


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

had some input into it, but didn't write it no

why?


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2011)

just curious what position you were arguing from.

fwiw, i think it makes some good points - but the same points could probably have been made without resorting to some of the inflamatory language used... inevitably it'll result in the debate being about the delivery rather than the message iyswim.


----------



## love detective (Sep 1, 2011)

yep understand your point - but what kind of inflammatory language are you referring to?


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2011)

sorry, i'm on a shit computer atm that keeps freezing up when i open stuff up. maybe inflamatory is the wrong word though... ambiguous perhaps? i'll dig out some specifics when i get home.

i felt similar about the original article too btw.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> but the same points could probably have been made without resorting to some of the inflamatory language used... inevitably it'll result in the debate being about the delivery rather than the message iyswim.



this, outside of urban this piece doesnt come with a love detective attached to explain/clarify any ambiguities.  if people arent clear about what the pieces are trying to say then im afraid the responsibility lies with the writer rather than the reader.

you dont need this lumpen/underclass shit, all the points can be made, some of our class are acting outside our class interests, this behaviour is damaging to class struggle, neo-liberalism has contributed to a particularly aggresive form of acquisitive crime, the nature of the riots reflects that, some of the people engaging in this kind of behaviour could easily become a tool of reactionaries (and already are, who imports the coke, who sells them the guns) - you can say all this stuff without any need for an underclass or a arbitrary division between the working class proper and the nouveau lumpen

then comes the hard stuff, what behaviour should we not tolerate, who buys the nicked ipods/drugs - how is the working class proper facilitating this behaviour, where does the violence come from - is patriarchy/culture/poverty a factor, how important is economics, do we want to rethink drugs, what of the role of police, both as solvers of crimes and antagonists, theres lots of really difficult and important stuff out there but we never get to that because you insist on defining this moral duality - let it go, its just a distraction


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> and where exactly does it imply that they were?
> 
> you say yourself :-
> 
> ...



it implies (or seems to, to me) that they were here:



> Previously reassured by the deference of Big Issue sellers and the unfailing good manners of street drinkers, the stepping up onto the stage of the militant wing will have caused profound shock.


and i didnt say that the article implies they weren't - i said that i disagreed that they were
i accept that that may not have been what the people who wrote it were trying to say but the message was ambiguous at best


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2011)

this was in response to PM but have been persuaded to reproduce it here despite the looming sense that I might get a roasting from some quarters. Ah well.

although the frustration that drives that is understandable I still think it is an abandonment to dismiss the 'bad prole' and worship the 'good prole'.​
Half my upbringing and brief, disastrous criminal career was spent among those who could be labelled lumpen. Without my education and training I'd be in the category myself. It galls me a bit to see analysis so down on these people- they are my people. Still bloody are, leading chaotic lives with horrible children of their own now who also plague the estates they live on and lead frankly nihilistic lives where the choice is factory or dole or crime.​
On your point about the ability to change I think we have to be wary about initiatives unwedded to basics. These kids don't want 'ping pong with the vicar' (to nick a phrase from the ever irascible butchers). They want the lot, and they want it now. Why not? it is the central message fed from every telebox and sports star.​
The thing is, I think, that the imported american dream of 'work hard and these things can be yours' was never a central ideological dream in britain- the american internalization of failure doesn't wash here because our society was never centred around an idea that 'even the lowly binman can becaome president'. Concious of it or not the working classes instinctively know that they won't be walking the corridors of power. So what do we want? we want a fair wage, we want jobs that pay it, decent educational opportunities and some fucking dignity in our trades.​
It is when even these lowly aspirations haven't even been allowed to take form in the minds of people growing up in endemic poverty that we have our maligned 'lumpen'. It's no wonder the grime artists harp on about violence to money and hopeless shitholes they live in.​
The difficulty with rehabilitative aims is that the conceptual framework within which people raised so operate is totally alienated from the mainstream. Yes they don't give a shit. Why should they? nobody gives a shit about them except for poverty chic and to condemn when they go on acquisition by force. And you shall reap what you have sown, oh 'United' Kingdom.​


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There's a laughable line about thousands of TV hours showing that swaggering gang leaders led the way...
> 
> The ruling class have been quick to point to causal factors (it's street-gangs, it's all social networking etc) in order to simplify events and slot them into their convenient narratives. Seems that IWCA are upto the same trick.



Why not quote the actual 'laughable line' so we can all join in in the mirth?  As for the 'convenient narrative' surely the real problem with the article is that the narrative is inconvenient?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 1, 2011)

smokedout said:


> some of our class are acting outside our class interests



Do you really think that after 30 years of neo-liberalism the working class is undamaged? The same working class that hasn't tasted political victory in decades, when the nearest it came to it ended in crushing defeat a quarter of century ago with the miner's strike?

Frankly the notion that there isn't an underclass is sentimental nonsense verging on the reactionary because if the recomendation was followed would render the working class entirely impotent in dealing with them either locally in the here and now, or if the situation should arise, nationally.


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you dont need this lumpen/underclass shit, all the points can be made, some of our class are acting outside our class interests, this behaviour is damaging to class struggle, neo-liberalism has contributed to a particularly aggresive form of acquisitive crime, the nature of the riots reflects that, some of the people engaging in this kind of behaviour could easily become a tool of reactionaries (and already are, who imports the coke, who sells them the guns) - you can say all this stuff without any need for an underclass or a arbitrary division between the working class proper and the nouveau lumpen



See in substance there doesn't seem to be any disagreement from you on the essence of the articles(s). You identify in the quote above the kind of activity that is the target of the article (and also a lot of the thinking/motivations behind those activities). You accept it exists, that it is a threat, and by extension needs to be countered. So we both seem in agreement up to this stage.

Now is your disagreement beyond this because don't like the fact that, for the sake of convenience, a label is given to the collectivity which portray certain instincts, values & aspirations that lead to them carrying out the types of activities you describe. Or is it that you don't have any problem with using a label to collectively identify the threat being talked about, but just don't like the particular label chosen? If it's the later then it's just semantics and there's no real disagreement. If it's the former, then it seems contradictory that you are able to easily identify and categorise certain activities that are threats that need countering/neutralising, but then flinch when it comes to formally pinning a collective tag on them.



> then comes the hard stuff, what behaviour should we not tolerate, who buys the nicked ipods/drugs - how is the working class proper facilitating this behaviour, where does the violence come from - is patriarchy/culture/poverty a factor, how important is economics, do we want to rethink drugs, what of the role of police, both as solvers of crimes and antagonists, theres lots of really difficult and important stuff out there but we never get to that because you insist on defining this moral duality - let it go, its just a distraction



it's you who keep insisting it's some kind of morality first distinction - how many times do we need to say the analysis is based on material activities & behaviours that are detrimental to progressive working class organisation. You can't possibly say that the identification of those kind of behaviours & activities that pose that threat are a distraction

(also what do you mean by the working class proper in your quote above!)


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> and i didnt say that the article implies they weren't



When I posted the below....



> Is the article and the one that preceeded it mainly concerned with elements & activities that are a threat to independent pro working class organisation and the need to confront those same elements & behaviours that pose a threat to, and make life a misery for, the rest of the working class? Yes
> 
> does it suggest anywhere that street drinkers & big issue sellers are a threat to indepedent pro working class organisation? No
> 
> does it suggest street drinkers & big issue sellers make life a misery for the majority of the working class through drug related activity/dealing, gang related activity & intimidation, colonisation of public spaces, robbing & stealing, the creation of a climate of fear & intimidation in public areas etc and a whole host of anti-social crime & behaviour? No




.... you agreed with it

Therefore you aknowledged that the article implies they weren't. Yet at the same time you are also arguing that the article implies that they were.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 2, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Do you really think that after 30 years of neo-liberalism the working class is undamaged? The same working class that hasn't tasted political victory in decades, when the nearest it came to it ended in crushing defeat a quarter of century ago with the miner's strike?
> 
> Frankly the notion that there isn't an underclass is sentimental nonsense verging on the reactionary because if the recomendation was followed would render the working class entirely impotent in dealing with them either locally in the here and now, or if the situation should arise, nationally.


The debate on here about the article is revealing. Most of the contributions seem to object to the language and style of the writing but have zilch to say about the central point being made - that there is a growing formation in our areas that is not only hostile to our interests but in reality acts and behaves in a manner which damages those interests further. The article suggests that this needs to be tackled, again no-one seems to want to explain why this isn't the case.

The obsession with the style of the article reveals the squeamishness of the left in facing up to one of the realities of neo-liberalism. Why? IMHO this is because most of the left is utterly detached from the estates in which the lumpen roam but also because if you accept the central tenet of the peace then a number of leftie sacred cows also have to be confronted.

Those on the daily receiving end of the 'gangstas' have little problem or in identifying the people the article points the finger at (and describe them in tones much less flattering than the IWCA - and the remedy they would like to see applied to the problem is more 'straighforward') like most of contibutors here they wouldn't call them lumpen either, they'd call them scum.

You'd have thought the left, as a first step, would want to firmly place itself on the side of the class it professes to be the 'consciousness' of and worry about what we badge those who create fear, misery and despair at some later stage in proceedings.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> there is a growing formation in our areas that is not only hostile to our interests but in reality acts and behaves in a manner which damages those interests further. The article suggests that this needs to be tackled



No disagreement there from me, although there is arguably an exaggeration of the extent to which it is organised and linked up - "gangs" can cover organised and ruthless criminal networks or a bunch of bored young lads with nowt better to do than cause a bit of bother.  The piece tends to run it all together.   And in any case it's not sufficient to wield as a mono-causal explanation of the riots, which have roots there, certainly, but not only there.

It's not simply the style of the writing but what it implies about the method involved eg (the "laughable line" i referred to earlier - mirthless laughter maybe but...)


> from studying the extensive television footage it is also clear that it was only the organised elements in the gangs who had the necessary authority and swagger to give the impetus to the riots.


who is doing the studying and what is being studied here?   Joe Reilly sat in his y-fronts in front of sky news on rotation identifying the ring leaders by the scale of their "swagger"?

Just as the cops or the cabinet read the footage according to their own preconceived narratives, so - it seems - have the IWCA.   The element of spontaneity is under-played - and whilst obviously they weren't some direct political protest about the cuts or desire to smash the state, the idea that they weren't also *in part* as a response to youth unemployment, lack of youth facilities, poverty etc is also to be deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No disagreement there from me, although there is arguably an exaggeration of the extent to which it is organised and linked up - "gangs" can cover organised and ruthless criminal networks or a bunch of bored young lads with nowt better to do than cause a bit of bother. The piece tends to run it all together. And in any case it's not sufficient to wield as a mono-causal explanation of the riots, which have roots there, certainly, but not only there.
> 
> It's not simply the style of the writing but what it implies about the method involved eg (the "laughable line" i referred to earlier - mirthless laughter maybe but...)
> 
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

eh?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Just as the cops or the cabinet read the footage according to their own preconceived narratives, so - it seems - have the IWCA. The element of spontaneity is under-played - and whilst obviously they weren't some direct political protest about the cuts or desire to smash the state, the idea that they weren't also *in part* as a response to youth unemployment, lack of youth facilities, poverty etc is also to be deliberately obtuse.



'The element of spontaneity is underplayed?' You know this how?

 Or is it that in certain circles spontaneous looting, mugging and arson, and murder is somehow more forgiveable; more _progressive_ somehow?

As for the actual mechanics of the riots - who do you think would have the authority and the necesary connections, to call a riot in the first place?

Funny thing about the 'preconcieved narratives' is that when at a local level the IWCA along with the local community has decided to do something about the crack dealers and anti-social elements etc the police have invariably ended up on the other side.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

Well, by the figures the article cites, fully 75% of those arrested for involvement had no affiliation whatever with any gangs. So the burden of proof is on you to show why riots were consciously planned and orchestrated by a numerically marginal section. Why does a riot have to be "called" by particular agents - you don't "call" a riot in the same sense as a demo is "called"

But the general argument about the anti-social element doesn't seem to stand or fall by this determination to show that the origins of the riots were consciously planned by active anti w/c groupings. As you imply, the fact that they were to a degree spontaneous and does NOT mean that they were w/c in make up or had a proto w/c politics about them - so why make hyped-up claims about gangs being rampant all over the shop - and in much the same way.

This "lumpen/scum" element doesn't have the ability to organise itself *as a class or class fraction* in the way that the w/c does. It's almost as if you need these bogey "super-gangs" to act as a contrast with the irrelevance of the traditional left orgs in the w/c.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

And just to clarify - I'm certainly NOT saying that gangs don't exist or that they aren't a serious blight on communities around them. I've lived in/near areas where proper gangs operate (nr. Stonebridge Park/Harlesden which def has gangs but didn't have riots, and even for a few months on the Pembury itself [at the place of another Urbanite who lived there much longer and no doubts knows in much more detail than me what effects that had])

But I've also heard people talk about "gangs" when really they just mean a rag-tag group of scrotes who will spray graffiti tags or smash a bus shelter. These types *may* be lumpens, they *may* be w/c kids that are bored, but they don't have the clout to organise jack shit in terms of major social disturbances!  But the government (and your article) didn't make a proper distinction.


----------



## past caring (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well, by the figures the article cites, fully 75% of those arrested for involvement had no affiliation whatever with any gangs.



Hasn't this - to an extent - already been dealt with? Butchers posted a link (maybe on this thread, maybe on "Is there a reason for the riots?") of some research in the US suggesting an anatomy of rioting/looting that showed organised gangs in first for the "professional" looting, followed up by a much larger wave of opportunist looters - it was those (unsurprisingly) who largely made up the numbers of those who got lifted. The people who knew what they were about were long gone by the time the police got there. And even without this, a 25% with some form of affiliation (1 in 4) would in any case suggest a not insignificant role played by gangs.



> So the burden of proof is on you to show why riots were consciously planned and orchestrated by a numerically marginal section. Why does a riot have to be "called" by particular agents - you don't "call" a riot in the same sense as a demo is "called"



You think no element of planning was involved? No attempt to get sufficient numbers in the same place at the same time, all with the same purpose, so as to make looting possible? There were a number of messages re-posted on here (originally on facebook or some other messaging system) from gang members inviting others into their area for the purposes of attacking the police and looting - I'm well aware of how such anonymous stuff can be faked or how it can be the work of a lone internet fantasist - but no-one at the time or since has challenged the authenticity of those messages.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while. OK, some odd groups of scrotes might have contacted their mates and tried to link people up at a certain place and time. But this isn't the same as some broad organised criminal infrastructure - cordinated distubances deliberately planned.

The government and Met/ACPO want to show they're "on top of it" by attributing a coherence to the riots they don't really possess.   IWCA doing the same to assert their superiority to the equally one-sided far left orgs.


----------



## past caring (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while. OK, some odd groups of scrotes might have contacted their mates and tried to link people up at a certain place and time. But this isn't the same as some broad organised criminal infrastructure - cordinated distubances deliberately planned.



Depends what you mean by "serious" - the people at the top or near the top of the food chain - i.e. those responsible for manufacturing, smuggling, distributing? No, of course not.

The kids on bikes who shoot the 5 year old girl and 35 year old bloke in the shop (actually after members of another gang who ran to hide in the shop) in Stockwell Road in March were not, I think we can agree, acting in a way that one would imagine "serious" gangsters would behave - certainly not the action of someone planning for the future and with any ambition of retiring to the Costa del Crime. But that's not the level or the dynamic that we're dealing with, is it? But were those kids serious about their gangsterism? You tell me.

It's a mistake to apply your - my - our rationale to these fuckers. It doesn't apply.



> The government and Met/ACPO want to show they're "on top of it" by attributing a coherence to the riots they don't really possess. IWCA doing the same to assert their superiority to the equally one-sided far left orgs.



Bizarre.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well, by the figures the article cites, fully 75% of those arrested for involvement had no affiliation whatever with any gangs. So the burden of proof is on you to show why riots were consciously planned and orchestrated by a numerically marginal section. Why does a riot have to be "called" by particular agents - you don't "call" a riot in the same sense as a demo is "called"



In normal circumstances no. The crowd is generally already there _before_ the trouble erupts. But generally in the August riots the 'crowd' arrived on cue. 'Croydon Br station 4pm sharp' and so forth. Thus the ingredients for those particular riots were exactly the same as demo. Time and place. An assement of how many could be mustered by the 'party' calling the riot. An assement of how the authorities/police might respond. Finally publicity to draw in additional numbers; a) as a show of force, b) to act as cover c) to tie up police while the core/or 'numerically marginal section' either make their get away,  or move on to another target.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while.



I suggest you read the article again - or maybe just read it.  The motivation of the gang leaders was not in essence acquisitive.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> Now is your disagreement beyond this because don't like the fact that, for the sake of convenience, a label is given to the collectivity which portray certain instincts, values & aspirations that lead to them carrying out the types of activities you describe. Or is it that you don't have any problem with using a label to collectively identify the threat being talked about, but just don't like the particular label chosen? If it's the later then it's just semantics and there's no real disagreement. If it's the former, then it seems contradictory that you are able to easily identify and categorise certain activities that are threats that need countering/neutralising, but then flinch when it comes to formally pinning a collective tag on them.



somewhere between the two.  i think the threat is too complex to collectively identify, which is why no-one has yet really described what this new lumpen are beyond teenage wannabe gangsters.  i think its false to create a moral division within the working class when behaviour, crime even (in our sense) is much easier to precisely define.  i dont want to write off children as being part of some morally deficient other to be treated with contempt, and i dont want to fall into the trap of good vs bad working class because that is a trap without end.

semantics-wise i dont think either lumpen (archaic and loaded) or underclass (their words and loaded) are helpful at all - they come with a set of preconceptions, they create too much noise and it distracts from the possibility of any real debate.



> it's you who keep insisting it's some kind of morality first distinction - how many times do we need to say the analysis is based on material activities & behaviours that are detrimental to progressive working class organisation. You can't possibly say that the identification of those kind of behaviours & activities that pose that threat are a distraction



but the IWCA pieces dont identify the behaviours and actions beyond extreme and obvious cases (rape/stabbing) - you have, but the pieces under discussion dont



> (also what do you mean by the working class proper in your quote above!)



well how far does the definition extend - do the many otherwise 'proper' working class who might buy the odd nicked bit of kit and do a bit of charlie at weekends have any culpability, a blokes who get a bit punchy after a few pints but otherwise are good lads, how about working class acquiescence to the dominance of criminal families, or those who excuse that behaviour, how much do we all turn a blind eye


----------



## smokedout (Sep 2, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> In normal circumstances no. The crowd is generally already there _before_ the trouble erupts. But generally in the August riots the 'crowd' arrived on cue. 'Croydon Br station 4pm sharp' and so forth. Thus the ingredients for those particular riots were exactly the same as demo. Time and place. An assement of how many could be mustered by the 'party' calling the riot. An assement of how the authorities/police might respond. Finally publicity to draw in additional numbers; a) as a show of force, b) to act as cover c) to tie up police while the core/or 'numerically marginal section' either make their get away, or move on to another target.


 
this is verging on david icke stuff.  sure the riots had street gang involvement, but what i saw (not on the telly) was every bit as chaotic, disorganised, opportunist and random as every other riot ive ever been in - it was also huge, the met say 30,000, possibly taking an active part thats true, but there were probably that many kids on the streets of lewisham (as a borough) alone.  whilst i was in catford i heard one kid on his phone saying excitedly to his mate its kicking off in bromley and woolwich as well

people were walking away from catford in all directions with posh tellies (and many of them far from the stereotype of a teenage gang member), when the police turned up some fought hard, some scarpered, some headed down to the retail park at bellingham - there was no central organisation going on beyond people chatting on their phones just like always, sure the gangs will have been reacting and planning amongst, sure there seemed to be an air of all together against the police which may have been pushed by the gangs, but this was a lot bigger and a lot messier than the neat little analysis you try to be inflicting on it

as to the politics going on, i was at lewisham when the call went out to meet at DLR as well, same story people everywhere, some taking on police, some running off to catford, the shopping centre had already briefly been hit and the police had pretty much secured it, but the first place (and only till later) place to get smashed up was mcdonalds - why mcds, mcds windows got done in catford as well?  why did dominos pizza at chalk farm get smashed to shit, but the independent restaurant next door went untouched.  why stay and fight the police.  why did every porn shop on the length of the road from lewisham to catford get hit, but not the music shop (which probably contains the most expensive kit for miles around and the kids know that).  why did i see kids at great pains to re-assure the chicken shop owner that his business wouldnt be touched.

could there not be an element that apart from the kick of looting were striking back directly at the cunts who oppress them, not just the police but dominos and mcds, where many of them or their friends may have worked

could there not be many, many different reasons it happened


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2011)

> why did every porn shop on the length of the road from lewisham to catford get hit




how many porn shops are there on the length of road from lewisham to catford?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> how many porn shops are there on the length of road from lewisham to catford?



my mistake - pawn - as in moneysupermarket cheque cashing fuckers


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I suggest you read the article again - or maybe just read it. The motivation of the gang leaders was not in essence acquisitive.


I have read it (more than once) - I know you're saying it was a warning shot across the bows of the police in retribution for having their patch swooped in on.  Any maybe there are some areas where they have the kind of periphery where this could just about be plausible.  But as a key "cause" of the riots in general?  Unlikely


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

smokedout said:


> my mistake - pawn - as in moneysupermarket cheque cashing fuckers


 I thought you meant saaf London is full of wankers


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2011)

> my mistake - pawn - as in moneysupermarket cheque cashing fuckers


 
was gonna say!

not like there's a load of pawn shops either though is there - two maybe? one in catford and one just down from the fox in lewisham?

i think you're doing the opposite of what you accuse us of doing though in injecting a political purpose into the riots where there wasn't one - how do you fit the complete trashing of an independent opticians in catford or the smashing of the pound shop - but the kfc, boots (tax dodgers etc..) and various bank windows just up from it left untouched into the overlay you're trying to put on the catford events


----------



## smokedout (Sep 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> was gonna say!
> 
> not like there's a load of pawn shops either though is there - two maybe? one in catford and one just down from the fox in lewisham?



theres three or four in catford (most of the internet cafs also do short term loans), theres one right by the also one by the job centre then another on your left just before lewisham



> i think you're doing the opposite of what you accuse us of doing though in injecting a political purpose into the riots where there wasn't one - how do you fit the complete trashing of an independent opticians in catford or the smashing of the pound shop - but the kfc, boots (tax dodgers etc..) and various bank windows just up from it left untouched into the overlay you're trying to put on the catford events



i saw bank windows done in camden the next day, and your over egging the optician a bit, th front window was put though but the shop/stock was left alone, as its right next door to argos this could have been genuine collateral damage - the pound shop is a chain store and in any event there windows going through disputes any suggestion that looting was the only for economic gain (like lots of places, they didnt get looted just trashed).  even down in lewisham the only damage seemed to have been to chain stores and walking down the old kent road it seems the same in new cross - currys, toys r us, sainsburys all hit, no other shops touched - someone who was in deptford told me the same story there

i suspect a range of factors and motivations were involved - rge places that were hit were a mixture of high value targets and places that have a lot of influence in kids lives, mcds, block busters, poverty pimps, police - all perhaps expressions of an unfocussed but collective anger that on the surface appears nihilistic but imo looting top shop is just as valid a political expression as doing a poetry reading inside or sitting outside chanting pay your taxes.  im not saying this tells the whole story, far from it, but to strip it of any significance at all is unfairly dismissive - just like every else a lot of these kids do is, even when they riot all anyone can do is slag the fuckers off and tell them they didnt do it properly

perhaps they didnt do it properly, perhaps they dont want to, perhaps this is something new, the beginning of something those of us a bit older dont really understand, perhaps the politics will come from the struggle, perhaps it is there already, just far from perfect and not articulated in a way we understand - the kids have been surprising us since the windows of millbank went in and they might again


----------



## past caring (Sep 2, 2011)

68 revisited.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> 68 revisited.



Lets dig out the Situationalist pamphlet


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> *I don't see serious drug gangs* risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while. OK, some odd groups of scrotes might have contacted their mates and tried to link people up at a certain place and time. But this isn't the same as some broad organised criminal infrastructure - cordinated distubances deliberately planned.
> 
> The government and Met/ACPO want to show they're "on top of it" by attributing a coherence to the riots they don't really possess. IWCA doing the same to assert their superiority to the equally one-sided far left orgs.



Are there any non serious drug gangs ?
Not all gangs mature to the status of serious organsied crime groups, many operate within a post code and are a realtivly short lived therat but a real threat if you live in that community.

When I worked in Moss Side with youth gangs it wasn't a case that they kept a low profile ,discreetly sold drugs and nobody suspected that they were anything more than fine upstanding citizens. They were involved in street robbery, burglary, rape ,car theft and generally intimidating anyone who they thought they could do. In my frst year ( I had worked with stret gangs in Harleden previously) I had three kids on my case load dead ,one macheted, and four charged with kidnapping, rape, attempt murder and firearm offences. The oldest was 17.

In Manchester one well known gangster ( however marginalised he is now) had his team of boys


----------



## articul8 (Sep 3, 2011)

I wouldn't fancy working with gangs in Harlesden or Moss Side (hat tip there alright) -

 but that's my point really, you can't put "gangs" into one slot because a term like that is used to cover a range of really quite different sorts of things - not all drug gangs would it into the category of "street youth" (or only look like that lower down the food chain) -  anti-social behaviour is a bit the same,


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> The kids on bikes who shoot the 5 year old girl and 35 year old bloke in the shop (actually after members of another gang who ran to hide in the shop) in Stockwell Road in March were not, I think we can agree, acting in a way that one would imagine "serious" gangsters would behave - certainly not the action of someone planning for the future and with any ambition of retiring to the Costa del Crime.



One way of looking at it is that a certain fringe element of society has become unhinged from any sense of reality. In this they are perfectly in line with today's capitalism. It is society's vast middle ground, emcompassing most of the working class and 'middle class,' which hasn't caught up yet.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have read it (more than once) - I know you're saying it was a warning shot across the bows of the police in retribution for having their patch swooped in on. Any maybe there are some areas where they have the kind of periphery where this could just about be plausible. But as a key "cause" of the riots in general? Unlikely



I thought it, was generally understood that as well as numbers, what the united front, and the cessation of hostilities offered was - mobility. There was no need in other words, that they restrict themselves to the postcodes they might usually occupy.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 3, 2011)

Which is handy for your argument it's what enables you to lump everything together rather discriminating.   And your language illustrates my earlier point (described by Past Caring as "bizarre") that you are deliberately inviting a comparison between the organised nature of lumpens ("united front") with the absence of credible organisation on the left.  To achieve this emphasis you have to stress this element of the riots (stretched beyond any reasonable degree) in order to make it).


----------



## love detective (Sep 3, 2011)

smokedout said:


> perhaps this is something new, the beginning of something those of us a bit older dont really understand, perhaps the politics will come from the struggle, perhaps it is there already, just far from perfect and not articulated in a way we understand



perhaps - time will tell

although there's nothing inherently/automatically positive/progressive in the possibilities that you talk about above


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 4, 2011)

smokedout said:


> this, outside of urban this piece doesnt come with a love detective attached to explain/clarify any ambiguities. if people arent clear about what the pieces are trying to say then im afraid the responsibility lies with the writer rather than the reader.
> 
> you dont need this lumpen/underclass shit, all the points can be made, some of our class are acting outside our class interests, this behaviour is damaging to class struggle, neo-liberalism has contributed to a particularly aggresive form of acquisitive crime, the nature of the riots reflects that, some of the people engaging in this kind of behaviour could easily become a tool of reactionaries (and already are, who imports the coke, who sells them the guns) - you can say all this stuff without any need for an underclass or a arbitrary division between the working class proper and the nouveau lumpen
> 
> then comes the hard stuff, what behaviour should we not tolerate, who buys the nicked ipods/drugs - how is the working class proper facilitating this behaviour, where does the violence come from - is patriarchy/culture/poverty a factor, how important is economics, do we want to rethink drugs, what of the role of police, both as solvers of crimes and antagonists, theres lots of really difficult and important stuff out there but we never get to that because you insist on defining this moral duality - let it go, its just a distraction



The lumpen are those who have been driven into long term unemployment, initially through no fault of their own, who then adjust to it financially and in other ways. Thereafter they make no contribution and have _no intention_ of making any. It is a parasitic existence. They live off society. They do so brazenly. Which is historically one of the defining charachteristics of that class.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Which is handy for your argument it's what enables you to lump everything together rather discriminating. And your language illustrates my earlier point (described by Past Caring as "bizarre") that you are deliberately inviting a comparison between the organised nature of lumpens ("united front") with the absence of credible organisation on the left. To achieve this emphasis you have to stress this element of the riots (stretched beyond any reasonable degree) in order to make it).



The 'argument' is that the street gangs initiated the riots for (largely business) reasons of their own. They formed an unprecedented united front to do so. This alliance gave them the necessary numbers and the mobility to move from borough to borough at will. In short the riots were organised, but some inevitably took on a life of their own. A distinction must also be made between the rioters and the routine looters who the former had summoned to provide additional cover, to provide a diversion and tie up police long after the real perpetrators had moved on to a fresh target. That I think is a fair summary of the IWCA position as outlined.

You continue to insist however that this all about having a sly dig at the Left. But the Left don't come into it. At all.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 4, 2011)

I can see what you are claiming, but I don't see where there's any _evidence_ for it.  Routine looters were "summoned" by a united front of gang members?  Can't you see how that looks far fetched?  I can see that gangs and gang members may well have been one element in the riots.  But the idea that they were the master puppeteers is another thing altogether.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I can see what you are claiming, but I don't see where there's any _evidence_ for it. Routine looters were "summoned" by a united front of gang members? Can't you see how that looks far fetched?



If people were not alerted to the riots by social media how did they know when and where to go? And if they were alerted by social media who do you think was alerting them?  Meet at such and such 'come and get free stuff' - again, and again, again. Same formula.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 4, 2011)

Where did I say there was no social media involvement? But again, there were lots of social media, tweet outs and all the rest only a fraction of which actually turned into riots - how does it happen, it's not transparent - there is a degree of snowballing - people (anyone can send a tweet) throw out suggestions and some suggestions "stick" and others don't. Why do some pictures of cats doing funny shit become Youtube hits and not others? Maybe the gang leaders are promoting them for "business" purposes (you see why this kind of logic is suspect...)

The idea that it was all consciously manipulated and planned just seems highly implausible.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 4, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The lumpen are those who have been driven into long term unemployment, initially through no fault of their own, who then adjust to it financially and in other ways. Thereafter they make no contribution and have _no intention_ of making any. It is a parasitic existence. They live off society. They do so brazenly. Which is historically one of the defining charachteristics of that class.



oh i see, you mean the poor dont you


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 4, 2011)

smokedout said:


> oh i see, you mean the poor dont you



No. The poor tend to be those stuck in minimum wage jobs - cleaners, guards, hotel jobs, pub work etc and those layed off. Whilst some of the lumpen are also skint - many have the most money in their immediate area through dealing etc and everyone knows it and how they got it ime.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

And the poor are, we should not forget, the first and biggest victims of the criminal element among the lumpen.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I can see what you are claiming, but I don't see where there's any _evidence_ for it. Routine looters were "summoned" by a united front of gang members? Can't you see how that looks far fetched?



Perhaps Joe Reilly is simply drawing on his own extensive experience of football, social and political confrontation and how easy it is for a small group to direct a larger mob without individuals in the larger group even being aware what is happening.

At football (and demo's) back in the day, the plod consistently arrested easy pickings such as casualties, runners & spectators in the aftermath of a fight - the instigators/perpetrators simply walked away or were long gone. From media reports this pattern seems to have played out in the recent events where casual/passerby/opportunist looters seem to have borne the brunt of the arrests.

I don't even live in Britain, but even at this remove this pattern seems clear.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 4, 2011)

well, put it that way and sounds more feasible.  But still - would gangs really expose their operations by openly calling people using social media? [I guess thats why attention went on Blackberry messenger - do gangs use blackberries I don't know]


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2011)

the mass of looters were summoned by BBC news 24 imo.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Perhaps Joe Reilly is simply drawing on his own extensive experience of football, social and political confrontation and how easy it is for a small group to direct a larger mob without individuals in the larger group even being aware what is happening.
> 
> At football (and demo's) back in the day, the plod consistently arrested easy pickings such as casualties, runners & spectators in the aftermath of a fight - the instigators/perpetrators simply walked away or were long gone. From media reports this pattern seems to have played out in the recent events where casual/passerby/opportunist looters seem to have borne the brunt of the arrests.
> 
> I don't even live in Britain, but even at this remove this pattern seems clear.



The stranger returns!


----------



## newbie (Sep 4, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The lumpen are those who have been driven into long term unemployment, initially through no fault of their own, who then adjust to it financially and in other ways. Thereafter they make no contribution and have _no intention_ of making any. It is a parasitic existence. They live off society. They do so brazenly. Which is historically one of the defining charachteristics of that class.


parasites now, this is getting more and more Daily Express by the moment.

Except it's not of course, not really because the prescriptions for what to do about it differ. At least I would hope so. For the Daily Express (not that I read it, you understand) cutting off benefits, evicting social tenants and strong, probably zero tolerance, policing are the answer. That's clear, simple and completely barking.

However I'm still not really sure just what the IWCA prescription amounts to. The original article made reference to driving rather vague wedges and the tantalising, but unexplained "political authority to exclude", which was subsequently fleshed out a bit with the story of the drug gang run off Blackbird Leys estate a few years back.

What I don't get is how that's supposed to translate to the vast majority of the working class lives I see, people who don't live on giant, out-of-town, estates, but in mixed up communities of prosperous and skint, living on benefits or working in myriad ways for who knows who, an almost random mix of social or private tenants and owner occupiers, living in the patchwork that is London in 2011.

Is Neighbourhood Watch with political teeth the model, with street committees and net curtain twitching? Probably not, so what is?

How does 'the working class' or 'the community', whatever those terms might mean, express themselves? And, given that what you call 'lumpen' are the sons and daughters of my neighbours, why do you think that exclusion and driving wedges is what would be wanted even if such expression were possible?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 4, 2011)

Should be a letter in the Guardian


----------



## newbie (Sep 4, 2011)

I don't much care what the Guardian (or the vocal elements of their readership) think. I'm interested in what the IWCA (and others here) have to say about their own proposals.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 4, 2011)

newbie said:


> parasites now, this is getting more and more Daily Express by the moment.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 4, 2011)

newbie said:


> I don't much care what the Guardian (or the vocal elements of their readership) think. I'm interested in what the IWCA (and others here) have to say about their own proposals.



You're not interested in the IWCA full stop Newbie.


----------



## newbie (Sep 4, 2011)

what? of course I am. It's a political group with something thought-out to say.  Why wouldn't I be interested?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 4, 2011)

newbie said:


> what? of course I am. It's a political group with something thought-out to say. Why wouldn't I be interested?



Beacuse you have  always argued against what they have said?


----------



## newbie (Sep 5, 2011)

tbh, over the years some of the most interesting debates hereabouts have been around IWCA ideas and initiatives, because they're well thought-through and well argued and are unafraid to challenge multiple othodoxies all at once. I think that's very valuable, I wish there was more of it about.

Where I've disagreed with their perspective I've said so. and?

But you might care to note that on this, very interesting, thread I haven't disagreed with anything much, I'm just trying to find out how this analysis of where we are translates into the practical.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 5, 2011)

newbie said:


> parasites now, this is getting more and more Daily Express by the moment.
> 
> Except it's not of course, not really because the prescriptions for what to do about it differ. At least I would hope so. For the Daily Express (not that I read it, you understand) cutting off benefits, evicting social tenants and strong, probably zero tolerance, policing are the answer. That's clear, simple and completely barking.
> 
> ...



Newbie, I think you might have confused the IWCA with the SWP? My understanding is that there is no programme, no set of demands and no pre-conceived 'prescription' that is to be pushed onto a grateful working class.

Instead, the approach is based on listening to the concerns of local people in an area (and as you correctly say what that might be in your part of London, could be different to say, Newtown in Birmingham.) and then agreeing with those resisdents how best they put that into practise.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2011)

fwiw I spend about 5 seconds per year wondering what the SWP hope their analysis will lead to and make no apology for thinking the IWCA is worth a lot more than that.

No prescription follows such a clear and coherent diagnosis of a significant 'enemy'?  What can be done about this enemy, and how?  It's an obvious question, isn't it, whether asked here or by local people?  Those who have discussed the issues in depth, contributed to the essays and defended them here in great detail must have some ideas, surely?  That's all I'm asking.

What is the point of the essays if local people are offered no clues about how to develop from the vividly described current problems?  There must be some sort of vision, no?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 7, 2011)

I was looking through some previous articles from Red Action to look at the development of the theme being propagated here by Joe and others. Where there has been frustration expressed by IWCA supporters here at the reluctance for people to accept the political arguments made, it may have much to do with the expectation that some people have that should they do so, the next demand will be "well why won't you join in and assist by doing "this" against the gangs? "
*Outlaws and Renegades. *
"Above all, for any progressive movement to continue its advance within a working class neighbourhood it will prove necessary ‘to get rid of that gang’. Get rid not merely as a by-product, but as an end in itself. Given the stakes, not taking sides is not an option."


----------



## TopCat (Sep 7, 2011)

I think this article is worth a look at too.

http://www.redaction.org/drugs/carrot.html


----------



## articul8 (Sep 7, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Where there has been frustration expressed by IWCA supporters here at the reluctance for people to accept the political arguments made,



The phenomenon they point to is real enough - but possibly not as widespread as they claim and is experienced at different levels of intensity.  I mean "street gangs" covers a wide spectrum - from people involved with crack dealing and knife attacks etc at one end to a few bored youngsters getting involved in low-grade anti-social behaviour at the other.

I mean 39th Step said he's been dealing with gangs in Harlesden and Moss Side - and these are communities which have at one time or other had *big* issues with this stuff (and assume to some extent still do) - but equally, and mostly outside of the big cities, you get local papers talking about "youth gangs" when they mean a few kids.

And I know Joe's argument is that geographical patches all dissolved and the gangs got together across London.  But given that I know there are gangs operating quite near me [in Brent] - but that there was little evidence of rioting [OK Kilburn but nothing more central] I just wonder - at an empirical level - whether the pudding isn't being a bit over-egged on the riots.

Their general point stands though.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2011)

Do we have to use the 19C patronising term, 'the Lumpen'

Why not 'human dust' (leon trotsky)


----------



## cantsin (Sep 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> oh i see, you mean the poor dont you



or more accurately 'the poor*EST*"


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> And I know Joe's argument is that geographical patches all dissolved and the gangs got together across London. But given that I know there are gangs operating quite near me [in Brent] - but that there was little evidence of rioting [OK Kilburn but nothing more central] I just wonder - at an empirical level - whether the pudding isn't being a bit over-egged on the riots.
> 
> Their general point stands though.



Just to clarify, the 'dissolving of patches' was likely to have been restricted, initially at least, to the gangs in the 5 boroughs under pressure from police operations. They would have been the most motivated. Yet there was still rioting and looting in 22 boroughs out of (is it?) 33.

Additionally of those arrested 3 out of 4 cent have previous, with 83 per cent being 'known' to plod.

Just how much more 'empirical' evidence do you need?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 7, 2011)

that 83% stat is at variance from the stat in your original piece.  Besides which - 3 out 4 *arrested* not 3 out 4 *involved* - and even then "known to plod" might be just a caution for low-grade ASB.
And by your own reckoning 17 out of 22 boroughs which saw disturbances weren't those with gangs under immediate police pressure.

As I say - I don't doubt your basic point.  But you are stretching it (and then some?)


----------



## BigTom (Sep 7, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Additionally of those arrested 3 out of 4 cent have previous, with 83 per cent being 'known' to plod.
> 
> Just how much more 'empirical' evidence do you need?



The problem with this stat is that rioters who weren't already known to the police are far less likely to get arrested.. some who are not known will have got picked up from pictures in the papers etc having handed themselves in or been identified, but many won't.  Anyone known to the police and caught on cctv will have got arrested.. That stat is biased, no idea how biased though.

One interesting thing that surprised me in Birmingham is that no-one or hardly anyone (my memory says no-one, but I'm reluctant about such a strong statement) picked up for city centre stuff is known to be in a gang, although the gun incident and bits around handsworth/lozells are.  The chief of West Mids police said this on the riots debate that I went to see which was recordedn for and part broadcast on the today programme this week
Obviously that has no bearing on the London stuff, and I don't know if by gangs the WMP guy was really just thinking of the Johnson Crew & Burger Bar Boy type gangs (ie: proper, large scale criminal enterprises) or would also include some of the smaller more transitory groups that exist around Birmingham


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Just to clarify, the 'dissolving of patches' was likely to have been restricted, initially at least, to the gangs in the 5 boroughs under pressure from police operations. They would have been the most motivated. Yet there was still rioting and looting in 22 boroughs out of (is it?) 33.
> 
> Additionally of those arrested 3 out of 4 cent have previous, with 83 per cent being 'known' to plod.
> 
> Just how much more 'empirical' evidence do you need?


32 boroughs 1 city of london


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The 'argument' is that the street gangs initiated the riots for (largely business) reasons of their own. They formed an unprecedented united front to do so. This alliance gave them the necessary numbers and the mobility to move from borough to borough at will. In short the riots were organised, but some inevitably took on a life of their own. A distinction must also be made between the rioters and the routine looters who the former had summoned to provide additional cover, to provide a diversion and tie up police long after the real perpetrators had moved on to a fresh target. That I think is a fair summary of the IWCA position as outlined.
> 
> You continue to insist however that this all about having a sly dig at the Left. But the Left don't come into it. At all.


that may be the argument but it would be good to see some evidence for all aspects of it.


----------



## revlon (Sep 8, 2011)

opinion piece in the independent - *Amol Rajan: The atomised poor have replaced the 'working class'
*
_"working class" referred to a solidarity among a certain sector of society...
_
_ What has replaced the working class is an atomised poor, more removed from the rest of society – in financial, political, and geographic terms – than ever. The solidarity is gone; that class-consciousness is a faded idea. _

_ The reasons for this are several, from immigration to the weakening of trade unions...  For now, suffice to say that whether he works or not, "Tyrone" [one of the rioter interviewed] is not a member of a working class in any historically meaningful sense of that term, and his chances of being emancipated from poverty are suffering as a result". 
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-have-replaced-the-working-class-2349973.html
_


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I was looking through some previous articles from Red Action to look at the development of the theme being propagated here by Joe and others. Where there has been frustration expressed by IWCA supporters here at the reluctance for people to accept the political arguments made, it may have much to do with the expectation that some people have that should they do so, the next demand will be "well why won't you join in and assist by doing "this" against the gangs? "
> *Outlaws and Renegades. *
> "Above all, for any progressive movement to continue its advance within a working class neighbourhood it will prove necessary ‘to get rid of that gang’. Get rid not merely as a by-product, but as an end in itself. Given the stakes, not taking sides is not an option."


Thanks for that. The sentence before the one you quote is slightly chilling, but then it is quite an old article.

A decade ago there was a recognition that the history and the analysis are actually intended to achieve something: for organising, as a political foundation, continuing the advance of a progressive movement and so on.  The current articles appear to have no purpose other than as conversation pieces.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The lumpen are those who have been driven into long term unemployment, initially through no fault of their own, who then adjust to it financially and in other ways. Thereafter they make no contribution and have _no intention_ of making any. It is a parasitic existence. They live off society. They do so brazenly. Which is historically one of the defining charachteristics of that class.



but this analysis doesnt include many of the gang members, most of whom arent old enough to have experienced long term unemployment and often have mums in work.  it does include beggars, big issue sellers, disabled claimants etc.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 8, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No. The poor tend to be those stuck in minimum wage jobs - cleaners, guards, hotel jobs, pub work etc and those layed off. Whilst some of the lumpen are also skint - many have the most money in their immediate area through dealing etc and everyone knows it and how they got it ime.



but you're talking more about the criminal families discussed earlier here, theres a word for that, criminals.  since this isnt the word chosen by the IWCA then it is to be assumed that you mean something beyond criminals, something harder to pin down.

are EDL supporters part of this nouveau lumpen?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> that 83% stat is at variance from the stat in your original piece. Besides which - 3 out 4 *arrested* not 3 out 4 *involved* - and even then "known to plod" might be just a caution for low-grade ASB.
> And by your own reckoning 17 out of 22 boroughs which saw disturbances weren't those with gangs under immediate police pressure.
> 
> As I say - I don't doubt your basic point. But you are stretching it (and then some?)



The 83% per cent stat was not a figure made available at the time. Released only yesterday in fact. Well, I'll think you'll agree that some boroughs like Richmond is not likely to suffer from a preponderance of gangs, while other boroughs will be, lets say, over-represented. It seems like that it is the over-represented boroughs that will have been targetted. It in these boroughs that the gangs formed alliances and then as was said earlier, migrated into other boroughs.


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2011)

There was a piece in the G recently about how someone who tried to leave a gang was put in an elevator with a fighting dog, then the order to 'kill' was given, he was obviously going to be in a bad way, it may be apocryphal but I don't think so..


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2011)

'are EDL supporters part of this nouveau lumpen?'

'Human Dust' according to the The Undertaker(posting name on Socialist Unity, rumoured to be Martin Smith)

I take the view that no one can be written off completely, that people do have some agency, there are plenty of people i know who ran with gangs in their youth or were in far right outfits and who changed or re-oriented there situation and now have perfectly normal dare I say, middle class or 'decent' lives..


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 8, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14834827



> Home Secretary Theresa May has told MPs that it appeared that the "majority of people" involved in the riots were not in gangs.
> She told MPs that as arrests had continued, the percentage involved in gangs had dropped.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 8, 2011)

just under 20% though is a frightening figure.What percentage would we have seen in the 80s?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 9, 2011)

Forget the lumpens, the "renegades" that pose the greater threat to the class as a whole are those working class individuals that are so poisoned with neo-liberal capitalist culture that they have not an ounce of solidarity in their bones. Like this stupid bitch I was talking to a couple of weeks back. She'd been working as a waitress in a typically non-unionised bar for five years and was just made redundant out of the blue (naturally she was upset and resentful about that). She subsequently worked in some mangerial role in a supermarket and was complaining that she couldn't fire some of the elderly till assistants because they were in unions. The utter selfishness of stupid fucking filthy retarded pigs like that just beggers belief doesn't it? What to do with scab scum like that?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14834827



Are these the same gangs, whose role in the riots ("encouraging people to take part in these events") are now apparently being downgraded, by the Home Secretary, while at the same time acknowledging that the "gangs could use the Olympics as a catalyst for looting and violence - or - are they some other gangs?
Or maybe possibly some other Theresa May?


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 9, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Are these the same gangs, whose role in the riots ("encouraging people to take part in these events") are now apparently being downgraded, by the Home Secretary, while at the same time acknowledging that the "gangs could use the Olympics as a catalyst for looting and violence - or - are they some other gangs?
> Or maybe possibly some other Theresa May?



You mean they might be telling lies for their own ends? Who'da thunk it? Works both ways though as well you know. The reality that the vast vast majority of those arrested are not in gangs doesn't mean that those who are might be in gangs couldn't target the Olympics.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 11, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> You mean they might be telling lies for their own ends? Who'da thunk it? Works both ways though as well you know. The reality that the vast vast majority of those arrested are not in gangs doesn't mean that those who are might be in gangs couldn't target the Olympics.



I don't think its lying as such, more like thinking out loud. They have realised that if indeed the gangs were responsible for the riots; if it was actual 'payback', then the widely promoted Cameron led crack down may be unwise especially in Olympic year. So if as the IWCA article predicted there will not be a crack down for this reason, then the need for the public rowing back from the position of the gang leaders being the principle string pullers is the next logical step.

At the same time, with this in mind, as TM admitted to the Commons select committe, there needs to greater intel on the gangs future intentions just in case the 'let by gones be by gones'/ 'business as usual' body language currently emanting from government circles dosen't actually resonate.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 11, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> I don't think its lying as such, more like thinking out loud. They have realised that if indeed the gangs were responsible for the riots; if it was actual 'payback', then the widely promoted Cameron led crack down may be unwise especially in Olympic year. So if as the IWCA article predicted there will not be a crack down for this reason, then the need for the public rowing back from the position of the gang leaders being the principle string pullers is the next logical step.



Or it is simply a fact, as in established, researched and discovered to be true, that the majority, vast majority of those arrested, are not in gangs. Is that not possible?



> At the same time, with this in mind, as TM admitted to the Commons select committe, there needs to greater intel on the gangs future intentions just in case the 'let by gones be by gones'/ 'business as usual' body language currently emanting from government circles dosen't actually resonate.



That is entirely possible, it does not preclude the majority of arrrestees not being in gangs however.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 12, 2011)

Dismal stuff from the IWCA.

Sometimes people only know how to hit back blindly. The unrest was mostly sub-political in character. One thing the events and their context bear witness to is the weakness of an organised left (a fact they simply mention). Given their analyses in the past (e.g the far-right) they're well placed to emphasise that connection rather than revive the old-hat lumpen-prole nonsense; instead they've joined the reactionary moral outrage that characterized the pitiable response of the establishment classes.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Forget the lumpens, the "renegades" that pose the greater threat to the class as a whole are those working class individuals that are so poisoned with neo-liberal capitalist culture that they have not an ounce of solidarity in their bones. Like this stupid bitch I was talking to a couple of weeks back. She'd been working as a waitress in a typically non-unionised bar for five years and was just made redundant out of the blue (naturally she was upset and resentful about that). She subsequently worked in some mangerial role in a supermarket and was complaining that she couldn't fire some of the elderly till assistants because they were in unions. The utter selfishness of stupid fucking filthy retarded pigs like that just beggers belief doesn't it? What to do with scab scum like that?


Quite right, these are the ones who bought into the whole lot. These are the fuckers who complain how people shouldn't go on strike because "they've got jobs" or some such ignorant bullshit.  But a lot of these people are called "managers" but they don't seem to manage anything; it's just a nice title to go with a shite job. Think of the legions of vice presidents in the corporate world of the US and you're there.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 12, 2011)

I know, can't stand those sort of jeleous, petty little cock suckers. They are as much part of the problem as anybody else. Hopefully one day such trash will be swept into the dustbin of history.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 12, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Dismal stuff from the IWCA.
> 
> Sometimes people only know how to hit back blindly. The unrest was mostly sub-political in character. One thing the events and their context bear witness to is the weakness of an organised left (a fact they simply mention). Given their analyses in the past (e.g the far-right) they're well placed to emphasise that connection rather than revive the old-hat lumpen-prole nonsense; instead they've joined the reactionary moral outrage that characterized the pitiable response of the establishment classes.



Not sure I get your drift there fella. If we had a  strong  organised left what would have been diffrent in your opinion?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Not sure I get your drift there fella. If we had a strong organised left what would have been diffrent in your opinion?



Well, for a start I think they'd have brought down the coalition government by now. But my better answer is the sections the rioters were drawn from can be integrated and mobilized politically, which is the main problem IMO. And there's the valid criticism of the rioters - why they were 'apolitical' - that they should have been more combative or assertive - like the initial reaction in north London appeared to be (should have been accompanied nationally by demos outside every police station IMO).

Therefore I agree with Slavoj Zizek: "this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 13, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Well, for a start I think they'd have brought down the coalition government by now. But my better answer is the sections the rioters were drawn from can be integrated and mobilized politically, which is the main problem IMO. And there's the valid criticism of the rioters - why they were 'apolitical' - that they should have been more combative or assertive - like the initial reaction in north London appeared to be (should have been accompanied nationally by demos outside every police station IMO).
> 
> Therefore I agree with Slavoj Zizek: "this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."



Would there have been looting in strong organised left areas ?
Why would the looters organise demos outside of every Police stations ?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Would there have been looting in strong organised left areas ?



I think we wouldn't really be talking much about looting.



> Why would the looters organise demos outside of every Police stations ?



How is the question of whether looters would demonstrate pertinent, the point being that people only interested in looting wouldn't do so, but people with more political consciousness? (Not that I deride the ingenious looters.)


----------



## cogg (Sep 13, 2011)

just to put the 'renegades' article in the context of the IWCA's actual practice, here's a link to an article written by Stuart Craft of the IWCA this week for the blog I'm invlolved in.

*Standing up for ourselves: a brief history of the IWCA’s campaigns against Class A drug dealers in Blackbird Leys*

Posted: 8 September, 2011 by *Admin* in *British politics*, *England*, *Independent Working Class Association (IWCA)*

*0*

by *Stuart Craft* (IWCA councillor, Oxford)
The Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) – originally an initiative of the militant working class organisation Anti-Fascist Action, was formed in October 1995 following lengthy discussions between a dozen national and local organisations. 

Founding members agreed that Labour had ditched the working class and become a party for the middle class, that the existence of the ‘Labour Movement’ was a myth and that the working class no longer had any genuine representation. The IWCA would strive for immediate gains in the interests of working class people. It would also be a clean break with the past, independent of all other parties, community based and democratic.

Full article here: http://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/09/0...ainst-class-a-drug-dealers-in-blackbird-leys/


----------



## past caring (Sep 13, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Dismal stuff from the IWCA.
> 
> Sometimes people only know how to hit back blindly. The unrest was mostly sub-political in character. One thing the events and their context bear witness to is the weakness of an organised left (a fact they simply mention). Given their analyses in the past (e.g the far-right) they're well placed to emphasise that connection rather than revive the old-hat lumpen-prole nonsense; instead they've joined the reactionary moral outrage that characterized the pitiable response of the establishment classes.





Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Well, for a start I think they'd have brought down the coalition government by now. But my better answer is the sections the rioters were drawn from can be integrated and mobilized politically, which is the main problem IMO. And there's the valid criticism of the rioters - why they were 'apolitical' - that they should have been more combative or assertive - like the initial reaction in north London appeared to be (should have been accompanied nationally by demos outside every police station IMO).
> 
> Therefore I agree with Slavoj Zizek: "this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."





Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I think we wouldn't really be talking much about looting.
> 
> How is the question of whether looters would demonstrate pertinent, the point being that people only interested in looting wouldn't do so, but people with more political consciousness? (Not that I deride the ingenious looters.)



To sum up, then, if things were different then, errrr......things would be different?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

The point is that only an entrenched left of the popular classes will escape the impasse of blind protests.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 13, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The point is that only an entrenched left of the popular classes will escape the impasse of blind protests.


If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 13, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Or it is simply a fact, as in established, researched and discovered to be true, that the majority, vast majority of those arrested, are not in gangs.



Well given an estimated 30,000 took part overall then it be rather unlikely that gang members would feature statistically at all. As it is, the arrests of gang members/affiliates in London, are in the region of 500 plus. Which is not insignificant but obviously does not, and cannot be expected to tell the full story of why the riots erupted, and who engineered them.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs?



I know it's lunch time but: what?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 13, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I know it's lunch time but: what?


 
It seemed clear enough; poking fun at the day dream politics of 'if only'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 13, 2011)

pffft


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 16, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> just under 20% though is a frightening figure.What percentage would we have seen in the 80s?



Given the earlier furore about the implausibility of the united front theory, I was amused to stumble across this quote from Thursday's _Independent_:

"After being locked up members of rival 'postcode gangs' from London had buried their differences to foem city-wide groupings when they were moved to other parts of the country".
(Nick Hardwick Chief Inspector of Prisons)

Which is more ambitious than the borough-wide groupings that implemented the rioting in London.

As to the wider question of gang participation of the suspected rioters captured so far - those with records(73 per cent) had committed an average of 15 offences, (which makes you think, that if they weren't already in gangs then they really out to be!) and rather makes a mockery of T. May's attempt to play down the role of the gangs last week.  Of the 865 jailed thus far, over 350 are in the 15 -20 age bracket which is fairly sobering.

These latest stats surely now leave little doubt as to the almost entirely lumpen nature of the operation.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The lumpen are those who have been driven into long term unemployment, initially through no fault of their own, who then adjust to it financially and in other ways. Thereafter they make no contribution and have _no intention_ of making any. It is a parasitic existence. They live off society. They do so brazenly. Which is historically one of the defining charachteristics of that class.


This is dangerous shit. But mostly shit.

You have absolutely no understanding of the informal economies out there.


----------



## past caring (Sep 25, 2011)

Smuggled tobacco as revolutionary practice, again? You're a fucking clown.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

newbie said:


> parasites now, this is getting more and more Daily Express by the moment.
> 
> Except it's not of course, not really because the prescriptions for what to do about it differ. At least I would hope so. For the Daily Express (not that I read it, you understand) cutting off benefits, evicting social tenants and strong, probably zero tolerance, policing are the answer. That's clear, simple and completely barking.
> 
> ...



There is on this thread old leftism being dressed up, with little addition, but a mere blending with right wing simplifications about complex issues. Lumpen is a content less category here? This use is lazy, is it defined? IS it quantified, and/or periodised? There seems to be no consideration of economic conditions and the precariousness of economic life now for masses of people. This is _qualitatively different_ from what has gone before, and simplistic anaylsis is never a solution, merely part of the problem.

The problem is that there are now so many people who are precarious on the estates that all the IWCA (sic) will be able to offer in terms of differentiating who is 'good' and who is 'to be excluded' is whichever (whoever) vigilante is willing to say somebody is 'good' or 'bad' - all of which are premodern forms, barbaric even. Its a nightmare scenario and thankfully is going nowhere. Attempts at doing this will split any estate, simply cos of the extended kinship and community contacts. The only way I could see it 'working' is if theres a completely anti social isolated loner to be picked upon, and that is not a politics progressive people would want to go anywhere near, I cannot see it of being of any strategic, tactical or political interest. Mass class justice against the class enemy, and now you're talking!!


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

past caring said:


> Smuggled tobacco as revolutionary practice, again? You're a fucking clown.


Wanker! you're the one banging on about that, I said 'informal economies' (go research and come back in a few months when you've read some of the literature). But seriously, you have no idea. There is a lot of blind folk around here pretending. Its sad to see. None of you have any idea of criminal markets, informal markets, organised crime, and their complexities, nuances, and blurring of organisational forms. Do carry on, you remind me constantly why I have little, if any, regard for your contributions.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 25, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> There is on this thread old leftism being dressed up, with little addition, but a mere blending with right wing simplifications about complex issues. Lumpen is a content less category here? This use is lazy, is it defined? IS it quantified, and/or periodised? There seems to be no consideration of economic conditions and the precariousness of economic life now for masses of people. This is _qualitatively different_ from what has gone before, and simplistic anaylsis is never a solution, merely part of the problem.



The analytic value of the term 'lumpen-proletariat' is historically limited. Its original use pertains to the revolutionary upheavals of the nineteenth century, the advancing bourgeoisie and the rise of working class movements. Reactionaries, who drew on the 'lumpen' for support, opposed both. It's anachronistic and, in any case, has no relevance here in our context - absolutely none.

Not that the above matters when one's purpose is to promote artificial divisions and dismiss insurrection of some of the most divested members of the working-class.


----------



## past caring (Sep 25, 2011)

"Me, me, me" is insurrection now? Join the Black Hand in the new International Association of the Self-Deluded. Fucking shower.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 25, 2011)

past caring said:


> "Me, me, me" is insurrection now? Join the Black Hand in the new International Association of the Self-Deluded. Fucking shower.



 Yeah, that's right. . . Riots were an _outburst of criminality_. They were carried out by riff raff, who are just _scum_. Nothing else could or need be thought or acknowledged of the riots - such would be 'self-delusion'. _The dangerous underclass_ and the welfare state, the _'me, me, me culture'_, and whatever else sober minds like past caring and the Daily Mail hold responsible, are to blame.

I already showered thanks. . .


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

past caring said:


> "Me, me, me" is insurrection now? Join the Black Hand in the new International Association of the Self-Deluded. Fucking shower.


You're the fekking shower, I mean, you can't even grapple with fairly basic political points I have made.

It is you goons who have the uneducated problems, not up to the task of meeting reasonable arguments on bulletin boards never mind reaching realistic politics that can engage with the multitude.

Bye, when you get an argument please do share it.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 25, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> This is dangerous shit. But mostly shit.
> 
> You have absolutely no understanding of the informal economies out there.



I woukld hazard a guess that it would take the services of a well paid full time academic if were were to.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 25, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I woukld hazard a guess that it would take the services of a well paid full time academic if were were to.


 
'The multitude' needs enlightened academics.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I woukld hazard a guess that it would take the services of a well paid full time academic if were were to.


No, it just takes people to understand the differences, and not to fuse essentially different things when coming up with simplistic solutions, which turn out to not be solutions at all.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> 'The multitude' needs enlightened academics.


The multitudes needs are the same as humanitys has always been, just as Marx said, what people need before they can make history.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 25, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> No, it just takes people to understand the differences, and not to fuse essentially different things when coming up with simplistic solutions, which turn out to not be solutions at all.


 
I think you'd be better received if you gave us a summary of your solutions.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 25, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> The multitudes needs are the same as humanitys has always been, just as Marx said, what people need before they can make history.


 
Oh right.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Oh right.


You should know that old lefty.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I think you'd be better received if you gave us a summary of your solutions.


Solutions to what?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 25, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Solutions to what?


 
You're the one who introduced solutions.


----------



## past caring (Sep 26, 2011)

Don't confuse him!


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 26, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Yeah, that's right. . . Riots were an _outburst of criminality_. They were carried out by riff raff, who are just _scum_. Nothing else could or need be thought or acknowledged of the riots - such would be 'self-delusion'. _The dangerous underclass_ and the welfare state, the _'me, me, me culture'_, and whatever else sober minds like past caring and the Daily Mail hold responsible, are to blame.



So like the others _deniers_ on here you think the 30 years of neo-liberalism imposed on working class communities has left them intact, untarnished, resilient? That the type of gangs that have emerged form the debris, who give initiates the choice of raping, stabbing someone or eating dog shit, can be found in all previous generations?

Of course they do actually give them the choice, which you'll probably find encouraging.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 26, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The analytic value of the term 'lumpen-proletariat' is historically limited. Its original use pertains to the revolutionary upheavals of the nineteenth century, the advancing bourgeoisie and the rise of working class movements. Reactionaries, who drew on the 'lumpen' for support, opposed both.



The bit your missing is that the lumpen are determined by _economic_ conditions as with all other classes.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So like the others _deniers_ on here you think the 30 years of neo-liberalism imposed on working class communities has left them intact, untarnished, resilient? That the type of gangs that have emerged form the debris, who give initiates the choice of raping, stabbing someone or eating dog shit, can be found in all previous generations?
> 
> Of course they do actually give them the choice, which you'll probably find encouraging.



when i was growing up the local football firm were pretty much a far right front.  they controlled much of the city centre and several clubs/pubs were no go areas.  they mostly concerned themselves with gay and paki bashing or picking fights with punks/goths/students or anyone who looked a bit strange in their eyes.  the more alternative parts of the city were controlled by a gang or brothers who had a long history of violent crime, one of whom once glassed a 15 year girl i was friends with.  they were involved in a bitter ongoing fight with the local motorbike chapter who werent averse to taking a black and decker to someones knee caps if they rubbed them up the wrong way.  many of my closest friends at the time did time for offences ranging from GBH to attempted murder, almost everyone i know carried a weapon.  more locally a two criminal families were amongst the most feared (and id have to stay respected) part of the community.  onefamily worked for the other, they were tainted a little when their son was banged up for raping an 84 year old woman, but they still managed to keep a certain power base.  as to the other, well their sons would regularly get pissed and beat the shit out of anyone who they took a dislike to, they were also involved in the fire arms trade and emerging drugs trade.  back in town, class A drugs were being openly sold on the 'frontline' as it was known, although there were often bitter fights between rival gangs, often involving knives, unless someone was critically injured then the police pretty much turned a blind eye.  i barely remember a night out when their wasnt some kind of fight, usually pointless and often involving weapons,  both the pakistani areas and white estates on the outskirts of the city regularly rioted and fights often broke out in town - where asian cab drivers had been attacked so much they had formed a defence force of guys with radios who drove around the city tooled up all night on hand in case a cabbie got in trouble - outside of the asian ghetto most pakistani owned shops were boarded up and sprayed with swastikas.  my great auntie, who had downes syndrome, was forced to move after having dog shit and fire works posted through her letterbox and being routinely abused by local kids - fire was a common theme, arson was common place and after a major disaster at the football stadium which claimed 56 lives the local opposing team turned up at the opening of the stadium and set fire to a burger van and rolled it down the terraces whilst singing songs about how they were going to burn it down again.

they were the days - working class proper folk enjoying the rambunctiousness of working class life


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> when i was growing up the local football firm were pretty much a far right front. they controlled much of the city centre and several clubs/pubs were no go areas. they mostly concerned themselves with gay and paki bashing or picking fights with punks/goths/students or anyone who looked a bit strange in their eyes. the more alternative parts of the city were controlled by a gang or brothers who had a long history of violent crime, one of whom once glassed a 15 year girl i was friends with. they were involved in a bitter ongoing fight with the local motorbike chapter who werent averse to taking a black and decker to someones knee caps if they rubbed them up the wrong way. many of my closest friends at the time did time for offences ranging from GBH to attempted murder, almost everyone i know carried a weapon. more locally a two criminal families were amongst the most feared (and id have to stay respected) part of the community. onefamily worked for the other, they were tainted a little when their son was banged up for raping an 84 year old woman, but they still managed to keep a certain power base. as to the other, well their sons would regularly get pissed and beat the shit out of anyone who they took a dislike to, they were also involved in the fire arms trade and emerging drugs trade. back in town, class A drugs were being openly sold on the 'frontline' as it was known, although there were often bitter fights between rival gangs, often involving knives, unless someone was critically injured then the police pretty much turned a blind eye. i barely remember a night out when their wasnt some kind of fight, usually pointless and often involving weapons, both the pakistani areas and white estates on the outskirts of the city regularly rioted and fights often broke out in town - where asian cab drivers had been attacked so much they had formed a defence force of guys with radios who drove around the city tooled up all night on hand in case a cabbie got in trouble - outside of the asian ghetto most pakistani owned shops were boarded up and sprayed with swastikas. my great auntie, who had downes syndrome, was forced to move after having dog shit and fire works posted through her letterbox and being routinely abused by local kids - fire was a common theme, arson was common place and after a major disaster at the football stadium which claimed 56 lives the local opposing team turned up at the opening of the stadium and set fire to a burger van and rolled it down the terraces whilst singing songs about how they were going to burn it down again.
> 
> they were the days - working class proper folk enjoying the rambunctiousness of working class life


 
I could give you similar stories from my own upbringing. The point is that working class communities were, thirty-plus years ago, more intact than they are now, with a sense of solidarity, despite the presence of thsoe who had no regard for it, resting on industries and an organised working class now absent.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> ... fire was a common theme, arson was common place and after a major disaster at the football stadium which claimed 56 lives the local opposing team turned up at the opening of the stadium and set fire to a burger van and rolled it down the terraces whilst singing songs about how they were going to burn it down again.
> 
> they were the days - working class proper folk enjoying the rambunctiousness of working class life



The burger van set on fire was at Odsal.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So like the others _deniers_ on here you think the 30 years of neo-liberalism imposed on working class communities has left them intact, untarnished, resilient? That the type of gangs that have emerged form the debris, who give initiates the choice of raping, stabbing someone or eating dog shit, can be found in all previous generations?



Well, gangs have been around for a long time. But are you trying to say the rioting was by gangs? Nor were all the rioters unemployed people, and some of them were middle class.

Almost no-one would deny the damage done to working class communities over three decades of neo-liberal immiseration and disempowerment. The renewed onslaught against the working class produced the enraged, if short-sighted, response that we saw in the riots. In absence of a strong left with a national body to fight the neoliberal agenda that's the kind of outburst we'll get.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The bit your missing is that the lumpen are determined by _economic_ conditions as with all other classes.



Economic conditions that no longer exist. There isn't a "lumpen proletariat".


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The burger van set on fire was at Odsal.



picky, was at a city game though as i recall, they played at odsal for a bit after the fire


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I could give you similar stories from my own upbringing. The point is that working class communities were, thirty-plus years ago, more intact than they are now, with a sense of solidarity, despite the presence of thsoe who had no regard for it, resting on industries and an organised working class now absent.



i dont disagree with that as such, though you could say the working class faced different problems then

the point is that you could write a piece of hyperbole about any period in working class life over the last 200 years and use it as an example of how terrible the kids are today, but there isnt actually any real evidence that they are


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 26, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Economic conditions that no longer exist. There isn't a "lumpen proletariat".



If that description makes you queasy how about "a new -and growing- social formation that has willingly embraced a _non_-work ethic"??

Alternatively, perhaps you reject the very concept of a growing 'formation' amongst the working class that through it's behaviour, codes and values actively diminishes the ability of our class to recover confidence, take back some control and become a political threat to capitalist? In which case you've clearly missed the last 30 years.

Just wondering like....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 26, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Well, gangs have been around for a long time. But are you trying to say the rioting was by gangs? Nor were all the rioters unemployed people, and some of them were middle class.



All of the evidence suggests that the looting/rioting was in many cases controlled by the gangs. Obviously others were involved but there has a clear hierarchy with the big boys getting first go at the loot after they arranged for the windows to be put in.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> All of the evidence suggests that the looting/rioting was in many cases controlled by the gangs. Obviously others were involved but there has a clear hierarchy with the big boys getting first go at the loot after they arranged for the windows to be put in.



i havent seen evidence that that was the case over and above what common sense would dictate (ie the hardest people with the biggest rep would probably have got first pickings)

i think this whole gang thing is a distraction that appears to be confusing some kind of new class formation with fashion - in my day there were football firms, biker gangs, a few organised criminal gangs, and lots of bunches of bored kids who hung out together, got involved in petty crime, looked out for each other and fought together

these days we'd probably have given ourselves a name and been a gang, back then we were just a bunch of mates


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i dont disagree with that as such, though you could say the working class faced different problems then
> 
> the point is that you could write a piece of hyperbole about any period in working class life over the last 200 years and use it as an example of how terrible the kids are today, but there isnt actually any real evidence that they are



Really? When was the last time in the last 200 years when young kids were routinely murdered by each other on the scale that they are now?

I remember aggro too - but not shootings, stabbings, gang rapes and other attendant side effects of gangsta rule.

No-one is pretending life was beautiful before, or that there weren't anti social elements present. What is different is the scale of it, the savegery of it and that not only don't the left have a plan to challenge it but that in most cases they don't even accept or recognise the problem.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Really? When was the last time in the last 200 years when young kids were routinely murdered by each other on the scale that they are now?



1914 – 1918


sorry (although perhaps relevant, nothing like a good war to work out some of that working class rage)







> I remember aggro too - but not shootings, stabbings, gang rapes and other attendant side effects of gangsta rule.
> 
> No-one is pretending life was beautiful before, or that there weren't anti social elements present. What is different is the scale of it, the savegery of it and that not only don't the left have a plan to challenge it but that in most cases they don't even accept or recognise the problem.


 
there absolutely weren't as many guns around, but stabbings were pretty commonplace.  as to gang rape, well that is very hard to tell as it very likely was even more under reported back then as it is now - but violence towards women and sexual violence was also far from uncommen

look the analysis is fine (even if i dont agree with all the conclusions) about the impact of criminal behaviour on working class communities and struggle - but the idea that this is a new and dangerous breed ruthlessly controlled by super-gangs and never seen before is just daft


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

incidentally id be interested to know if the left did accept there was a prolem 30+ years ago and what strategies it came up with to combat it?

genuine question btw, i was just a kid back then


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 26, 2011)

[quote="Ibn Khaldoun, post: 10492446"[But are you trying to say the rioting was by gangs? [/quote]

LOL!


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> 1914 – 1918
> 
> sorry (although perhaps relevant, nothing like a good war to work out some of that working class rage)
> 
> ...



No one said the dangerous breed were controlled by super-gangs. Though, certainly in London, the rioters, as against looters, were working to a preconcieved plan. As for the 'kids are alright' mantra - show me anywhere in history, where kinds were getting stabbed _to death _over a post code. Where mugging victims are routinely stabbed _after_ complying with the demands. Again, I would challenge you to show any evidence that _gang_ rape was ever a cultural norm, in even the roughest of estates.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 26, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Economic conditions that no longer exist. There isn't a "lumpen proletariat".



So where did the previous lumpen hordes go then?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said the dangerous breed were controlled by super-gangs. Though, certainly in London, the rioters, as against looters, were working to a preconcieved plan. As for the 'kids are alright' mantra - show me anywhere in history, where kinds were getting stabbed _to death _over a post code.



over a football team, over money, over dress sense - loads, come on - the post code thing is a fashion but kids from different towns/schools/estates fighting each other is hardly new



> Where mugging victims are routinely stabbed _after_ complying with the demands.



they stabbed you first back then, although the mugging was usually an afterthought



> Again, I would challenge you to show any evidence that _gang_ rape was ever a cultural norm, in even the roughest of estates.



id challenge you to show any evidence that gang rape is a cultural norm now


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 26, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> In absence of a strong left with a national body to fight the neoliberal agenda that's the kind of outburst we'll get.



Genuine questions:

1. Are you suggesting that if the SWP had 30,000 members and "a national body to fight neo-liberalism" then things would be different? Why? How?
2. If the looting was an 'outburst' somehow linked to neo-liberalism then why is the left - the self styled vanguard against neo-liberalism - becoming more irrelevant by the second? In other words, why at a time of a economic meltdown, with another dip imminent and the forces of neo-liberalism discredited and distrusted, is the left not even on the stage let alone an actor?


----------



## past caring (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> incidentally id be interested to know if the left did accept there was a prolem 30+ years ago and what strategies it came up with to combat it?
> 
> genuine question btw, i was just a kid back then



I am not sure anyone has talked of "super-gangs" (other than in reference to inter-gang truces during the rioting).

I'd put a slightly different emphasis on things than Smokeandsteam - the left doesn't have a plan to challenge gang culture and anti-social elements _and it never did have_. But 25-30 years ago (and earlier) this wasn't so important* - for a number of reasons;

1. The idea that we could collectively shape our future for the better - on a grand scale via the project of socialism - or on a smaller scale by taking industrial action to get a pay rise - still had some life left in it.

2. Even for those that didn't want (or couldn't be convinced) to be part of any collective attempt at betterment, the possibility existed that if you showed a minimal level of willing, you could find secure employment that paid a reasonable wage and would allow a reasonable standard of living - and if you did that and you saved for your holidays (or whatever) that was something to be respected. You weren't a mug.

There were, in other words, for those who might have come within the orbit of any nascent gang culture, other credible poles of attraction. No longer.

* - perhaps it would be more true to say that its importance wasn't so apparent.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

past caring said:


> I am not sure anyone has talked of "super-gangs" (other than in reference to inter-gang truces during the rioting).
> 
> I'd put a slightly different emphasis on things than Smokeandsteam - the left doesn't have a plan to challenge gang culture and anti-social elements _and it never did have_. But 25-30 years ago (and earlier) this wasn't so important* - for a number of reasons;
> 
> ...



fair enough, but then that adds a rather new spin on the claims of a willing culture of worklessness, or a 'no work' ethic. which from your analysis would appear to be something imposed rather than chosen


----------



## past caring (Sep 26, 2011)

I wasn't trying to present a complete analysis - just responding to one point.

Nevertheless, the fact that some of the changes I've talked about were imposed doesn't alter the fact that some have made a happy accommodation with the new reality.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

bit simplistic aint it, they got made poor but they like it cos they get to stab and rape people


----------



## past caring (Sep 26, 2011)

Simplistic? Yes. And as an accurate a synopsis of the IWCA position as it would be to characterise yours as being a cheer-leader for muggers and rapists.

We can all play that game, but it does get a bit fucking tiresome.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> over a football team, over money, over dress sense - loads, come on - the post code thing is a fashion but kids from different towns/schools/estates fighting each other is hardly new
> 
> they stabbed you first back then, although the mugging was usually an afterthought
> 
> id challenge you to show any evidence that gang rape is a cultural norm now



Pretty poor responses.You try and paint a very unconvincing picture that its  just business as usual really, nothing but a moral panic.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2011)

yep you're right, play tabloid get tabloid back - but that in itself is a criticism of the piece and some of the follow up responses on this thread - there doesnt seem any consistency over who the nouveau lumpen actually are - and if we are talking just about gangs then rumours and statements made by coppers and torys dont add much credibility to the position


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i dont disagree with that as such, though you could say the working class faced different problems then
> 
> the point is that you could write a piece of hyperbole about any period in working class life over the last 200 years and use it as an example of how terrible the kids are today, but there isnt actually any real evidence that they are



I don't think that's what's being said. Rather it's that the gang problem has got worse-guns and knives were extremely rare thirty years ago-and that it's a growing problem in a period when working class solidarity has already broken down over wide areas of society.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 26, 2011)

smokedout said:


> over a football team, over money, over dress sense - loads, come on - the post code thing is a fashion but kids from different towns/schools/estates fighting each other is hardly new



The use of guns (ie in Liverpool when the eleven year-old boy got shot after gettting in the way), by kids hardly old enough to be shaving, for trespassing on another gang's declared territory, was unheard of even fifteen or twenty years ago.


----------



## newbie (Sep 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The point is that working class communities were, thirty-plus years ago, more intact than they are now, with a sense of solidarity, despite the presence of thsoe who had no regard for it, resting on industries and an organised working class now absent.


Do you sense any widespread desire to go back to the way things were in those days?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 26, 2011)

newbie said:


> Do you sense any widespread desire to go back to the way things were in those days?


 
Doesn't matter if there is or isn't when I am, as I said, pointing out certain differences between now and then.


----------



## past caring (Sep 26, 2011)

newbie said:


> Do you sense any widespread desire to go back to the way things were in those days?



What an odd question to ask. Do you think that is what is being argued for?


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2011)

It it? Aren't intact communities with a sense of solidarity and an organised working class desirable?

what is being argued for?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If that description makes you queasy how about "a new -and growing- social formation that has willingly embraced a _non_-work ethic"??
> 
> Alternatively, perhaps you reject the very concept of a growing 'formation' amongst the working class that through it's behaviour, codes and values actively diminishes the ability of our class to recover confidence, take back some control and become a political threat to capitalist? In which case you've clearly missed the last 30 years.
> 
> Just wondering like....



Divestment, disaffection and poverty.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> So where did the previous lumpen hordes go then?



The lumpens were proletarized in the late nineteenth 20th century.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Genuine questions:
> 
> 1. Are you suggesting that if the SWP had 30,000 members and "a national body to fight neo-liberalism" then things would be different? Why? How?



More people would be organised, they'd have more of an outlet. I also believe the government would not have been able to execute its agenda. It would have been made to stand down and call elections because it was inoperable.



> 2. If the looting was an 'outburst' somehow linked to neo-liberalism then why is the left - the self styled vanguard against neo-liberalism - becoming more irrelevant by the second? In other words, why at a time of a economic meltdown, with another dip imminent and the forces of neo-liberalism discredited and distrusted, is the left not even on the stage let alone an actor?



Neo-liberalism wasn't only an economic restructuring it was also part of a political assault on leftist forces which are still only coming to terms with it. The IWCA's piece is a reactionary example of how to come to terms with that - to blame one segment of the popular classes, imagined as a 'lumpen proletariat' at that - instead of the system responsible for their poverty. Civil unrest is heightened everywhere affected by the recession. Could you imagine these riots even two years ago?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> More people would be organised, they'd have more of an outlet. I also believe the government would not have been able to execute its agenda. It would have been made to stand down and call elections because it was inoperable.



When the Communist Party had 30000 members (in much more favourable times both politically and socially), it was a far more professional outfit than the SWP (whatever its political shortcomings), commanded far more respect from working class militants, had a hold over a greater variety of front organisations and exercised greater influence in those it didn't control. But governments were still able to 'execute their agendas.'


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Neo-liberalism wasn't only an economic restructuring it was also part of a political assault on leftist forces which are still only coming to terms with it. The IWCA's piece is a reactionary example of how to come to terms with that - to blame one segment of the popular classes, imagined as a 'lumpen proletariat' at that - instead of the system responsible for their poverty. Civil unrest is heightened everywhere affected by the recession. Could you imagine these riots even two years ago?



The IWCA has pointed the finger at the the system responsible for the poverty of many of the rioters at the same time as reminding us that the anti-social actions of many rioters effectively puts them on the side of that system. It is an approach that seperates them off from the redundant left.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2011)

How would you start building this  'national body to fight neo-liberalism' ? Would we start with the organised working class or the 'imagined lumpenproletariat'?

And yes I could have imagined these riots two years ago.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> When the Communist Party had 30000 members (in much more favourable times both politically and socially), it was a far more professional outfit than the SWP (whatever its political shortcomings), commanding far more respect from working class militants, with a hold over a greater variety of front organisations and exercising greater influence in those it didn't control. But governements were still able to 'execute their agendas.'



Thought 'SWP' was for sake of example.

This particular government. Could have been brought down by now, could still be.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Thought 'SWP' was for sake of example.
> 
> This particular government. Could have been brought down by now, could still be.



In abstract everything is possible , in reality how could this particular govt have been brought down, could be brought down?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Thought 'SWP' was for sake of example.
> 
> This particular government. Could have been brought down by now, could still be.


 
What I say applies, however, to any and every formation the left in this country could possibly come up with.

The government could by now have been brought down in a parallel universe perhaps.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The IWCA has pointed the finger at the the system responsible for the poverty of many of the rioters at the same time as reminding us that the anti-social actions of many rioters effectively puts them on the side of that system.



And they go way too far in doing so. The riots weren't an effective protest, but riots don't tend to be either, which doesn't make them spontaneous outbursts of criminality. That's the problem, "the spirit of revolt without revolution" as Zizek says.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> In abstract everything is possible , in reality how could this particular govt have been brought down, could be brought down?



It's a flimsy coalition that lacks legitimacy and is very unpopular. Not to mention the weak alliances. If only the alternative (New Labour) was much better.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> How would you start building this 'national body to fight neo-liberalism' ? Would we start with the organised working class or the 'imagined lumpenproletariat'?



Well any such building will by necessity include more and more of the proletariat that are excluded from production. That's why developments such as the unemployed workers unions and disabled activism Ukuncut etc. are positive.



> And yes I could have imagined these riots two years ago.



Do you see them as completely unconnected to recession and government policies? Are they not part of a pattern of civil unrest?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> And they go way too far in doing so. The riots weren't an effective protest, but riots don't tend to be either, which doesn't make them spontaneous outbursts of criminality. That's the problem, "the spirit of revolt without revolution" as Zizek says.



That's right, keep it abstract. Whatever disspiriting effect the rioters might have on working class communities, the usual impotent fulminations against capitalism will suffice.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Well any such building will by necessity include more and more of the proletariat that are excluded from production. That's why developments such as the unemployed workers unions and disabled activism Ukuncut etc. are positive.
> 
> Do you see them as completely unconnected to recession and government policies? Are they not part of a pattern of civil unrest?


 
i'll tell you now Ibn: nobody on the left will organise those who rioted for the simple reason that nobody on today's left is remotely capable of doing so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The IWCA has pointed the finger at the the system responsible for the poverty of many of the rioters at the same time as reminding us that the anti-social actions of many rioters effectively puts them on the side of that system. It is an approach that seperates them off from the redundant left.


 
Grants them a seat on the condemnation commitee.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 27, 2011)

I think Ibn may be onto something here. The left should be looking to all those members of the working class who have been forced/chosen to stand outside and against that class, as the shock troops of a new anti-capitalism: police and gangs against neo-liberalism.

Louis Macneice


----------



## love detective (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Do you see them as completely unconnected to recession and government policies? Are they not part of a pattern of civil unrest?



Anytime I have mentioned the weak state of the anti-cuts movement in the UK on here (this thread for example) - a common retort seems to be that '_the cuts haven't started to bite yet and once they do things will pick up in terms of resistance/militancy_' - yet when it comes to 'understanding' the riots the common retort seems to be that they are (in part) a product of the cuts (i.e. you couldn't have imagined them two years ago)

None of these explanations are convincing in isolation - even less so when the contradictions of their combination are considered


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 27, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Grants them a seat on the condemnation commitee.



That's good - because the head in the sand committee seems to be full up.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

The global system excludes an ever large number of people from any role in it. That is a secular trend as well. When we have shanty towns here no-one will scoff at what I'm saying - as some apparently are on this thread.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The global system excludes an ever large number of people from any role in it. That is a secular trend as well. When we have shanty towns here no-one will scoff at what I'm saying - as some apparently are on this thread.



That comment has no real connection to what's gone before.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That's good - because the head in the sand committee seems to be full up.



They're both subcommittees of the "rioters were crims" group.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> That comment has no real connection to what's gone before.



Post #724 for example.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The global system excludes an ever large number of people from any role in it. That is a secular trend as well. When we have shanty towns here no-one will scoff at what I'm saying - as some apparently are on this thread.


No it doesn't. It includes ever more people in its workings, ensures that they can only survive through it. Congrats, you've missed the last 40 years.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The lumpens were proletarized in the late nineteenth 20th century.



Ok, and now we're heading in the opposite direction. Why is that so hard to grasp?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2011)

love detective said:


> Anytime I have mentioned the weak state of the anti-cuts movement in the UK on here (this thread for example) - a common retort seems to be that '_the cuts haven't started to bite yet and once they do things will pick up in terms of resistance/militancy_' - yet when it comes to 'understanding' the riots the common retort seems to be that they are (in part) a product of the cuts (i.e. you couldn't have imagined them two years ago)



other things aside, i dont think you can divorce the riots completely from what has been going on elsewhere even if you only acknowledge the influence was tactical rather than political in nature

there were plenty of kids from 'the slums of london' came out to fight the police at the student demos, i suspect some of them got a taste for it, a confidence they hadnt felt before and realised they could do it better in their own manors and get something out of it


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't. It includes ever more people in its workings, ensures that they can only survive through it. Congrats, you've missed the last 40 years.



Formal inclusion yeah. Few people aren't on some kind of database.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Formal inclusion yeah. Few people aren't on some kind of database.


No, that's not what i mean. I mean that to survive ever more are forced to take part in the system in on way or another. The system needs their functional inclusion not their expulsion. You are 100% back to front.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Ok, and now we're heading in the opposite direction. Why is that so hard to grasp?



Probably; we're not there yet.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You're the one who introduced solutions.


No, that was the 'realist iwca' I said they weren't solutions at all.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The bit your missing is that the lumpen are determined by _economic_ conditions as with all other classes.


No Joe, 'determined' Marxist theory is bastardised Marxism, and is not Marxism at all really. All these essentialisms and determinisms belong to the past, and we do not live there anymore where such certaintys created so many problems - 'believing' is part of the problem rather than the solution.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I could give you similar stories from my own upbringing. The point is that working class communities were, thirty-plus years ago, more intact than they are now, with a sense of solidarity, despite the presence of thsoe who had no regard for it, resting on industries and an organised working class now absent.


Hurrah Letty - you've said something obvious and said it well. now can you progress some further?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Hurrah Letty - you've said something obvious and said it well. now can you progress some further?


 
Book stall somewhere? University event?


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The IWCA has pointed the finger at the the system responsible for the poverty of many of the rioters at the same time as reminding us that the anti-social actions of many rioters effectively puts them on the side of that system. It is an approach that seperates them off from the redundant left.



No it doesn't letty - you are the redundant left cos you're only  gabbling off on bb and have no organisation in the working classes and their areas. Fact You've (iwca) been banging this drum for 15 yrs plus and nobodies listening, still.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> i'll tell you now Ibn: nobody on the left will organise those who rioted for the simple reason that nobody on today's left is remotely capable of doing so.


Which doesn't mean that the attempts should not be made.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Which doesn't mean that the attempts should not be made.


 
Off you fuck and do it then.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Book stall somewhere? University event?


Event next to the Toon football ground


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Off you fuck and do it then.


There are many like me who already do - you need to watch the latest Reel news activist video on the Tottenham insurrection.
Plus we should be talking more about the execution of Duggan, why did op Trident (designed to decrease black on black crime) execute Duggan in a part of Tottenham that wasn't wired with CCTV? That's the bigger issue for me, you lot let the polis off the hook time and time again.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> That's right, keep it abstract. Whatever disspiriting effect the rioters might have on working class communities, the usual impotent fulminations against capitalism will suffice.



Don't confuse anti social acts with resistance, you are blurring the 2 in a very crass way. Sure, insurrections are messy, plus ca change, that doen't negate the class formation that was going on through resistance either. Many were gathering on the streets, to heckle the polis...

You lot have a  one sided argument, 'that everythings always bad, the iwca are it' (its just another variant of stale old leftism, do it our way etc), and you completely underplay and overlook what parts were positive.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, that's not what i mean. I mean that to survive ever more are forced to take part in the system in on way or another. The system needs their functional inclusion not their expulsion. You are 100% back to front.



Hm, aren't there millions of people who surplus to the system's requirements? And the tendency of unemployment is higher over time.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

There are many more being brought in every year, that's how the system functions. The unemployed are not outside the system, they too are functional for it.  Why the hell would 'the system' want people outside it?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2011)

see dale farm for details


----------



## past caring (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Don't confuse anti social acts with resistance, you are blurring the 2 in a very crass way. Sure, insurrections are messy, plus ca change, that doen't negate the class formation that was going on through resistance either. Many were gathering on the streets, to heckle the polis...
> 
> You lot have a one sided argument, 'that everythings always bad, the iwca are it' (its just another variant of stale old leftism, do it our way etc), *and you completely underplay and overlook what parts were positive.*



Why don't you tell us what these were?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There are many more being brought in every year, that's how the system functions. The unemployed are not outside the system, they too are functional for it. Why the hell would 'the system' want people outside it?



Then I guess they're not excluded from the system itself, but divested, disaffected and disempowered within it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

Butch, during feudalism were _the communities of outlaws_ who lived in forests eg. during the reign of Henry VIIIth (80K vagrants executed during the reign of Henry VIIIth and that was a massive proportion of the total population - 1569 population approx 3.2 million), *living outside of the system*?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Relevant as ever.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Then I guess they're not excluded from the system itself, but divested, disaffected and disempowered within it.



Butch is right and you are right, however the tendency is towards exclusion of the 'underclass' who get no or few benefits that makes compliance with the capitalist state less and less possible. The more the poor are evicted, benefit cut, benefit sanctioned etc the less that they will see any compliance with the state worthwhile cos they get nothing in return for their tolerance. Thus the possibility of the return of outlaw communities, people who live outside of the law.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Relevant as ever.



Ho ho ho yawn. No answer again Butch? Typical.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 27, 2011)

Can someone clarify this; is it not ok to talk about 19th century lumpens because history has moved on, but it is ok to evoke 16th century outlaws, because they are historically analogous to 21st century rioters and looters?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Hm, aren't there millions of people who surplus to the system's requirements? And the tendency of unemployment is higher over time.



to be fair i think you could have argued that unemployed people, long term claimants at some point possibly had more autonomy than low waged or even waged workers - as did the institutions which worked with them (job clubs, advice centres etc) - which were often funded top down (by employment services etc) but by and large were benign, often run by local charities, community centres etc

that has changed drastically - unemployment is a price worth paying and vital to the system but it can never be made to look attractive - so the harrassment of the unemployed has developed into a market, just like the legal system, and public services are heading - workfare, disability testing etc are a means of further entrenching the most vulnerable into the system, beyond the benefits trap

there has to be people at the bottom and to everyone but them they can be a valuable commodity

in this context further attacks on claimants, travellers, squatters, the disabled (and bloody students, you dont even get three years off now) can simply be seen as a mopping up. the ferocity of the riots may be a counter-point to that - but ultimately (probably) only further entrench the participants inthe system that is fucking them

having said that lots of people got free tellys and a few coppers got hurt so its not all bad


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Can someone clarify this; is it not ok to talk about 19th century lumpens because history has moved on, but it is ok to evoke 16th century outlaws, because they are historically analogous to 21st century rioters and looters?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


All history is potentially informative and useful for new analysis, but nothing ever happens in exactly the same way. There are always continuities and
ruptures with the past.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

past caring said:


> Why don't you tell us what these were?


*You could learn something here i think at the anarchist bootfair;*

*3pm to 4.30pm*
_*Four days that shook the world 
Insurrection or a minor disturbance? *_
The riots in August started in Tottenham, north London after the murder of Mark Duggan yet another black man killed by the police. Yet again, like with Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlingson, Harry Stanley, and countless others the police lied to cover up their killing. Mark’s death may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. But it wasn’t the main cause for the riots and looting throughout London and other parts of the country for nearly a week. A discussion about why the riots took place, the aftermath and where we go from here. 
*Speakers include Darcus Howe and Tony Wood from the Tottenham Defence Campaign. Organised by: London Anarchist Bookfair Collective *


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> All history is potentially informative and useful for new analysis, but nothing ever happens in exactly the same way. There are always continuities and
> ruptures with the past.



Thanks for the clarification.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


A pleasure.


----------



## past caring (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> *You could learn something here i think at the anarchist bootfair;*
> 
> *3pm to 4.30pm*
> _*Four days that shook the world *_
> ...



That's a "no", then.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

past caring said:


> That's a "no", then.


No, its a 'i can't be bothered'. I pointed out where things might be got and that reply suffices for me.


----------



## love detective (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> No, its a 'i can't be bothered'.


the irony - given that your initial charge was:-

_'you completely underplay and overlook what parts were positive'_


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Butch, during feudalism were _the communities of outlaws_ who lived in forests eg. during the reign of Henry VIIIth (80K vagrants executed during the reign of Henry VIIIth and that was a massive proportion of the total population - 1569 population approx 3.2 million), *living outside of the system*?


 
This is what I think you and your community of one 'outlaw' should go and do.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> This is what I think you and your community of one 'outlaw' should go and do.


Rubbish letty, do try harder.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

love detective said:


> the irony - given that your initial charge was:-
> 
> _'you completely underplay and overlook what parts were positive'_


Not at all, its a realistic "I can't be bothered to get into another big argument with U lot of negative nay sayers" cos that is what will happen.
Toodle pip old chap, I'm off to sip my champers.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Butch is right and you are right, however the tendency is towards exclusion of the 'underclass' who get no or few benefits that makes compliance with the capitalist state less and less possible. The more the poor are evicted, benefit cut, benefit sanctioned etc the less that they will see any compliance with the state worthwhile cos they get nothing in return for their tolerance. Thus the possibility of the return of outlaw communities, people who live outside of the law.



Third-Worldization. Shanty towns.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Third-Worldization. Shanty towns.



A new national anthem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlqxnSo-gQ


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 27, 2011)

Never mind.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

smokedout said:


> to be fair i think you could have argued that unemployed people, long term claimants at some point possibly had more autonomy than low waged or even waged workers - as did the institutions which worked with them (job clubs, advice centres etc) - which were often funded top down (by employment services etc) but by and large were benign, often run by local charities, community centres etc



You could argue that but I'd say those who don't work have less social power, mobility, and purpose.

The system favors a certain amount of unemployment, which isn't only a economic question. For the example, most of the UK's 22000 coal mines were shut down as a political act. Ultimately more people in work is more people with a degree of bargaining power.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> You could argue that but I'd say those who don't work have less social power, mobility, and purpose.
> 
> The system favors a certain amount of unemployment, which isn't only a economic question. For the example, most of the UK's 22000 coal mines were shut down as a political act. Ultimately more people in work is more people with a degree of bargaining power.


More people are in work than ever before.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More people are in work than ever before.



The rate of unemployment isn't exactly the lowest, but I said a _certain_ amount, a labour-reserve.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> The rate of unemployment isn't exactly the lowest, but I said a _certain_ amount, a labour-reserve.


And in what way does that mean that you were right that capitalism expels ever more people from its functioning?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And in what way does that mean that you were right that capitalism expels ever more people from its functioning?



I didn't quite say that. But globally unemployment is at records levels. And it's been the trend for at least 15 years. I'm using labour stats at the moment to trace back further.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I didn't quite say that. But globally unemployment is at records levels. And it's been the trend for at least 15 years. I'm using labour stats at the moment to trace back further.


Unemployment means that you exist in the system not outside. Got any figures then? The definition tell you this.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Unemployment means that you exist in the system not outside. Got any figures then? The definition tell you this.



You already made this point. I agreed.

You only need to go the IMF website for a simple graph.

I am doing more detailed analyses here: http://laborsta.ilo.org


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

And you too it back with your 'but' a few posts ago. Keep up with yourself lad.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And you too it back with your 'but' a few posts ago. Keep up with yourself lad.



I concurred with another poster who said the system can do with a certain amount of unemployed


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> There are many like me who already do - you need to watch the latest Reel news activist video on the Tottenham insurrection.
> Plus we should be talking more about the execution of Duggan, why did op Trident (designed to decrease black on black crime) execute Duggan in a part of Tottenham that wasn't wired with CCTV? That's the bigger issue for me, you lot let the polis off the hook time and time again.



When is the seminar, which university this time?


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> When is the seminar, which university this time?


The university of life my friend the one which doesn't try to build the party or grouplet, but stays consistent with working class rebellion and insurrection


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 28, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Probably; we're not there yet.



For Marx, those who met the appropriate criteria, were instantly classified as 'lumpen'. Your lumpen seem to be in need of a greater gestation period. If 30 years is not long enough - when?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 28, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> you completely underplay and overlook what parts were positive.



Ok we've had muggings, murders, and people burned out of their homes, small businesses destroyed, a boost for the greater police powers, longer sentences, the eviction of council tenants, and for the first time in decades, public figures, David Starkey, John Cleese and George Orwell's biographer expressing the sentiment that 'England isn't England anymore' which in a coded way is reintroducing the notion of repatriation, which even the BNP had given up on. Now, they are just some of the negatives.

So to balance it why don't you list the 'positive parts'.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 28, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Ok we've had muggings, murders, and people burned out of their homes, small businesses destroyed, a boost for the greater police powers, longer sentences, the eviction of council tenants,



bit of perspective eh, people get mugged and murdered every day, i dont see why that would stop just because theres rioting.  people burned out of their homes is not good, they need to riot better, but in an uprising of that scale you would expect some collateral damage, small businesses, well my hearts trying to bleed, and i suppose not great for community cohesion under current circumstances, but they gotta go one day - the rest you could use as an argument to not take part in any sort of protest/riot, hardly a radical position

and this



> and for the first time in decades, public figures, David Starkey, John Cleese and George Orwell's biographer expressing the sentiment that 'England isn't England anymore' which in a coded way is reintroducing the notion of repatriation, which even the BNP had given up on.



is fucking bonkers


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 28, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> For Marx, those who met the appropriate criteria, were instantly classified as 'lumpen'. Your lumpen seem to be in need of a greater gestation period. If 30 years is not long enough - when?



Look, class descriptions from Marx need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The 'lumpen proletariat' was a rhetorical disparaging of some political stands in the 19th century. If one took every superficial description of class from Marx then he might end up with twelve or fifteen classes! Marx didn't divide the working class into two in such fashion; that's a myth. Although the disparaging of the 'lumpen-proletariat' was originally aimed at Napoleon [his support base], it [Marx's critique] could easily be applied to Hitler, word for word, and that is only a legitimate example of the use of the term "lumpen-proletariat".

If one treats the so-called lumpen as a 'class' - as an actual category of society, and in its original sense - its means of subsistence is crime and disreputable means. The unemployed, homeless, and those on benefits DO NOT count; the latter are proletarian.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Look, class descriptions from Marx need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The 'lumpen proletariat' was a rhetorical disparaging of some political stands in the 19th century. If one took every superficial description of class from Marx then he might end up with twelve or fifteen classes! Marx didn't divide the working class into two in such fashion; that's a myth. Although the disparaging of the 'lumpen-proletariat' was originally aimed at Napoleon, it could easily be applied to Hitler, word for word, and that is only a legitimate example of the use of the term "lumpen-proletariat".
> 
> If one treats the so-called lumpen as a 'class' - as an actual category of society, and in its original sense - its means of subsistence is crime and disreputable means. The unemployed, homeless, and those on benefits DO NOT count; the latter are proletarian.



Did anyone argue that those who were unemployed, homeless, and those on benefits were lumpen?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Did anyone argue that those who were unemployed, homeless, and those on benefits were lumpen?



I think long term unemployed has been implicitly understood as such.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I concurred with another poster who said the system can do with a certain amount of unemployed


Bollocks did you you waffly chancer, you said:



> The global system excludes an ever large number of people from any role in it. That is a secular trend as well. When we have shanty towns here no-one will scoff at what I'm saying - as some apparently are on this thread.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I think long term unemployed has been implicitly understood as such.



not the homeless though?


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said: ↑​I concurred with another poster who said the system can do with a certain amount of unemployed ​ 
quote="butchersapron, post: 10499559"]Bollocks did you you waffly chancer, you said:[/quote]
"The global system excludes an ever large number of people from any role in it. That is a secular trend as well. When we have *shanty towns* here no-one will scoff at what I'm saying - as some apparently are on this thread."​
And there's nothing wrong with saying this, its certainly a tendency. (clue) It all depends on what you mean by 'exclusion'.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bollocks did you you waffly chancer, you said:



So what? You're confused. I didn't refer to that post. That was the original one you picked at the 'excluded bit'. You took it to mean they're expelled from the system. Then I agreed when you said they're still part of the system in some sense. Even the hundreds of millions in shanty towns I suppose are 'in the system'. So I agreed. But then you claimed took back the agreement somewhere.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Ibn Khaldoun said: ↑​I concurred with another poster who said the system can do with a certain amount of unemployed ​
> 
> 
> butchersapron said:
> ...



It's semantics. He already made his argument, I don't know why he's still running with it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Ok we've had muggings, murders, and people burned out of their homes, small businesses destroyed, a boost for the greater police powers, longer sentences, the eviction of council tenants, and for the first time in decades, public figures, David Starkey, John Cleese and George Orwell's biographer expressing the sentiment that 'England isn't England anymore' which in a coded way is reintroducing the notion of repatriation, which even the BNP had given up on. Now, they are just some of the negatives.
> 
> So to balance it why don't you list the 'positive parts'.



Poor old Joe, desperately clinging to your old left way of seeing the world in black and white, simplistic analysis gets nobody anywhere, its just sooooo  20th century.

Again, you need to read what I write as you clearly have a problem with comprehension. I am refusing to list the positive parts cos I cannot be bothered with you lot who are happy with simple analysis.

I do stuff which is real world, politically that means a variant of Hegalian Marxism and more.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

big issue sellers
burglars
street homeless people
long term unemployed people
newly unemployed people
single unemployed mothers
working single mothers
children of single mothers
street drinkers
heroin addicts
EDL supporters
benefit cheats
shop lifters
rioters
squatters
travellers
gang members
criminal families
cannabis dealers
cannabis growers
binge drinkers
BNP supporters
tax dodgers
disabled people (on benefits)
disabled people (financially independent)
sex workers (street based)
sex workers (escorts/based in a property)
beggars
homeless people (in hostels/b&bs)
graf writers
vandals
fare dodgers
recreational drug users
recreational drug dealers
obese people
buskers

perhaps if you could put an 'x' next to the people we should consider lumpen and exclude from our class then that would help us understand


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> not the homeless though?



Okay, it does get taken to mean them, but not in this thread. I'll stick to unemployed - [they're] not "lumpen"!


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> So what? You're confused. I didn't refer to that post. That was the original one you picked at the 'excluded bit'. You took it to mean they're expelled from the system. Then I agreed when you said they're still part of the system in some sense. Even the hundreds of millions in shanty towns I suppose are 'in the system'. So I agreed. But then you claimed took back the agreement somewhere.



By the way I did an analysis of twenty countries. It's a crude analysis for now but it includes 2.8 billion people. I traced back the higher unemployment from 1980 to 2008. I'll do another one with better demography later and post up the info.


----------



## cogg (Sep 29, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Poor old Joe, desperately clinging to your old left way of seeing the world in black and white, simplistic analysis gets nobody anywhere, its just sooooo 20th century.


It's quite bizarre that you of all people could accuse anyone else of being 'old left'. Your politics reek of the stale, old lefties of the past. As to to accusing people of being stuck in the 20th century, even if it was true (which it isn't), Joe would still be two centuries ahead of you.
By the way, if you're so keen on Hegelian Marxism, perhaps you should learn to spell it correctly.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> By the way I did an analysis of twenty countries. It's a crude analysis for now but it includes 2.8 billion people. I traced back the higher unemployment from 1980 to 2008. I'll do another one with better demography later and post up the info.



How does tracing the number of unemployed equate to demonstrating  a growing or declining number of people excluded from the system? The concept of the reserve army of labour places them rather firmly (as a group) within the 'system' (the relationships that constitute capitalism). Even among those who could be described as outlaws, it isn't at all clear how they are actually outside the system. Their actions may well be increasing the level of exploitation experienced by those they extort, swindle or rob from. Likewise their aspirations and motivations may accord with and support, patterns of/attitudes towards consumption which the system positively thrives on.

As a police officer (by dint of their relationship with the state) places them self outside of the class which their status as a wage labourer should see them belonging to, can't someone who lives by means of robbery, extortion or deceit, be seen as outside and antagonistic to the working class? If we can agree that this is the case, then we can begin to look in more detail at the possible relationships between the recent rioters and looters and the working class. If not then we seem to be stuck in a simplistic and unhelpful 'saints or sinners' dichotomy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How does tracing the number of unemployed equate to demonstrating a growing or declining number of people excluded from the system? The concept of the reserve army of labour places them rather firmly (as a group) within the 'system' (the relationships that constitute capitalism). Even among those who could be described as outlaws, it isn't at all clear how they are actually outside the system. Their actions may well be increasing the level of exploitation experienced by those they extort, swindle or rob from. Likewise their aspirations and motivations may accord with and support, patterns of/attitudes towards consumption which the system positively thrives on.



We've already covered this! That's not what I was trying to get at.



> As a police officer (by dint of their relationship with the state) places them self outside of the class which their status as a wage labourer should see them belonging to, can't someone who lives by means of robbery, extortion or deceit, be seen as outside and antagonistic to the working class?



The notion of 'lumpen proletariat' itself isn't outside the working-class, it's a description of certain elements. Some organized and 'professional' criminals are petit-bourgeois.

All I will say about the 'under-class' that are the subject of this thread is that their interests are the same as the rest of the working class.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> big issue sellers
> burglars
> street homeless people
> long term unemployed people
> ...



After all this, your either being disengenous or you don't have scooby.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> We've already covered this! That's not what I was trying to get at.


what are you trying to get at then?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Sep 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what are you trying to get at then?



Divestment, disaffection and disempowerment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Divestment, disaffection and disempowerment.


as other people have pointed out, you're not getting at them very well


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> After all this, your either being disengenous or you don't have scooby.



but you see, all the people on that list could be defined as underclass/lumpen by either the terms of the two pieces, some of the definitions given here, or have been in popular culture

so whilst it wasnt the most serious post in the world - these are the people (on the list) who will read it and think do they mean me, or will read it and have their prejudices against their favourite scapegoat confirmed

how does all this vagueness help the discourse, people in general arent vague, they dont spot political nuances, especially ones so well hidden - if you're not brave enough to admit who these new lumpen are (beyond teenage gangsters) then whats the point?


----------



## love detective (Sep 29, 2011)

this discussion hasn't budged a bit in nearly 30 pages!

your welded to defining things by types of people (fat people, big issue sellers, children of single mothers) where the crux of the thing (for me anyway) is defining things by behaviour/activity and the impact of that behaviour/activity on working class communities and their ability to politically organise in a progressive manner

sure there's some cross over in that if someone is a full time Class A drug dealer then their label and behaviour/consequence of that behaviour will be one and the same and overlap completely - however when you move away from these obvious cases the important thing to focus on is not what someone is but what they do and what impact that 'doing' has on those around them


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

but thats what i said ages ago

so why the need for lumpen

(even your class A dealer is more nuanced, which class a drugs, and how do they operate - also they are far from displaying a no work ethic, a lot of drug dealers work bloody hard)


----------



## love detective (Sep 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> but thats what i said ages ago



Well I first described things in those terms from this post on page 7 and have continued doing so throughout the subsequent 20 pages where we've been arguing like fuck



> (even your class A dealer is more nuanced, which class a drugs, and how do they operate - also they are far from displaying a no work ethic, a lot of drug dealers work bloody hard)



don't think relying on a measure of efficiency in someone's activity or the hours they put in is what is under discussion here - it's the activity itself, the consequences of that activity and the motivations/inspirations behind doing it - not how well they do it once they've chosen to do so


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

love detective said:


> Well I first described things in those terms from this post on page 7 and have continued doing so throughout the subsequent 20 pages where we've been arguing like fuck



other people's arguments however have not been quite as succint



> don't think relying on a measure of efficiency in someone's activity or the hours they put in is what is under discussion here - it's the activity itself, the consequences of that activity and the motivations/inspirations behind doing it - not how well they do it once they've chosen to do so



i agree, alongside your hard working crack dealer you may have someone long term unemployed who happens to be a good friend, neighbour etc and plays an active/positive role in the community

so can we at least agree to drop the 'no work' ethic


----------



## love detective (Sep 29, 2011)

i think the confusion over the 'no-work' thing lies in people conflating work/labour (i.e. purposeful human activity) with employment (i.e. wage labour) - there's a big difference between these two things

the 'no work' thing is a reference to the former not the later - and effectively points at people prepared to live off the labour of others while making no contribution of their own to the society/community they live in (obviously this only applies to those able to make that contribution before anyone jumps on this)


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

love detective said:


> the 'no work' thing is a reference to the former not the later - and effectively points at people prepared to live off the labour of others while making no contribution of their own to the society/community they live in (obviously this only applies to those able to make that contribution before anyone jumps on this)



but even this (whether they are able to) is open to fierce debate as tomorrow's day of action shows

(knew id manage to work a plug into this thread eventually)

one problem is that many people who probably would be prepared to engage in purposeful human activity do not have the opportunity to do so, the options, especially for younger people are tesco or drug dealing

i understand why an 18 year old doesnt want to work in tesco, and cant condemn them for it - so perhaps this is ground that can be built on - young people need stuff to do that isnt just boxing gyms and pool tables - but any solutions have to come from the bottom up and be something they want and relate to.  tricky.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> but even this (whether they are able to) is open to fierce debate as tomorrow's day of action shows
> 
> (knew id manage to work a plug into this thread eventually)
> 
> ...



So who is to be condemned to do it?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So who is to be condemned to do it?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



do you work in tesco?


----------



## past caring (Sep 29, 2011)

Do you? What relevance is this, anyway?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

past caring said:


> Do you? What relevance is this, anyway?



if all that is on offer to working class kids from the poorest backgrounds is a shitty low paid job in tesco then you cant be surprised when they choose to do something else

and who can fucking blame them


----------



## past caring (Sep 29, 2011)

Basically, what you're saying is that working in tescos is demeaning?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

past caring said:


> Basically, what you're saying is that working in tescos is demeaning?



no im saying that working in tescos/for minimum wage is shit

and ive done enough of it to know


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 29, 2011)

I worked for Tescos when I was about 18 and can confirm that it was shit and demeaning.

I'd do it again if it was the only option, but I think I would be the world's worst drug dealer.

Sorry to make such a useless contribution to what has been a very thought provoking thread.


----------



## past caring (Sep 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> if all that is on offer to working class kids from the poorest backgrounds is a shitty low paid job in tesco then you cant be surprised when they choose to do something else
> 
> and who can fucking blame them



I may not be surprised and I might understand why it happens - but I'll also blame people who act to attack members of my class. I can understand (intellectually, if not emotionally) why people end up as bailiffs and coppers and screws. But as has already been said, act the scab, get treated a scab.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 29, 2011)

blame away, doesnt get us anywhere though does it


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> blame away, doesnt get us anywhere though does it



But identifying where people stand in relation to the working class will; i.e. do they enjoy a parasitic relation, or is their role a disciplinary one.

Louis (one time barman, ground worker, filing clerk, scaffolder's mate, admin officer, warehouseman, hod carrier and shop assistant) MacNeice


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 29, 2011)

smokedout said:


> is fucking bonkers



Why because they didn't say it? Because they didn't mean it? That they voiced their lament had nothing to do with riots? That their lament for 'Old England' has nothing to do with mass immigration? Which?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 30, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Why because they didn't say it? Because they didn't mean it? That they voiced their lament had nothing to do with riots? That their lament for 'Old England' has nothing to do with mass immigration? Which?



because the opinions of a has been actor, a battered old tory historian barely anyone's heard of and a writer no-one's heard of are of about as much consequence as someone ranting in wetherspoons at closing time


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2011)

of course when you hear the IWCA talk of 'dealing with' you have to wonder what lies behind cogent analysis


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2011)

past caring said:


> Basically, what you're saying is that working in tescos is demeaning?



This is somwething that comes up time  and time again as if manual work is beneath the dignity of graduates


----------



## love detective (Sep 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> of course when you hear the IWCA talk of 'dealing with' you have to wonder what lies behind cogent analysis



an attempt to address (politically, theoretically and practically) the kind of issues which the conservative left's refusal to, and inability to even acknowledge, has made them an utter irrelevance to anyone but themselves


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2011)

were graduates mentioned in this context? or was it the low pay in consideration. And not just low pay as in 'I can't afford to go to a resteraunt twice a month' but low pay as in minimum wage.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 30, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> This is somwething that comes up time and time again as if manual work is beneath the dignity of graduates



you think im a graduate lol

im a manual worker with a couple of gcses, and its shit


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you think im a graduate lol
> 
> im a manual worker with a couple of gcses, and its shit



Apols then but there is an attitude on here that manual work seems to be  beneath some. My son works in two jobs for 50 hours each week in a hotel and a pub and I am actually proud that he does. His ambition was to work in Tescos.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 30, 2011)

far more common is graduates who did a fortnight on a building site in the summer holidays once and wheel it out as evidence of working class credentials


----------



## past caring (Sep 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> because the opinions of a has been actor, a battered old tory historian barely anyone's heard of and a writer no-one's heard of are of about as much consequence as someone ranting in wetherspoons at closing time



As individuals, their opinions are, of course, of little significance. But the issues of whether they felt more confident in voicing such opinions because of what they perceived as a shift in public mood due to the riots and of whether what they said resonated with a wider group of people than it would have at other times are hardly insignificant.

My own view - partly arrived at by the some of the posts from regulars on here ( there a few masks that slipped, to put it politely) and partly from walking the dog down Peckham Rye park at the same time the high street was going up (you get talking to all sorts of people walking the dog who you'd otherwise have no dealings with) is that any complacent notions of how Starkey etc. spoke only for themselves would be misguided.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> of course when you hear the IWCA talk of 'dealing with' you have to wonder what lies behind cogent analysis



How the IWCA dealt with the problems encountered in Oxford, are set out in the article and more fully on the website. I haven't seen any comments on this thread proposing an alternative approach or highlighting other approaches by progressives that actually resonante in communities and/or command support of residents. In fact looking at the tons of stuff pumped out by the left about 'building links with communities' practical examples of this happening and it working seem very thin on the ground.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> because the opinions of a has been actor, a battered old tory historian barely anyone's heard of and a writer no-one's heard of are of about as much consequence as someone ranting in wetherspoons at closing time



Maybe their opinions as such don't matter ,but that they decided to make their thoughts public at the same time seems to signify a reawakening of a long dormant anxiety in Middle England about immigration per se that the PC culture thought it had eliminated. If so expect it to play itself out politically sooner or later.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 1, 2011)

cogg said:


> It's quite bizarre that you of all people could accuse anyone else of being 'old left'. Your politics reek of the stale, old lefties of the past. As to to accusing people of being stuck in the 20th century, even if it was true (which it isn't), Joe would still be two centuries ahead of you.
> By the way, if you're so keen on Hegelian Marxism, perhaps you should learn to spell it correctly.



Give over, your deliberately talking shite! You've not tackled the political point as per, that that sort of 'i believe' nonsense is old lefty crap, and you've not got over it. Infact all your groups behaviour over this site shows that you are stale old left. I deliberately have nothing to do with that sort of ideology and behaviour.

Joes nowhere but stuck in the past, like all you IWCA dorx, you're soooo like the ICC or any other ultra left cult its always painful to read the next installment.  As for spelin hagalian max ism I really do not give a toss about such ignorant comments.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> this discussion hasn't budged a bit in nearly 30 pages!
> 
> your welded to defining things by types of people (fat people, big issue sellers, children of single mothers) where the crux of the thing (for me anyway) is defining things by behaviour/activity and the impact of that behaviour/activity on working class communities and their ability to politically organise in a progressive manner
> 
> sure there's some cross over in that if someone is a full time Class A drug dealer then their label and behaviour/consequence of that behaviour will be one and the same and overlap completely - however when you move away from these obvious cases the important thing to focus on is not what someone is but what they do and what impact that 'doing' has on those around them


But this is also problematic, are people not able to learn from any problematic behaviour? What are we to do in the first instance, and how do you judge the relative scale of whatever suppossed 'offence against the community' has taken place.
Who are the judges and the who is the jury, is there a jury or just the rule of the big mouth? What protections are there for those with learning difficulties, or for that matter those out of their head? This good v. bad stuff is just sooo 20th century.

Are not all these people actually parts of the community, plus shouldn't we be judging the class enemy first before we try to apply these sorts of well meaning standards, not that there is any capability of doing so anywhere anyway so it is all superfluous really.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 1, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> dorx


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 1, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> But this is also problematic, are people not able to learn from any problematic behaviour? What are we to do in the first instance, and how do you judge the relative scale of whatever suppossed 'offence against the community' has taken place.
> Who are the judges and the who is the jury, is there a jury or just the rule of the big mouth? What protections are there for those with learning difficulties, or for that matter those out of their head? This good v. bad stuff is just sooo 20th century.
> 
> Are not all these people actually parts of the community, plus shouldn't we be judging the class enemy first before we try to apply these sorts of well meaning standards, not that there is any capability of doing so anywhere anyway so it is all superfluous really.



Y'know, it's just ridiculous. Darcus Howe has some views that the likes of the IWCA would never listen to.

Instead, we are supposed to believe in this artificial division of 'working-class' and 'lumpen'. But it's more than a falsification of theory. It's a means of legitimating divisions based on group superiority (or 'privilege'). No wonder they allude to right-wing academics - they're doing their work for them!


----------



## smokedout (Oct 2, 2011)

past caring said:


> I can understand (intellectually, if not emotionally) why people end up as bailiffs and coppers and screws.



i dont think the analogy is fair at all, firstly we've established that most of the people defined as lumpen come from the very poorest backgrounds, the economic underclass if not the moral one - this is far from true of coppers and much less true of bailiffs and screws

but more importantly the people you are talking about are children, there is a big difference between the organised and ongoing class treachery of the filth and a kid who joins a gang cos he's scared of being bullied or gets carried away and does something stupid in the heat of the moment


----------



## cogg (Oct 2, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Give over, your deliberately talking shite! You've not tackled the political point as per, that that sort of 'i believe' nonsense is old lefty crap, and you've not got over it. Infact all your groups behaviour over this site shows that you are stale old left. I deliberately have nothing to do with that sort of ideology and behaviour.
> 
> Joes nowhere but stuck in the past, like all you IWCA dorx, you're soooo like the ICC or any other ultra left cult its always painful to read the next installment. As for spelin hagalian max ism I really do not give a toss about such ignorant comments.


Ha, ha... Incoherent as ever.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 3, 2011)

cogg said:


> Ha, ha... Incoherent as ever.


Orly... bollox


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 3, 2011)

[quote="Ibn Khaldoun, post: 10506338" No wonder they allude to right-wing academics - they're doing their work for them![/quote]

What right -wing academics are these then?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2011)

> Gangs did not play a pivotal role in the August riots, according to the latest official analysis of those arrested during the disturbances.
> 
> The official figures show that 13% of those arrested in the riots have been identified as gang members, rising to 19% in London, but the analysis shows that even where the police identified gang members being present most forces believe they did not play a pivotal role.
> 
> The finding by senior Whitehall officials is a blow to the principal response to the riots being pushed strongly by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith – that tackling gang culture is key to preventing any repeat of the disturbances.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/riots-analysis-gangs-no-pivotal-role


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 24, 2011)

smokedout said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/riots-analysis-gangs-no-pivotal-role



God loves a trier. Lol!


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2011)

them's the stats, doesnt leave much room for your gang conspiracy theory does it?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 24, 2011)

smokedout said:


> them's the stats, doesnt leave much room for your gang conspiracy theory does it?



How, specifically, does the percentage of 'gang members' amongst the arrested show this? IME being in an experienced 'firm' (whether in a riot, at football or at a demo) means you are _far less_ likely to be still around when the plod happen along and arrest the stragglers, the runners and the casualties.

For example, if you were dependent on arrest figures to indicate Red Action's influence on AFA-led mobilisations back in the day, you could only conclude that RA had a very minimal presence. Eye-witness accounts would tell a vastly different story.

So _yes_ actually, the stats _do_  leave plenty of room etc... and if you had any experience of mass street confrontation (of any kind) you would be only too well aware of this. But feel free to continue this debate with people who have many years experience of it.


----------



## LLETSA (Oct 24, 2011)

smokedout said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/riots-analysis-gangs-no-pivotal-role


 
Funny how some self-styled rebels are ready to look to the establishment for succour when it suits their preconceptions.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Given the earlier furore about the implausibility of the united front theory, I was amused to stumble across this quote from Thursday's _Independent_:
> 
> "After being locked up members of rival 'postcode gangs' from London had buried their differences to foem city-wide groupings when they were moved to other parts of the country".
> (Nick Hardwick Chief Inspector of Prisons)
> ...



stats don't count now then.  you changing the rules?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 25, 2011)

LiamO said:


> How, specifically, does the percentage of 'gang members' amongst the arrested show this? IME being in an experienced 'firm' (whether in a riot, at football or at a demo) means you are _far less_ likely to be still around when the plod happen along and arrest the stragglers, the runners and the casualties.
> 
> For example, if you were dependent on arrest figures to indicate Red Action's influence on AFA-led mobilisations back in the day, you could only conclude that RA had a very minimal presence. Eye-witness accounts would tell a vastly different story.
> 
> So _yes_ actually, the stats _do_ leave plenty of room etc... and if you had any experience of mass street confrontation (of any kind) you would be only too well aware of this. But feel free to continue this debate with people who have many years experience of it.



you can't equate a tightly knit, politicially motivated 'firm' with an urban youth gang ? Gang's are shown again and again to be loosely knit, estate based, economically driven ( drugs / theft etc ) , ad hoc groups. ( You're plain wrong re: football firms - the main faces have virtually all been nicked repeatedly over the years - very little 'slipping away' to skew the arrest figures unless you're talking about the 70's /early 80's days of mass offs with barmies etc obscuring the picture ) . The idea that these KIDS somehow managed to organise / lead the riots *and* then slip away en masse is ' just make it up as you go along' stuff , though it does fit neatly into a very debatable political template. Which is what we'd expect from from bent journos/greedy politicans/ corrupt OB all happy to play their respective parts in trying to avoid the real issues behind the events.....


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Funny how some self-styled rebels are ready to look to the establishment for succour when it suits their preconceptions.


its funny how self styled robots dismiss everything that contradicts their unresearched and preconceived misconceptions.


----------



## LLETSA (Oct 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> its funny how self styled robots dismiss everything that contradicts their unresearched and preconceived misconceptions.


 
Blah blah.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Blah blah.


You repeat yourself so often its hard to see where your last contribution ends.


----------

