Violence on the streets of London
The violence on the streets of London, Birmingham and elsewhere appears to the over-active imagination as a Rorschach test; as the machinations of whatever prejudice we have at the time, be that the failures of capitalism or the implosion of the European project of multiculturalism.
On one extreme, this destruction is the last ditch attempt by a forgotten section of society, whose only bargaining chip is achieved through removing the last layer of skin that holds their communities to the mainstream, while for another extreme these actions represent the suture promoted by cultural Marxism in single-parent families and what Richard Littlejohn has called “I-want-it-and-I-want-it-now consumerist society“.
Though the statistics look grim, are they directly responsible for recent events? In Tottenham, as Mary Riddell noted in her widely read Telegraph article, there are 54 applicants for every job, while 10,000 are benefit claimants. Britain is less equal in wages, wealth and life chances than any time since the 1920s – that the majority of people were expected to just sit on their hands is unreasonable, but this bout of street violence hardly appeared like a political protest of the sort these figures might evoke.
However appearance is precisely the problem. When the students took to the streets last year for the cut to EMA and the rise in tuition fees, placards and banners, planning and spokespeople were the images that distinguished “mindless violence” from political action. Even when fire extinguishers were being lobbed from great heights, and windows smashed, nobody doubted the political message, even if the ethics of proper protest were being debated, both in the press and by activists themselves.
Not every set of actions, no matter how unpalatable, or unclear their causes, will have such easily identifiable symbols and signs to recognise. Likewise, not every action that has in some way been perpetuated by the political landscape will be accompanied by a series of Situationist inspired political banners.
As Tony Parsons said last night: “You can never tell who is fighting for justice and who is just fighting for a wide-screen, hi-def plasma telly”.
Undoubtedly looting, the destruction of communities, and the ruining of people’s small businesses and livelihoods is wrong, and should be punished rather strongly, but it is as naive to suggest there is no politicisation here, as to suggest that these events are the thoughtless culmination of greed and moral decay.
As sure as I am that crowds scattered across the streets of London, and further afield, are mixed in their motives, I am sure that a lot of the reaction towards these events are imparted without experience of protest (unlike with the students) lacking in any notion of bourgeois parody.
***
Businesses go under every day, possessions are lost on a regular basis – this, as some will agree, is business as usual. And it is wrong, but it is under-reported. What happened over previous nights are destructive – no doubt about it – and it is right for us to be outraged, but it will also help to restore some perspective. If we directed as much energy towards condemning these seemingly random attacks as we did business as usual, then we’d see less communities go under at the hands of social and geographical exclusion.
As Richard Murphy said, on the riots and the erratic behaviour of the stock market, “I [do not] condone violence … [b]ut then I don’t condone the behaviour of markets”. This is interesting, because thugs on the street smashing windows is just one type of violence – another type is the ill-considered changes to the way in which business rates are distributed to areas, which will see already poor communities get poorer.
One, more physical example of violence, can often obfuscate the extent to which the latter example can be considered violent, unjust and the culmination of greed. While rioters were condemned last night for their greed, it must not be forgotten what greed is, and other examples of it (for naysayers answer this – why should we not raise the issue of banker greed, fraud and tax evasion here, just why not?) for perspective. One example, displayed last night, is rare, while the other example is business as usual.
It is reasonable to compare the avarice of a banker/tax avoider with that of a looter but I think what people are shocked and worried by in these riots is the disregard that the rioters have for human life. This takes the shape of burning out people’s flats, cars, shops etc. where people could be hurt. Where this doesn’t necessarily endanger human life directly, it certainly affects the lives of others – and pretty badly too. Can you imagine losing everything just because some kid decided to randomly hurl a petrol bomb into your flat/the shop below your flat?
Capitalism does ruin lives, but it usually does so obliquely enough that its agency is obscured and is not characterised by an eruption of violence.
Having said that, while these protests are not political – they definitely have socioeconomic causes which are reflective of political decisions. TCF’s earlier post on Rational Choice Rioting is pretty good on this point. They also have a lot to do with other fairly banal contingencies – it being the school holidays, it being warm, peer pressure etc.
Do you think that the violence of the market can be raised regarding this? Maybe it can a bit, but it would seem to be risky for ‘the Left’. Perhaps when the dust settles… At the moment though, traditional mainstream left wing voices (ie Ken Livingstone, Kevin Maguire) seem to be going in for a straightforward Law and Order critique.
That’s a great Tony Parsons quote, by the way.
Ken Livingstone and the like are only being blamed for opportunism. Further, blaming this on youth services is dishonest. As you say, though there isn’t a direct political motive here, such that there was with the students, socioeconomic categories cannot be ignored – in fact I’d say they were vital in our understanding of the events. It is here, also, that Paul’s post on RCT is most appropriate.
Centralised capitalism, such as the one practised today, raises the desire to loot. I don’t think I, myself, am unique in saying I’d be afraid to loot out of the fear of being caught – what i wonder about is what must it take for someone to lose that fear, or worse still never have it in the first place.
While economic capitalism incentivises looting should the occasion present itself – such as now – cultural capitalism (to coin a phrase) obscures the causes and highlights only the effects. These are the effects, and in the words of Richard Murphy “This does not mean I condone violence … [b]ut then I don’t condone the behaviour of markets…”.
The way in which is most appropriate for the Left to perceive this wave is by saying we do not condone these acts, and we do not condone the violence of the markets. Let us call it our third camp!
“as the machinations of whatever prejudice we have at the time, be that the failures of capitalism”
Criticism of capitalism is not a prejudice
are you not prejudicial against capitalism?
That’s true – it is a pretty alien thought to someone like me – to be without fear.
I can’t work out whether I would loot or not, given certain conditions. I suppose it is a pointless exercise – since I can never know what it is like to be that person in that situation. Still, my catholic upbringing tells me that some people don’t loot, no matter how desperate their circumstances.
That’s a good point. What is I suppose frustrating about left wing opinions is that your views are forever complicated. The right is always childishly simplistic – they would say common sensical, I suppose. It illustrates the poverty of a conservative political philosophy – but it also makes them better at soundbites.
I suppose a simplistic reading of Catholic Social Teaching and Distributism might lead to a justification in Robin Hood style politics? Could work….
Ockham’s Razor is tosh, but the Left is not making life purposely complicated, rather, life is not always so simple to sum up in soundbites – as I know you agree. To counter your assumption, I don’t accept the poverty of a conservative political philosophy, rather the poverty of some of those who speak on behalf of conservatism – like Richard Littlejohn, to name one extreme case.
Perhaps kneejerk is easier targeted to a Right wing audience – to which my opinion is it’s a sign of the emerging epistemic closure of the Conservative Party voting base.
It’s true.
A lot of right-wing voices also do not engage with their apparent philosopher kings/queens. I’ve just been writing a dissertation on Robert Nozick – but he seems to be quite unheard of outside of philosophy students even though he is probably the most coherent right-wing libertarian philosopher there is.
On the other hand, Ayn Rand is quite popular among that set – even though calling her a philosopher (rather than a novelist) seems to be stretching her intellectual credibility a bit.
Since that film hasn’t Rand become a bit of buzz word, like Orwell for the Left (or indeed Right)? I’m saying this – and of course as a socialist and Labour supporter I’e no vested interest what so ever – if there was more Nozick in politics today then the Conservative Party would probably be more conservative again, and so would there support base.
As a wise tweet I read yesterday or the day before pointed out, whether – with the violence they commit – the actors have political aims themselves or not, the causes can still lie within politics. As well as, potentially, the solutions. As far as the latter is concerned, it does, of course, depend on what kind of politics we wish to continue sustaining – and whether we are able to create a new more appropriate kind.
and as Zoe Williams said: “just because there is no political agenda on the part of the rioters doesn’t mean the answer isn’t rooted in politics.” But, like with the fire extinguisher, I question the ethics of the protest, and its reasonableness. But then, as Paul said on his post a few days ago, why are we expecting rational choice to be the thing that breaks through exploitation and forgotten communities? and, as I say, why are we expecting faux intellectual platitudes to accompany actions that, though are not ideological per se, are imbued in a politics – the politics of social exclusion. One thing is for sure, the events in London are not the product of communities that are happy.
If Littlejohn (I never read him, the soul can only take so much abuse) blamed consumerism then at least he is understanding part of the problem.
It often strikes me that capitalism is seen as heralding rationalism but beneath the rational superstructure lies an irrational economic system. We have seen that system at work in response to the financial crash. Those geniuses in the bourgeois economics departments have basically come up with 2 wonderfully irrational responses to capitalist crises. Option 1 take money off the poor (who can hell afford it) and give it to the rich (who really don’t need another speedboat). Option 2 is somehow get people to buy shit they probably don’t want and certainly don’t need and to hell with the environmental consequences. Now in response to the latest crisis Ball’s option 2 lost out to Osbourne’s option 1. So it was the poor that would be shafted.
I can’t believe it is any coincidence that we had a global economic crisis, option 1 was taken and now throughout the world violence and revolt is on the streets.
As reluctant as i am to say it, perhaps Littlejohn’s conservatism stretches to loathing of the-commercialisation-of-fu**king-everything. I’m sure there is a principled conservative in there trying to break free from the £1m he is given by the Daily Mail from his life of luxury in florida to lie through his pissing teeth week on week, dragging down single Mother families, immigrants and anyone else that he happens to think are not suffering enough, but should be berated more in the trash press, as well as by extension anybody else who happens to fall into those categories, for whom his loyal readers do down on a regular basis. Gawd he makes me sick.
Re: Rand – Do you mean that feature length film of Atlas Shrugged or whatever it was? Or that film by Adam Curtis which set her up as the intellectual leader of the Right?
I know that her influence is overblown – still she seems to be quite well loved amongst ‘conservatives’.
Also, I know it is slightly off-topic, but Latte Labour made me aware of this Gerry Cohen lecture on conservatism recently. It’s very good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQA_PghU0H4
Re: Littlejohn et al – Did you see Kelvin Mackenzie on Newsnight the other day debating with an Iranian rapper and a young man (who were both really eloquent. I can’t imagine how nervewracking it must be to go on a programme like that)? Mackenzie had a real moralistic view of not just the rioters, but those who sought to understand the riots as a social phenomenon.
He was really angry – a position mirrored by Michael Gove and lots of other Conservatives. I suppose this is an example of the epistemic closure, that you have written about, Carl.
I meant the adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. All I’m saying about her is that I was once given Atlas Shrugged to read by an ex-boss, he since ran the company I was working for into the ground, and before telling anybody decked his flat out with gadgets, bought a holiday, and got his PA to inform the staff they were to lose their jobs (or work for free until someone could buy the company – which was eventually what happened, though I’d left before that). Objectivism may not be the best guiding morality when other people are involved.
I didn’t see that Newsnight, but I’m intrigued by having Mackenzie lined up with an Iranian rapper, that sounds great! Was one waxing lyrical while the other waxing feathers? I’ll wait until i’ve watched it until I pass comment, but I wouldn’t have held Mackenzie up as anything other than appealing to the epistemically closed conservative mindset – his former rag is one of shouting and fear after all.
I suspect once this calms down we will see just as many miidle class involved in the riots as Miliband bloke stated they are all squeezed now. They are squeezed the Lower class are pressed and the lowest life is crushed.
never mind.
Did you see Mary Riddell on this today http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/maryriddell/100100495/spot-the-rioter-an-idiots-guide/
I thought the Murdoch scandal had shut that piece of shit Mackenzie up for good.
Never mind.
P.S. Mackenzie doesn’t do debate. He is just some loud, obnoxious fucker who has somehow managed to find himself invited on shows where things are discussed. Who said the welfare state was dead!
He’s good at shouting things like “common sense” and “PC gone mad” on question time, other than that what’s the point in him? And the second part of that question is, er generally what’s the point of him?
That Newsnight discussion was excellent. I think it was Tuesday night.
haha – your ex-boss reminds me of Alan Partridge when his production company went bankrupt.
I have most Newsnight’s this week to watch, so I guess I’ll watch all from Monday to Wednesday. I haven’t seen Gove v Harman yet, Abbott v Warsi, Mackenzie, it’s the programme of the moment.
He was rather like Alan Partridge, only fatter younger, and with more red bull and cocaine.