Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[Brainaddict]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[love detective]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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

 

[Pickman's model]

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