Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

Pickman's model said:
no, i don't think anyone can justify quoting from the guardian
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
"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"
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Describing people, any people, as detritus. ffs.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.

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
Click to expand...

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 .
 
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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 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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

.

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
hash tag
What's wrong with Labour
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
206
Views
8K
Karl Masks
K
StoneRoad
  • Poll
Are YOU happy with the overall result & your [new] constituency MP ?
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
Boo Radley75
Boo Radley75
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
963
A380
A380
Kid_Eternity
No thanks app - boycotting Israel with a tap of a button
Replies
4
Views
366
existentialist
existentialist
Back
Top Bottom