Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[Random]

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]

Let me rephrase that..

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]

any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?

Isn't that inverting the relationship?

 

[Fedayn]

Let me rephrase that..

Cheers Joe.

 

[frogwoman]

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]

here's the IWCA article

 

[The39thStep]

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]

when we head butted two youths

 

[articul8]

any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?

who said that they would be? I didn't

 

[The39thStep]

who said that they would be? I didn't

The world isn't built around you young man

 

[articul8]

that's my animistic worldview shattered

 

[revlon]

here's the IWCA article

well written piece.

 

[revlon]

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]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

What is that characterisation based on?

 

[love detective]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
In Lambeth research has shown there are about 40 gangs but not all are necessarily active or violent.
Similarly, many gangs have different names. In Brixton a gang originally called the 28s went on to become the Peel Dem Crew, the Poverty Driven Children and the Muslim Boys.
The gangs rarely stay static for long. For instance, the PDC are said to have splintered into different groups now driven by inter-personal conflicts. Dr Pitts says: "What can look like five gangs is actually one group that has mutated. The core members may stay the same."

why over-egg the pudding?

 

[Joe Reilly]

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]

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?