Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[LLETSA]

I

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

did you write the article LD?

 

[love detective]

had some input into it, but didn't write it no

why?

 

[killer b]

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]

yep understand your point - but what kind of inflammatory language are you referring to?

 

[killer b]

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]

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]

and where exactly does it imply that they were?

you say yourself :-

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!)