Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[love detective]

and i didnt say that the article implies they weren't

When I posted the below....

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

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

.... you agreed with it

Therefore you aknowledged that the article implies they weren't. Yet at the same time you are also arguing that the article implies that they were.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

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.

The debate on here about the article is revealing. Most of the contributions seem to object to the language and style of the writing but have zilch to say about the central point being made - that there is a growing formation in our areas that is not only hostile to our interests but in reality acts and behaves in a manner which damages those interests further. The article suggests that this needs to be tackled, again no-one seems to want to explain why this isn't the case.

The obsession with the style of the article reveals the squeamishness of the left in facing up to one of the realities of neo-liberalism. Why? IMHO this is because most of the left is utterly detached from the estates in which the lumpen roam but also because if you accept the central tenet of the peace then a number of leftie sacred cows also have to be confronted.

Those on the daily receiving end of the 'gangstas' have little problem or in identifying the people the article points the finger at (and describe them in tones much less flattering than the IWCA - and the remedy they would like to see applied to the problem is more 'straighforward') like most of contibutors here they wouldn't call them lumpen either, they'd call them scum.

You'd have thought the left, as a first step, would want to firmly place itself on the side of the class it professes to be the 'consciousness' of and worry about what we badge those who create fear, misery and despair at some later stage in proceedings.

 

[articul8]

there is a growing formation in our areas that is not only hostile to our interests but in reality acts and behaves in a manner which damages those interests further. The article suggests that this needs to be tackled

No disagreement there from me, although there is arguably an exaggeration of the extent to which it is organised and linked up - "gangs" can cover organised and ruthless criminal networks or a bunch of bored young lads with nowt better to do than cause a bit of bother. The piece tends to run it all together. And in any case it's not sufficient to wield as a mono-causal explanation of the riots, which have roots there, certainly, but not only there.

It's not simply the style of the writing but what it implies about the method involved eg (the "laughable line" i referred to earlier - mirthless laughter maybe but...)

from studying the extensive television footage it is also clear that it was only the organised elements in the gangs who had the necessary authority and swagger to give the impetus to the riots.

who is doing the studying and what is being studied here? Joe Reilly sat in his y-fronts in front of sky news on rotation identifying the ring leaders by the scale of their "swagger"?

Just as the cops or the cabinet read the footage according to their own preconceived narratives, so - it seems - have the IWCA. The element of spontaneity is under-played - and whilst obviously they weren't some direct political protest about the cuts or desire to smash the state, the idea that they weren't also *in part* as a response to youth unemployment, lack of youth facilities, poverty etc is also to be deliberately obtuse.

 

[Joe Reilly]

No disagreement there from me, although there is arguably an exaggeration of the extent to which it is organised and linked up - "gangs" can cover organised and ruthless criminal networks or a bunch of bored young lads with nowt better to do than cause a bit of bother. The piece tends to run it all together. And in any case it's not sufficient to wield as a mono-causal explanation of the riots, which have roots there, certainly, but not only there.

It's not simply the style of the writing but what it implies about the method involved eg (the "laughable line" i referred to earlier - mirthless laughter maybe but...)

who is doing the studying and what is being studied here? Joe Reilly sat in his y-fronts in front of sky news on rotation identifying the ring leaders by the scale of their "swagger"?

Just as the cops or the cabinet read the footage according to their own preconceived narratives, so - it seems - have the IWCA. The element of spontaneity is under-played - and whilst obviously they weren't some direct political protest about the cuts or desire to smash the state, the idea that they weren't also *in part* as a response to youth unemployment, lack of youth facilities, poverty etc is also to be deliberately obtuse.

 

[articul8]

eh?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Just as the cops or the cabinet read the footage according to their own preconceived narratives, so - it seems - have the IWCA. The element of spontaneity is under-played - and whilst obviously they weren't some direct political protest about the cuts or desire to smash the state, the idea that they weren't also *in part* as a response to youth unemployment, lack of youth facilities, poverty etc is also to be deliberately obtuse.

'The element of spontaneity is underplayed?' You know this how?

Or is it that in certain circles spontaneous looting, mugging and arson, and murder is somehow more forgiveable; more progressive somehow?

As for the actual mechanics of the riots - who do you think would have the authority and the necesary connections, to call a riot in the first place?

Funny thing about the 'preconcieved narratives' is that when at a local level the IWCA along with the local community has decided to do something about the crack dealers and anti-social elements etc the police have invariably ended up on the other side.

 

[articul8]

Well, by the figures the article cites, fully 75% of those arrested for involvement had no affiliation whatever with any gangs. So the burden of proof is on you to show why riots were consciously planned and orchestrated by a numerically marginal section. Why does a riot have to be "called" by particular agents - you don't "call" a riot in the same sense as a demo is "called"

But the general argument about the anti-social element doesn't seem to stand or fall by this determination to show that the origins of the riots were consciously planned by active anti w/c groupings. As you imply, the fact that they were to a degree spontaneous and does NOT mean that they were w/c in make up or had a proto w/c politics about them - so why make hyped-up claims about gangs being rampant all over the shop - and in much the same way.

This "lumpen/scum" element doesn't have the ability to organise itself *as a class or class fraction* in the way that the w/c does. It's almost as if you need these bogey "super-gangs" to act as a contrast with the irrelevance of the traditional left orgs in the w/c.

 

[articul8]

And just to clarify - I'm certainly NOT saying that gangs don't exist or that they aren't a serious blight on communities around them. I've lived in/near areas where proper gangs operate (nr. Stonebridge Park/Harlesden which def has gangs but didn't have riots, and even for a few months on the Pembury itself [at the place of another Urbanite who lived there much longer and no doubts knows in much more detail than me what effects that had])

But I've also heard people talk about "gangs" when really they just mean a rag-tag group of scrotes who will spray graffiti tags or smash a bus shelter. These types *may* be lumpens, they *may* be w/c kids that are bored, but they don't have the clout to organise jack shit in terms of major social disturbances! But the government (and your article) didn't make a proper distinction.

 

[past caring]

Well, by the figures the article cites, fully 75% of those arrested for involvement had no affiliation whatever with any gangs.

Hasn't this - to an extent - already been dealt with? Butchers posted a link (maybe on this thread, maybe on "Is there a reason for the riots?") of some research in the US suggesting an anatomy of rioting/looting that showed organised gangs in first for the "professional" looting, followed up by a much larger wave of opportunist looters - it was those (unsurprisingly) who largely made up the numbers of those who got lifted. The people who knew what they were about were long gone by the time the police got there. And even without this, a 25% with some form of affiliation (1 in 4) would in any case suggest a not insignificant role played by gangs.

So the burden of proof is on you to show why riots were consciously planned and orchestrated by a numerically marginal section. Why does a riot have to be "called" by particular agents - you don't "call" a riot in the same sense as a demo is "called"

You think no element of planning was involved? No attempt to get sufficient numbers in the same place at the same time, all with the same purpose, so as to make looting possible? There were a number of messages re-posted on here (originally on facebook or some other messaging system) from gang members inviting others into their area for the purposes of attacking the police and looting - I'm well aware of how such anonymous stuff can be faked or how it can be the work of a lone internet fantasist - but no-one at the time or since has challenged the authenticity of those messages.

 

[articul8]

I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while. OK, some odd groups of scrotes might have contacted their mates and tried to link people up at a certain place and time. But this isn't the same as some broad organised criminal infrastructure - cordinated distubances deliberately planned.

The government and Met/ACPO want to show they're "on top of it" by attributing a coherence to the riots they don't really possess. IWCA doing the same to assert their superiority to the equally one-sided far left orgs.

 

[past caring]

I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while. OK, some odd groups of scrotes might have contacted their mates and tried to link people up at a certain place and time. But this isn't the same as some broad organised criminal infrastructure - cordinated distubances deliberately planned.

Depends what you mean by "serious" - the people at the top or near the top of the food chain - i.e. those responsible for manufacturing, smuggling, distributing? No, of course not.

The kids on bikes who shoot the 5 year old girl and 35 year old bloke in the shop (actually after members of another gang who ran to hide in the shop) in Stockwell Road in March were not, I think we can agree, acting in a way that one would imagine "serious" gangsters would behave - certainly not the action of someone planning for the future and with any ambition of retiring to the Costa del Crime. But that's not the level or the dynamic that we're dealing with, is it? But were those kids serious about their gangsterism? You tell me.

It's a mistake to apply your - my - our rationale to these fuckers. It doesn't apply.

The government and Met/ACPO want to show they're "on top of it" by attributing a coherence to the riots they don't really possess. IWCA doing the same to assert their superiority to the equally one-sided far left orgs.

Bizarre.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Well, by the figures the article cites, fully 75% of those arrested for involvement had no affiliation whatever with any gangs. So the burden of proof is on you to show why riots were consciously planned and orchestrated by a numerically marginal section. Why does a riot have to be "called" by particular agents - you don't "call" a riot in the same sense as a demo is "called"

In normal circumstances no. The crowd is generally already there before the trouble erupts. But generally in the August riots the 'crowd' arrived on cue. 'Croydon Br station 4pm sharp' and so forth. Thus the ingredients for those particular riots were exactly the same as demo. Time and place. An assement of how many could be mustered by the 'party' calling the riot. An assement of how the authorities/police might respond. Finally publicity to draw in additional numbers; a) as a show of force, b) to act as cover c) to tie up police while the core/or 'numerically marginal section' either make their get away, or move on to another target.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while.

I suggest you read the article again - or maybe just read it. The motivation of the gang leaders was not in essence acquisitive.

 

[smokedout]

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.

somewhere between the two. i think the threat is too complex to collectively identify, which is why no-one has yet really described what this new lumpen are beyond teenage wannabe gangsters. i think its false to create a moral division within the working class when behaviour, crime even (in our sense) is much easier to precisely define. i dont want to write off children as being part of some morally deficient other to be treated with contempt, and i dont want to fall into the trap of good vs bad working class because that is a trap without end.

semantics-wise i dont think either lumpen (archaic and loaded) or underclass (their words and loaded) are helpful at all - they come with a set of preconceptions, they create too much noise and it distracts from the possibility of any real debate.

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

but the IWCA pieces dont identify the behaviours and actions beyond extreme and obvious cases (rape/stabbing) - you have, but the pieces under discussion dont

(also what do you mean by the working class proper in your quote above!)

well how far does the definition extend - do the many otherwise 'proper' working class who might buy the odd nicked bit of kit and do a bit of charlie at weekends have any culpability, a blokes who get a bit punchy after a few pints but otherwise are good lads, how about working class acquiescence to the dominance of criminal families, or those who excuse that behaviour, how much do we all turn a blind eye

 

[smokedout]

In normal circumstances no. The crowd is generally already there before the trouble erupts. But generally in the August riots the 'crowd' arrived on cue. 'Croydon Br station 4pm sharp' and so forth. Thus the ingredients for those particular riots were exactly the same as demo. Time and place. An assement of how many could be mustered by the 'party' calling the riot. An assement of how the authorities/police might respond. Finally publicity to draw in additional numbers; a) as a show of force, b) to act as cover c) to tie up police while the core/or 'numerically marginal section' either make their get away, or move on to another target.

this is verging on david icke stuff. sure the riots had street gang involvement, but what i saw (not on the telly) was every bit as chaotic, disorganised, opportunist and random as every other riot ive ever been in - it was also huge, the met say 30,000, possibly taking an active part thats true, but there were probably that many kids on the streets of lewisham (as a borough) alone. whilst i was in catford i heard one kid on his phone saying excitedly to his mate its kicking off in bromley and woolwich as well

people were walking away from catford in all directions with posh tellies (and many of them far from the stereotype of a teenage gang member), when the police turned up some fought hard, some scarpered, some headed down to the retail park at bellingham - there was no central organisation going on beyond people chatting on their phones just like always, sure the gangs will have been reacting and planning amongst, sure there seemed to be an air of all together against the police which may have been pushed by the gangs, but this was a lot bigger and a lot messier than the neat little analysis you try to be inflicting on it

as to the politics going on, i was at lewisham when the call went out to meet at DLR as well, same story people everywhere, some taking on police, some running off to catford, the shopping centre had already briefly been hit and the police had pretty much secured it, but the first place (and only till later) place to get smashed up was mcdonalds - why mcds, mcds windows got done in catford as well? why did dominos pizza at chalk farm get smashed to shit, but the independent restaurant next door went untouched. why stay and fight the police. why did every porn shop on the length of the road from lewisham to catford get hit, but not the music shop (which probably contains the most expensive kit for miles around and the kids know that). why did i see kids at great pains to re-assure the chicken shop owner that his business wouldnt be touched.

could there not be an element that apart from the kick of looting were striking back directly at the cunts who oppress them, not just the police but dominos and mcds, where many of them or their friends may have worked

could there not be many, many different reasons it happened

 

[love detective]

why did every porn shop on the length of the road from lewisham to catford get hit

how many porn shops are there on the length of road from lewisham to catford?

 

[smokedout]

how many porn shops are there on the length of road from lewisham to catford?

my mistake - pawn - as in moneysupermarket cheque cashing fuckers

 

[articul8]

I suggest you read the article again - or maybe just read it. The motivation of the gang leaders was not in essence acquisitive.

I have read it (more than once) - I know you're saying it was a warning shot across the bows of the police in retribution for having their patch swooped in on. Any maybe there are some areas where they have the kind of periphery where this could just about be plausible. But as a key "cause" of the riots in general? Unlikely

 

[articul8]

my mistake - pawn - as in moneysupermarket cheque cashing fuckers

I thought you meant saaf London is full of wankers

 

[love detective]

my mistake - pawn - as in moneysupermarket cheque cashing fuckers

was gonna say!

not like there's a load of pawn shops either though is there - two maybe? one in catford and one just down from the fox in lewisham?

i think you're doing the opposite of what you accuse us of doing though in injecting a political purpose into the riots where there wasn't one - how do you fit the complete trashing of an independent opticians in catford or the smashing of the pound shop - but the kfc, boots (tax dodgers etc..) and various bank windows just up from it left untouched into the overlay you're trying to put on the catford events

 

[smokedout]

was gonna say!

not like there's a load of pawn shops either though is there - two maybe? one in catford and one just down from the fox in lewisham?

theres three or four in catford (most of the internet cafs also do short term loans), theres one right by the also one by the job centre then another on your left just before lewisham

i think you're doing the opposite of what you accuse us of doing though in injecting a political purpose into the riots where there wasn't one - how do you fit the complete trashing of an independent opticians in catford or the smashing of the pound shop - but the kfc, boots (tax dodgers etc..) and various bank windows just up from it left untouched into the overlay you're trying to put on the catford events

i saw bank windows done in camden the next day, and your over egging the optician a bit, th front window was put though but the shop/stock was left alone, as its right next door to argos this could have been genuine collateral damage - the pound shop is a chain store and in any event there windows going through disputes any suggestion that looting was the only for economic gain (like lots of places, they didnt get looted just trashed). even down in lewisham the only damage seemed to have been to chain stores and walking down the old kent road it seems the same in new cross - currys, toys r us, sainsburys all hit, no other shops touched - someone who was in deptford told me the same story there

i suspect a range of factors and motivations were involved - rge places that were hit were a mixture of high value targets and places that have a lot of influence in kids lives, mcds, block busters, poverty pimps, police - all perhaps expressions of an unfocussed but collective anger that on the surface appears nihilistic but imo looting top shop is just as valid a political expression as doing a poetry reading inside or sitting outside chanting pay your taxes. im not saying this tells the whole story, far from it, but to strip it of any significance at all is unfairly dismissive - just like every else a lot of these kids do is, even when they riot all anyone can do is slag the fuckers off and tell them they didnt do it properly

perhaps they didnt do it properly, perhaps they dont want to, perhaps this is something new, the beginning of something those of us a bit older dont really understand, perhaps the politics will come from the struggle, perhaps it is there already, just far from perfect and not articulated in a way we understand - the kids have been surprising us since the windows of millbank went in and they might again

 

[past caring]

68 revisited.

 

[The39thStep]

68 revisited.

Lets dig out the Situationalist pamphlet

 

[The39thStep]

I don't see serious drug gangs risking their members getting collared for nicking the odd telly - wouldn't be worth their while. OK, some odd groups of scrotes might have contacted their mates and tried to link people up at a certain place and time. But this isn't the same as some broad organised criminal infrastructure - cordinated distubances deliberately planned.

The government and Met/ACPO want to show they're "on top of it" by attributing a coherence to the riots they don't really possess. IWCA doing the same to assert their superiority to the equally one-sided far left orgs.

Are there any non serious drug gangs ?
Not all gangs mature to the status of serious organsied crime groups, many operate within a post code and are a realtivly short lived therat but a real threat if you live in that community.

When I worked in Moss Side with youth gangs it wasn't a case that they kept a low profile ,discreetly sold drugs and nobody suspected that they were anything more than fine upstanding citizens. They were involved in street robbery, burglary, rape ,car theft and generally intimidating anyone who they thought they could do. In my frst year ( I had worked with stret gangs in Harleden previously) I had three kids on my case load dead ,one macheted, and four charged with kidnapping, rape, attempt murder and firearm offences. The oldest was 17.

In Manchester one well known gangster ( however marginalised he is now) had his team of boys

 

[articul8]

I wouldn't fancy working with gangs in Harlesden or Moss Side (hat tip there alright) -

but that's my point really, you can't put "gangs" into one slot because a term like that is used to cover a range of really quite different sorts of things - not all drug gangs would it into the category of "street youth" (or only look like that lower down the food chain) - anti-social behaviour is a bit the same,

 

[LLETSA]

The kids on bikes who shoot the 5 year old girl and 35 year old bloke in the shop (actually after members of another gang who ran to hide in the shop) in Stockwell Road in March were not, I think we can agree, acting in a way that one would imagine "serious" gangsters would behave - certainly not the action of someone planning for the future and with any ambition of retiring to the Costa del Crime.

One way of looking at it is that a certain fringe element of society has become unhinged from any sense of reality. In this they are perfectly in line with today's capitalism. It is society's vast middle ground, emcompassing most of the working class and 'middle class,' which hasn't caught up yet.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I have read it (more than once) - I know you're saying it was a warning shot across the bows of the police in retribution for having their patch swooped in on. Any maybe there are some areas where they have the kind of periphery where this could just about be plausible. But as a key "cause" of the riots in general? Unlikely

I thought it, was generally understood that as well as numbers, what the united front, and the cessation of hostilities offered was - mobility. There was no need in other words, that they restrict themselves to the postcodes they might usually occupy.

 

[articul8]

Which is handy for your argument it's what enables you to lump everything together rather discriminating. And your language illustrates my earlier point (described by Past Caring as "bizarre") that you are deliberately inviting a comparison between the organised nature of lumpens ("united front") with the absence of credible organisation on the left. To achieve this emphasis you have to stress this element of the riots (stretched beyond any reasonable degree) in order to make it).

 

[love detective]

perhaps this is something new, the beginning of something those of us a bit older dont really understand, perhaps the politics will come from the struggle, perhaps it is there already, just far from perfect and not articulated in a way we understand

perhaps - time will tell

although there's nothing inherently/automatically positive/progressive in the possibilities that you talk about above

 

[Joe Reilly]

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

The lumpen are those who have been driven into long term unemployment, initially through no fault of their own, who then adjust to it financially and in other ways. Thereafter they make no contribution and have no intention of making any. It is a parasitic existence. They live off society. They do so brazenly. Which is historically one of the defining charachteristics of that class.