Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[Pickman's model]

The 'argument' is that the street gangs initiated the riots for (largely business) reasons of their own. They formed an unprecedented united front to do so. This alliance gave them the necessary numbers and the mobility to move from borough to borough at will. In short the riots were organised, but some inevitably took on a life of their own. A distinction must also be made between the rioters and the routine looters who the former had summoned to provide additional cover, to provide a diversion and tie up police long after the real perpetrators had moved on to a fresh target. That I think is a fair summary of the IWCA position as outlined.

You continue to insist however that this all about having a sly dig at the Left. But the Left don't come into it. At all.

that may be the argument but it would be good to see some evidence for all aspects of it.

 

[revlon]

opinion piece in the independent - Amol Rajan: The atomised poor have replaced the 'working class'

"working class" referred to a solidarity among a certain sector of society...

What has replaced the working class is an atomised poor, more removed from the rest of society – in financial, political, and geographic terms – than ever. The solidarity is gone; that class-consciousness is a faded idea.

The reasons for this are several, from immigration to the weakening of trade unions... For now, suffice to say that whether he works or not, "Tyrone" [one of the rioter interviewed] is not a member of a working class in any historically meaningful sense of that term, and his chances of being emancipated from poverty are suffering as a result".
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-have-replaced-the-working-class-2349973.html

 

[newbie]

I was looking through some previous articles from Red Action to look at the development of the theme being propagated here by Joe and others. Where there has been frustration expressed by IWCA supporters here at the reluctance for people to accept the political arguments made, it may have much to do with the expectation that some people have that should they do so, the next demand will be "well why won't you join in and assist by doing "this" against the gangs? "
Outlaws and Renegades.
"Above all, for any progressive movement to continue its advance within a working class neighbourhood it will prove necessary ‘to get rid of that gang’. Get rid not merely as a by-product, but as an end in itself. Given the stakes, not taking sides is not an option."

Thanks for that. The sentence before the one you quote is slightly chilling, but then it is quite an old article.

A decade ago there was a recognition that the history and the analysis are actually intended to achieve something: for organising, as a political foundation, continuing the advance of a progressive movement and so on. The current articles appear to have no purpose other than as conversation pieces.

 

[smokedout]

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.

but this analysis doesnt include many of the gang members, most of whom arent old enough to have experienced long term unemployment and often have mums in work. it does include beggars, big issue sellers, disabled claimants etc.

 

[smokedout]

No. The poor tend to be those stuck in minimum wage jobs - cleaners, guards, hotel jobs, pub work etc and those layed off. Whilst some of the lumpen are also skint - many have the most money in their immediate area through dealing etc and everyone knows it and how they got it ime.

but you're talking more about the criminal families discussed earlier here, theres a word for that, criminals. since this isnt the word chosen by the IWCA then it is to be assumed that you mean something beyond criminals, something harder to pin down.

are EDL supporters part of this nouveau lumpen?

 

[Joe Reilly]

that 83% stat is at variance from the stat in your original piece. Besides which - 3 out 4 *arrested* not 3 out 4 *involved* - and even then "known to plod" might be just a caution for low-grade ASB.
And by your own reckoning 17 out of 22 boroughs which saw disturbances weren't those with gangs under immediate police pressure.

As I say - I don't doubt your basic point. But you are stretching it (and then some?)

The 83% per cent stat was not a figure made available at the time. Released only yesterday in fact. Well, I'll think you'll agree that some boroughs like Richmond is not likely to suffer from a preponderance of gangs, while other boroughs will be, lets say, over-represented. It seems like that it is the over-represented boroughs that will have been targetted. It in these boroughs that the gangs formed alliances and then as was said earlier, migrated into other boroughs.

 

[treelover]

There was a piece in the G recently about how someone who tried to leave a gang was put in an elevator with a fighting dog, then the order to 'kill' was given, he was obviously going to be in a bad way, it may be apocryphal but I don't think so..

 

[treelover]

'are EDL supporters part of this nouveau lumpen?'

'Human Dust' according to the The Undertaker(posting name on Socialist Unity, rumoured to be Martin Smith)

I take the view that no one can be written off completely, that people do have some agency, there are plenty of people i know who ran with gangs in their youth or were in far right outfits and who changed or re-oriented there situation and now have perfectly normal dare I say, middle class or 'decent' lives..

 

[Fedayn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14834827

Home Secretary Theresa May has told MPs that it appeared that the "majority of people" involved in the riots were not in gangs.
She told MPs that as arrests had continued, the percentage involved in gangs had dropped.

 

[The39thStep]

just under 20% though is a frightening figure.What percentage would we have seen in the 80s?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Forget the lumpens, the "renegades" that pose the greater threat to the class as a whole are those working class individuals that are so poisoned with neo-liberal capitalist culture that they have not an ounce of solidarity in their bones. Like this stupid bitch I was talking to a couple of weeks back. She'd been working as a waitress in a typically non-unionised bar for five years and was just made redundant out of the blue (naturally she was upset and resentful about that). She subsequently worked in some mangerial role in a supermarket and was complaining that she couldn't fire some of the elderly till assistants because they were in unions. The utter selfishness of stupid fucking filthy retarded pigs like that just beggers belief doesn't it? What to do with scab scum like that?

 

[Joe Reilly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14834827

Are these the same gangs, whose role in the riots ("encouraging people to take part in these events") are now apparently being downgraded, by the Home Secretary, while at the same time acknowledging that the "gangs could use the Olympics as a catalyst for looting and violence - or - are they some other gangs?
Or maybe possibly some other Theresa May?

 

[Fedayn]

Are these the same gangs, whose role in the riots ("encouraging people to take part in these events") are now apparently being downgraded, by the Home Secretary, while at the same time acknowledging that the "gangs could use the Olympics as a catalyst for looting and violence - or - are they some other gangs?
Or maybe possibly some other Theresa May?

You mean they might be telling lies for their own ends? Who'da thunk it? Works both ways though as well you know. The reality that the vast vast majority of those arrested are not in gangs doesn't mean that those who are might be in gangs couldn't target the Olympics.

 

[Joe Reilly]

You mean they might be telling lies for their own ends? Who'da thunk it? Works both ways though as well you know. The reality that the vast vast majority of those arrested are not in gangs doesn't mean that those who are might be in gangs couldn't target the Olympics.

I don't think its lying as such, more like thinking out loud. They have realised that if indeed the gangs were responsible for the riots; if it was actual 'payback', then the widely promoted Cameron led crack down may be unwise especially in Olympic year. So if as the IWCA article predicted there will not be a crack down for this reason, then the need for the public rowing back from the position of the gang leaders being the principle string pullers is the next logical step.

At the same time, with this in mind, as TM admitted to the Commons select committe, there needs to greater intel on the gangs future intentions just in case the 'let by gones be by gones'/ 'business as usual' body language currently emanting from government circles dosen't actually resonate.

 

[Fedayn]

I don't think its lying as such, more like thinking out loud. They have realised that if indeed the gangs were responsible for the riots; if it was actual 'payback', then the widely promoted Cameron led crack down may be unwise especially in Olympic year. So if as the IWCA article predicted there will not be a crack down for this reason, then the need for the public rowing back from the position of the gang leaders being the principle string pullers is the next logical step.

Or it is simply a fact, as in established, researched and discovered to be true, that the majority, vast majority of those arrested, are not in gangs. Is that not possible?

At the same time, with this in mind, as TM admitted to the Commons select committe, there needs to greater intel on the gangs future intentions just in case the 'let by gones be by gones'/ 'business as usual' body language currently emanting from government circles dosen't actually resonate.

That is entirely possible, it does not preclude the majority of arrrestees not being in gangs however.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Dismal stuff from the IWCA.

Sometimes people only know how to hit back blindly. The unrest was mostly sub-political in character. One thing the events and their context bear witness to is the weakness of an organised left (a fact they simply mention). Given their analyses in the past (e.g the far-right) they're well placed to emphasise that connection rather than revive the old-hat lumpen-prole nonsense; instead they've joined the reactionary moral outrage that characterized the pitiable response of the establishment classes.

 

[nino_savatte]

Forget the lumpens, the "renegades" that pose the greater threat to the class as a whole are those working class individuals that are so poisoned with neo-liberal capitalist culture that they have not an ounce of solidarity in their bones. Like this stupid bitch I was talking to a couple of weeks back. She'd been working as a waitress in a typically non-unionised bar for five years and was just made redundant out of the blue (naturally she was upset and resentful about that). She subsequently worked in some mangerial role in a supermarket and was complaining that she couldn't fire some of the elderly till assistants because they were in unions. The utter selfishness of stupid fucking filthy retarded pigs like that just beggers belief doesn't it? What to do with scab scum like that?

Quite right, these are the ones who bought into the whole lot. These are the fuckers who complain how people shouldn't go on strike because "they've got jobs" or some such ignorant bullshit. But a lot of these people are called "managers" but they don't seem to manage anything; it's just a nice title to go with a shite job. Think of the legions of vice presidents in the corporate world of the US and you're there.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I know, can't stand those sort of jeleous, petty little cock suckers. They are as much part of the problem as anybody else. Hopefully one day such trash will be swept into the dustbin of history.

 

[The39thStep]

Dismal stuff from the IWCA.

Sometimes people only know how to hit back blindly. The unrest was mostly sub-political in character. One thing the events and their context bear witness to is the weakness of an organised left (a fact they simply mention). Given their analyses in the past (e.g the far-right) they're well placed to emphasise that connection rather than revive the old-hat lumpen-prole nonsense; instead they've joined the reactionary moral outrage that characterized the pitiable response of the establishment classes.

Not sure I get your drift there fella. If we had a strong organised left what would have been diffrent in your opinion?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Not sure I get your drift there fella. If we had a strong organised left what would have been diffrent in your opinion?

Well, for a start I think they'd have brought down the coalition government by now. But my better answer is the sections the rioters were drawn from can be integrated and mobilized politically, which is the main problem IMO. And there's the valid criticism of the rioters - why they were 'apolitical' - that they should have been more combative or assertive - like the initial reaction in north London appeared to be (should have been accompanied nationally by demos outside every police station IMO).

Therefore I agree with Slavoj Zizek: "this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."

 

[The39thStep]

Well, for a start I think they'd have brought down the coalition government by now. But my better answer is the sections the rioters were drawn from can be integrated and mobilized politically, which is the main problem IMO. And there's the valid criticism of the rioters - why they were 'apolitical' - that they should have been more combative or assertive - like the initial reaction in north London appeared to be (should have been accompanied nationally by demos outside every police station IMO).

Therefore I agree with Slavoj Zizek: "this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."

Would there have been looting in strong organised left areas ?
Why would the looters organise demos outside of every Police stations ?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Would there have been looting in strong organised left areas ?

I think we wouldn't really be talking much about looting.

Why would the looters organise demos outside of every Police stations ?

How is the question of whether looters would demonstrate pertinent, the point being that people only interested in looting wouldn't do so, but people with more political consciousness? (Not that I deride the ingenious looters.)

 

[cogg]

just to put the 'renegades' article in the context of the IWCA's actual practice, here's a link to an article written by Stuart Craft of the IWCA this week for the blog I'm invlolved in.

Standing up for ourselves: a brief history of the IWCA’s campaigns against Class A drug dealers in Blackbird Leys

Posted: 8 September, 2011 by Admin in British politics, England, Independent Working Class Association (IWCA)

0

by Stuart Craft (IWCA councillor, Oxford)
The Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) – originally an initiative of the militant working class organisation Anti-Fascist Action, was formed in October 1995 following lengthy discussions between a dozen national and local organisations.

Founding members agreed that Labour had ditched the working class and become a party for the middle class, that the existence of the ‘Labour Movement’ was a myth and that the working class no longer had any genuine representation. The IWCA would strive for immediate gains in the interests of working class people. It would also be a clean break with the past, independent of all other parties, community based and democratic.

Full article here: http://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/09/0...ainst-class-a-drug-dealers-in-blackbird-leys/

 

[past caring]

Dismal stuff from the IWCA.

Sometimes people only know how to hit back blindly. The unrest was mostly sub-political in character. One thing the events and their context bear witness to is the weakness of an organised left (a fact they simply mention). Given their analyses in the past (e.g the far-right) they're well placed to emphasise that connection rather than revive the old-hat lumpen-prole nonsense; instead they've joined the reactionary moral outrage that characterized the pitiable response of the establishment classes.

Well, for a start I think they'd have brought down the coalition government by now. But my better answer is the sections the rioters were drawn from can be integrated and mobilized politically, which is the main problem IMO. And there's the valid criticism of the rioters - why they were 'apolitical' - that they should have been more combative or assertive - like the initial reaction in north London appeared to be (should have been accompanied nationally by demos outside every police station IMO).

Therefore I agree with Slavoj Zizek: "this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."

I think we wouldn't really be talking much about looting.

How is the question of whether looters would demonstrate pertinent, the point being that people only interested in looting wouldn't do so, but people with more political consciousness? (Not that I deride the ingenious looters.)

To sum up, then, if things were different then, errrr......things would be different?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The point is that only an entrenched left of the popular classes will escape the impasse of blind protests.

 

[Joe Reilly]

The point is that only an entrenched left of the popular classes will escape the impasse of blind protests.

If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Or it is simply a fact, as in established, researched and discovered to be true, that the majority, vast majority of those arrested, are not in gangs.

Well given an estimated 30,000 took part overall then it be rather unlikely that gang members would feature statistically at all. As it is, the arrests of gang members/affiliates in London, are in the region of 500 plus. Which is not insignificant but obviously does not, and cannot be expected to tell the full story of why the riots erupted, and who engineered them.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs?

I know it's lunch time but: what?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I know it's lunch time but: what?

It seemed clear enough; poking fun at the day dream politics of 'if only'.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

pffft