Dave Allen (Gang Of Four bassist) on UK riots today vs. UK riots of '70s-'80s punk era

[Video Link: Gang of Four, "I Found That Essence Rare," Peel Sessions, 1990]

Aim for politicians fair who'll treat your vote hope well
The last thing they'll ever do act in your interest
Look at the world through your polaroid glasses
Things'll look a whole lot better for the working classes

---

This blog post about the UK riots from Dave Allen, best known as the bass player from the great "political" punk band Gang of Four, has been making the rounds this week. He compares the youth street protests for which Gang of Four was a symbol in the late 1970s and early 80s with what's unfolding today in the UK.

At first glance, the current unrest might appear to be less politically driven— but Allen points out that the anger wasn't much more coherent back then, either.

"History repeats itself, especially when memories are short," he says, "[and] if the radical right and the Tea Party insist on attempting to fix economic problems and social ills by reducing the size of government, the consequences of those decisions and actions will be enormous for the USA."

Read: "London Burning, Punk Rock, and a Tea Party Dream Come True" (north.com)

(Via Chris Anderson/G+)

• [Wally Ballou]

  Anarchist demands bigger government.  Film at 11.

  • [Thomas Ashelford]

    I’m pretty sure the Gang of Four never portrayed themselves as anarchists. They were Marxists of the Frankfurt School. Big government is completely consistent with that.

  • [mindysan33]

    I’m curious if you are saying that because you assume all punks profess anarchy?  There is relatively little political coherence in the various punk movements, actually.  

• [Tran Sendit]

  Yes I think he has a point- but the incoherence needs direction, and there do not seem to be the same of kind of politics as yesteryear. Everything has moved far to the right. The kids need options and alternatives, leadership that is not bullsht. Alternatives from the left. Where did they all go?
  Britain, USA all the same. The dial kept shifting right, until even the center was deep in the high end of the dial.

• [PJDK]

  People should really spend 15 minutes youtubing rioters (looters is a better word) and then come back.  Where I work (ealing) and where I live (clapham junction) were both badly hit.  In Clapham junction they smashed into a party shop to steal masks while looting the more expensive shops (pretty smart I guess).  They then set it on fire.  A party shop, with homes above it.  

  In ealing there is a line of shops, at the end of which is the council offices and the police station, both competely untouched.  They went to the other end of the street where the Bang and Olufsen shop is.  Incidentally they also beat a man to death down there.

  I have occasionally heard library closures linked to this (although not here to be fair), interestingly the waterstones (major book chain) in both Clapham and Ealing are quite near the centre of the riots but they didn’t even get a scratch.  I guess it proves the kind of reverence they hold literature in.

• [Phoenix Lomax]

  How would reducing the size of government be the issue here? Doesn’t the UK, where the current rioting is occurring,  have a fairly large government with pretty far-reaching impact (slow-to-act police notwithstanding)? I guess I don’t get why a government becoming smaller, and thus less involved in people’s day-to-day lives, would make people more angry and more likely to lash out. I’m not a Teabagger by any means, but that doesn’t really sound like an argument borne out of verifiable fact, but one borne out of personal political views..

• [JBarnes01]

  I’m confused, how does the size of government translate into these riots?  I personally don’t buy into the “political motivation” for what I’ve seen.  I wasn’t there, so I watched what I could on CNN, You Tube & MSNBC — Maybe I missed a speech or two made by a looter on why s/he was carrying away stolen merchandise because they were dissatisfied with parliament or lack of fiscal policy, foreign relations, etc…

  I think what we have witnessed is opportunistic crowd mentality.  People doing things they wouldn’t normally do because others around are engaged in the same illegal activity with little fear or being caught.

  Basically a complete lack of personal integrity.  Scary to think you’re riding public transit, walking in the streets, working alongside someone in the next cubicle, driving next to someone who could turn into a lawless looter just by a change in their surroundings. 

  No, I’m not sure I buy into “Political Motivation” on this. I do agree with Gang of Four on one thing, “Natural’s Not in It”!

  • [Thomas Ashelford]

    Size of government per se may not cause civil unrest, but a sudden change in the size of government – in either direction – commonly does. Take away government services, and people feel robbed of their rights. Impose more government controls and folks feel much the same. As a species, we don’t much like our society changing.

    Also, I think it’s fair to say that there is a difference between riots that are politically motivated, and riots that are caused by political factors. 

    To say that these riots are politically motivated would be absurd. They are fueled by greed and undirected rage. But if we want to answer the questions “why now?”, and “why here?”, we need to look at the political and social backdrop. 

    Remember that the UK still has a very strong class system that permeates all aspects of politics and society. From a working class perspective, the government is government by the privileged elite (compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrats are perceived to have sold out to the Conservatives for a share in power). Economic stagnation, and massive cuts in government services from an upper-class government creates a sense of resentment in the underclass. Add to that the continuing stench of the MP’s expenses scandal, and the more recent phone hacking scandals (once again cementing the idea that the rich elites look after each other), and you have a breakdown of the social contract.

    Strip away my pop sociology, and you have a bunch of disaffected chavs asking “the toffs can do what they like, why can’t we?”

• [Palefire]

  Framing this in the context of politics is attempting to find some noble meaning behind the violence.  This isn’t a fight for freedom or civil rights.  There are no demonstrations or demogogues championing the needs of an oppressed people.  It’s Vancouver.  It’s violence for the sake of violence.  Selfish, blind, inhumane and foolish. 

  • [Chandler Lewis]

    Whether the rioters articulate the catalyst of their anger or not, you can’t be claiming they’re not legitimately angry.  In fact, their inability to articulate some unified manifesto of why they want to set London afire may be just the evidence you need to understand why the kids are burning shit up:  They can’t, because the social situation has made it difficult to quote erudite scholars on the finer points of being disenfranchised.  I think their actions speak for them.

    • [CharredBarn]

      “They can’t [articulate their rage] because the social situation has made it difficult to quote erudite scholars on the finer points of being disenfranchised.”

      Is this a parody of something, or is it meant to be serious?

    • [tristan eldritch]

      “Whether the rioters articulate the catalyst of their anger or not, you
      can’t be claiming they’re not legitimately angry.  In fact, their inability
      to articulate some unified manifesto of why they want to set London
      afire may be just the evidence you need to understand why the kids are
      burning shit up:  They can’t, because the social situation has made it
      difficult to quote erudite scholars on the finer points of being
      disenfranchised.  I think their actions speak for them”.

      You may be right, but that’s a hell of lot of surmising.  Its not so much the fact that they haven’t  articulated a unified manifesto that bothers me – it’s the fact that none of the violence was directed towards its supposed source.  They were attacking people essentially in the same class, the same predicament, as themselves.  But I suppose the very fact they cannot direct their anger towards the things that are supposedly angry at is further poignant evidence by way of absence of evidence that those are indeed the very things they are angry at.

• [csforstall]

  Crazy question, what did the riots of the 70s accomplish? And what exactly do people expect to happen today?

  Even the erstwhile descriptors of the movement seem only to talk about these events like they are  symptomatic of the broad brush of socio-economic history, and somehow that is just completely unedifying. As if it is a given that a society’s poor always rise up, except there is no explination as to when, and why. The talk on all sides of these events just rings very, very hollow.  

• [ernunnos]

  “Nice restaurant,” says the man. “Before you bought it, I had an understanding with the previous owner. A discount, 50%. I’d like to continue that arrangement. In fact, I can see that we’re going to be good friends. How about making it 75%? Yes, this is my favorite restaurant. Would be a pity if anything were to happen to it.”

• [Raven]

  For some reason, I am reminded of the three blind men describing different parts of an elephant as if it were the whole.

  Go ahead and:
  - Destroy your institutions.
  - Create victim industries.
  - Ignore that you get more of what you subsidize.

  Go ahead and play your blame games. 

  I am enjoying this. I truly am.
  

  • [Bryce Anderson]

    So countries that subsidize the poor should have higher rates of poverty, right?

    You’ll be hard-pressed to find evidence to back that up.

• [Locien]

  People denying any link between government policy and these riots are willfully blind. The economic policies that cause massive inequality and high unemployment made many young people impoverished and without a real future. The youth still wanted to be a part of normal society, living a middle class lifestyle, but were denied it due to no jobs for many, and poor jobs for some; they were for intents and purposes, nonpersons to the rest of society. So when tensions broke from a racist assault by police, hell broke loose. Why did people steal? They couldn’t buy because they had no jobs, or their jobs were bottom of the barrel dead end jobs so they couldn’t afford anything. If society rejects you, why play by it’s rules? That the looters had no political impulse does not mean that the events are not related to politics. This is simply the logical outcome of the conservative economic policies implemented by the UK government, and the austerity policies that exacerbate it. With even more austerity measures this sort of thing will simply become more common, like a drought causes more wildfires. All in the name of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. No one cares about why the poor riot, they only want to punish the underclass that they themselves created.

• [mbo]

  No. The size of the government/Tea Party argument is just another deflection by a muddled left wing voice. 

  This collective liberal voice is proving that it is unable (or unlikely) to admit that people from the lower and middle classes ( who the Left claims to lovingly represent) can act like complete douche bags without invoking “yes, but..” arguments. 

  Must we keep reminding them that no, this is not about Wall Street OR the Tea Party? Sorry. 

  No, it’s really about un-empathetic twats intoxicated on a drug called absolute freedom, a drug that they are clearly not prepared to manage, but are (none the less) enjoying the crap out of. You know, turns out steeling and burning shit is actually pretty fun?

  All at the expense of their fellow countrymen of course. But who gives a fuck about them?

  I say this post is just another crack in the Liberal mirror.

  • [Bryce Anderson]

    You know what they say:  “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.”

  • [Chandler Lewis]

    “un-empathetic twats intoxicated on a drug called absolute freedom, a
    drug that they are clearly not prepared to manage, but are (none the
    less) enjoying the crap out of. You know, turns out steeling (sic) and burning
    shit is actually pretty fun?”

    Sounds like the Tea Party to me.

• [Tran Sendit]

  Where did that far off look in the eye go
  both political and spiritualLike Tom Joads Speech in the Grapes of WrathThat look into a better futureand the willingness to make it happenwithout violenceby organizing the peoplecreating institutions and opportunitiesautonomous zones and parties

• [Brian Tuley]

  It just seems like the punks of the late 1970′s were more politically astute than these hip-hopster types we see in the riots of today.  I’ve been mulling this about in my head all week.  It’s probably only superficial of me, but I prefer my anarchy from a mob of of folks with green hair, torn trousers, and the occasional safety pin through the left nostril.

• [JBarnes01]

  I’d prefer my anarchy from a collective with a clearly defined objective. 

  Oh wait, that’s no longer anarchy.  Having grown up and participated in
  the Americanized version of the so-called 70′s/80′s punk movement as a
  stupid teenager I laughed at anyone who wore their Anarchy-A or spoke of
  such ideals.  It didn’t make sense then, and it doesn’t make sense now.

• [UncaScrooge]

  Sniff.  In my day, the opportunist vandals that follow protestors around looking for crowd cover for their nihilistic activities were more politically aware and engaged with the protests they destroyed.  This bunch of nihilists appear to be nothing more than nihilists.  I remember a day when a burning cop car really meant something.

• [Chandler Lewis]

  Wally, you misunderstood both the context and content of the post.  I know you were trying to be snarky, but don’t degrade the discussion to the quippiness that’s the hallmark of much of US media.

• [JBarnes01]

  As the arrests of these “Political Activists” begin to hit the presses, I think we’re going to find out the youth involved weren’t all politically motivated, they were in it for the “thrill”.  Caught up in the moment of mob mentality.

  If the following article is any indication, there were plenty of non-working class folks caught up in the melee and will probably be sorry for this little bit of “youthful exuberance”   I especially like the one about the girl who’s own mother turned her in after seeing her rioting on T.V.!  Doh!  I guess she forgot to wear her “riot hoodie”.

  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ballerina-olympic-ambassador-arrested-london-sweep-152907901.html

• [catgrin]

  First things first. Gang of Four were part of the “post-punk” movement. They were contemporaries of the Sex Pistols, but came around in the next wave along with Siouxie and the Banshees and others. So, any comments about “Anarchy in the U.K.” and other typical punk jabs can be put away nicely.

  As to their political views, here’s a direct quote from an interview with band member Andy GIll, “We were never interested in banging the Marxist drum, or proselytising the left,” he explains. “Music should be radical, but to adopt a particular ideological view is reactionary. And they way we think about things is quite fluid.
  We were making it up as we were going along. The closest thing to an agenda that we had was Entertainment! - that was our agenda,”(source: http://www.beat.com.au/music/2011/03/1/gang-four/andy-gill-gang-gang-four-gill-punk-rock )

  Providing this info just so people understand Dave Allen isn’t necessarily a “down with the establishment” man. In fact, he probably is the kind of person who would have freaked out as soon as David Cameron put his austerity program into action. The last PM to try that kind of slash and burn to help the economy was Thatcher (PM 1979-1990), back when Gang of Four were putting out hits (1977-1984), and the policy didn’t work then either. This probably all seems startlingly familiar to someone who was in the middle of it the last time round.

• [catgrin]

  I wonder how many commenters read the full article. He is, after all, speaking about both countries and two time periods and how they relate. 

  Plenty of coverage has been given by the international press to the question, “How much did David Cameron’s austerity program have to do with the British riots?” Everyone knows that a shooting was the actual igniter for the riots, but without social trouble brewing underneath, it could have happened and either resulted in no or limited unrest. Instead, riots are sweeping across the Britain even into areas where demographics don’t match the original source. (For those Americans who don’t know Cameron’s policies, they’re a series of stringent belt-tightening of social programs, and lower-class immigrant communities like the one where the riots started are some of the hardest hit by them.)

  Back in the U.S., the extreme right Tea Partiers are trying to do exactly the same thing, and on an even grander scale. American polls clearly show that the majority of people want the very rich to pay their part and they want successful social programs left intact. Middle and lower class families also clearly have no more funds to give. They’re tapped out. The most recent CNN poll showed 63% of people agree that we should have “Increases in taxes on businesses and higher-income Americans.” Meanwhile, 87% did not want “Increases in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans” and 64% did not want “Major changes to the Social Security and Medicare systems.” source: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug10.pdf 

  Meanwhile, the Tea Party (which is backed by big business) insists that only more cuts can happen, and they continue to aim at social programs and unions (which provide political opposition to them). We need revenue, but they refuse not only to create new taxes on the wealthy, they won’t even dissolve long-standing exemptions that leave businesses paying less than many people think they should. They’re mirroring Cameron’s actions (no matter how what his intent was).

  I think it’s fair for someone who was involved in demonstrations in the 80s, and is living through the British riots now, to remind the U.S. what the fallout of failing to represent people can be. If people feel disenfranchised, they won’t feel guilty about joining in a riot and stealing diapers along with an iPod to make their lives more comfortable. Because they don’t believe they can achieve a goal (after all, no one in power is listening), riots really do become a show of futile force and frustration with no higher message. 

  By pointing out the similarities in the two countries’ past and current economic and political state, Allen’s simply trying to hold up a mirror and make the Tea Party see its reflection.

  • [csforstall]

    He is, after all, speaking about both countries and two time periods and how they relate.

    Which that act in and of itself is frought with both false correlations and comparisons.

    Allen also fails to address the materalism and the avoidence of the police in new riots verses  the confrontation that was actively sought by those in the 70s riots.

    • [Guy Reading]

      Do you mean the 1980s riots? cause, while there was the winter of discontent and lots of striking, there wasn’t too much in the way of inner city rioting. 

      Firstly, to deal with your earlier comment. Well, after the 1981 brixton riots, they commissioned the Scarman report, which called the police institutionally racist, and heavily criticised the SuS laws. When a policeman was decapitated in a riot in 1985 (in tottenham) (after quite a few riots in the meantime), they finally put the recommendations of the report into practice- with the result that the next major inner city riot wasn’t until 1995 (the poll tax riot was different in many ways). The number of riots also alerted people to the problems of the inner cities (although thatcher wouldn’t admit it until 1987) (which may be the legacy of these riots). 

      The author makes some good points in that post- for example, in the toxteth riots (in 1981), there were 70 buildings burnt out (including a lot of homes), and the pictures that the guardian recently put up show that the violence was still pretty random. During the 1981 brixton riots, a pub was brunt down (along with many other buildings), and a photographer who was interviewed for an article on the 30th anniversary of them remarked that residents of the area were running into shops and …. looting (!!!) them. In fact, he remarked that one of the first shops to be cleared out was… an electronics shop (!!!). perhaps it’s worth reading this chronology of the brixton riots before you claim the 1980s riots were totally different: 

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1981/apr/13/fromthearchive

      To deal with avoidance of the police. Well, it was different in the 1980s, in that you generally got roughed up by the police rather than being nicked by them- in fact, everybody prosecuted for a riot in bristol in 1980 was acquitted. This meant that if you were confronted by cops in riot gear, while you could be badly beaten, you weren’t going to spend 2 years in prison. And also- didn’t you see the pictures from salford and the pembury estate in hackney. Yes, the “violent shopping sprees” in clapham junction and the centre of manc may have deliberately avoided the police, but at the pembury estate and salford, they set up burning barricades and spent hours chucking rocks at the police. There’s also the fact that for most of the rioting the police were no where to be found- which is different from the rioting in 1981. Anyway, do these kids look like they’re running away:? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib5edeXXEN0

      Yeah, there’s a lot of materialism involved, but to say it’s all about consumerism, etc is pretty stupid. Actually, an interesting subtext to this is that Stop and Search laws have been slowly and slowly beefed back up to 1980s levels (Although the police clearly aren’t as bad), and it was a stop and search that kicked off the riots in hackney. 

      Asking what people think they’ll accomplish is also pretty stupid. The kids in 1981 weren’t thinking “oh, if I riot the scarman report will be commissioned”, they were angry at the police. I don’t know if you’re american, but what do you think the rioters were thinking in 1992 in LA? Presumably they weren’t hoping to drive the police out of LA with mass disorder and then go off and find officer koons and his friends and beat them to death. Riots are an explosion of anger, not some carefully considered political protest. 

      “As if it is a given that a society’s poor always rise up”

      I’d say it’s more to do about inequality- which britain does have serious problem with. 

      (Also, to paraphrase a tweet: Trying to understand the riots isn’t the same as celebrating people’s houses burning down or the rioting itself.)

      • [csforstall]

        Thanks for the info. I am American and I do like to ask lots of questions, which has a way of annoying people. As per usual the mainstream outlets of news over here are flooded with shallow speculation, which as you can plainly tell worked its way into my thoughts on the subject.

        My fundamental questions arise out of the fact that not all of the rioters were part of those suffering from inequality. Sure that may have been a large part of the anger, but there are also stories of “well-to-do” teens, teachers and the like also participating in the riots. When you mix that in I feel that the simple inequality argument is insufficent to explain the outburst in its prolonged state.

        Also, did any of the previous riots have the lasting power like the current riots? As it seems those 80′s riots lasted only the better part of the day (or are my sources incorrect here as well?).

        • [Guy Reading]

          (sorry if I was a bit snappy earlier)

          Some of them lasted a day, but most british cities saw rioting in the summer of 1981. (I wasn’t around then, so this is what i got off wikipedia, etc). The only major riots lasting more than a day were the toxteth ones (which is in liverpool- not sure how good your british geography is), which lasted 9 days- although I think there were 4 days of major rioting. (to be fair, the brixton riots was sparked by a confusion late on friday night- which is why it all kicked off the next day). 

          However (i may be leaving cities out here), in the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981, Coventry, the St Pauls area (which is actually in Bristol), moss side (manchester), Toxteth (liverpool), Brixton (as well as tottenham I think), leeds, Handsworth (birmingham) all rioted. There were also quite a few riots in 1985- birmingham, brixton, broadwater farm (which is actually in tottenham, and which you’ve probably heard mentioned cos a cop died pretty horribly during that). This wikipedia page also mentions some of the other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_England_riots

          To elaborate on the whole inequality thing. Well, I guess it’s also a lot to with class (which is a bit like race is to america). (I don’t know how much you know about the geography of british cities, particularly of london, so forgive me if I’m patronising). instead of segregating people in suburban ways: i.e. the banlieues in paris, or Watts and districts like compton in LA, segregation of the rich and the poor is don in estates (which are generally tower blocks of council housing)- which often exist in very rich areas. So, for example, I live in chiswick (dunno quite how much I want to give away here), which is an upper middle class area of london, but there is an estate less than a mile form my house, and chiswick is bordered by two relatively poor boroughs- acton and hammersmith (although hammersmith is pretty gentrified by now) (yeah, i know we’re not talking SE london estates, but compared to chiswick). These maps: https://sites.google.com/site/londonstreetgangs/home/gang-maps give a pretty good representation of where the estates are in london. Yeah, some areas like kensington and the city of london don’t have any estates (although, even in westminster they have some tough estates (and some gangs, which I’ll get onto)), but almost every single area of london has estates (and the worst rioting areas generally have the most). Yes, some of people caught are middle class, but the vast majority are working class (or underclass if you prefer), and who’s more likely to get caught by the police: a kid from a SE london estate or a public schoolgirl? (It’s also worth pointing out that the few people getting prosecuted for burning cars or buildings, or throwing stones at the police, are almost all young and from estates.)
          I’ll get onto gangs in a sec, but the issues of gentrification are pretty important to deal with. I was kinda baffled when people started mentioning how rioters in brixton or hackney were “trashing their own community”. Anyone who’s been to brixton knows that the “community” there is not that of the estates. Yeah, you see quite a few young kids in hoods wandering about, but the shops are mainly middle class. In fact, a couple of friends of my parents (yeah, i’m a teenager…. ) live in brixton- they’re a middle class, yuppie, oxford educated, liberal married couple with two kids, and there are many more like them in brixton, and in hackney. They, as one resident of hackney said on the radio, “have invaded the community”. The community that existed at the time of the brixton riots have been gentrified and yuppified. Brixton is now filled with a lot of middle class shops and chains. There’s quite a good post on the LRB about this very subject: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/08/09/james-meek/in-broadway-market/ and a video with an non-middle class hackney resident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4 . There’s also an interesting video with tottenham residents here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISSSVbd_F0g&feature=feedf . It’s worth pointing out that I have seen interviews with estate residents who condemn the riots, and quite a few independent and working class shops have been hit (tho these are in the minority). I would also suggest that there is a difference between the working class and the underclass or members of estates. However, I also heard an BBC five live report (Which is a pretty working class station), where the presenter mentioned that she could only find two kids (who were brothers) to condemn the riots. (there’s also a couple of reuters articles on the subject: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-unrest-youth-idUKTRE7783G720110809
          http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809 ) (Obviously I don’t think that these excuse the riots).

          The gang subject is a pretty important factor as well- or rather the rise of the hoodie/yoof (which is a play on the fact that us yoof can’t pronounce the word). Britain I think is the country with the highest rate of casual violence of any industrial nation (cos we won;t get shot if we punch someone). The gangs here. while they have access to guns, are less about organised crime in the sense of making millions off drugs (most gang members live in s*****y council houses), but more a sense of solidarity with other people- and having fun through the medium of violence (bit like the advanced form of hooliganism). This is why people get stabbed over which postcode they live in- cos it’s the violence that gives people something to do rather than just caring about which postcode they live in. It’s this casual violence which has helped to fuel the riots and the the gangs- people have nothing to do on a monday night in the school holidays, so why not riot?

          This basically created the hoodie culture (which has been around since blair got in I guess). This combination of violence cos people have nothing to do (the percentage of young people in full time employment is about 55%), and the fact that people from estates, etc don’t have any link at all with their “high street” is what created this anti social society. Policing is also a big problem with black/ ethnic/ young people (really doesn’t help), and while the police are better than the 1980s, having come up against a TSG thug (riot police), who pushed around and acted all hard against my thin jewish friend while parliament square kicked off last december, I myself find it hard to summon sympathy for the TSG and riot police when I see them running away, since lots of police (Not all) act tough when they have power. Lots of young people may not feel the same way as me (and that doesn’t necessarily mean I like the rioters: I don’t really like either side), but quite a few do (as shown last week).

          (at the beginning of the 1981 brixton riots, cops were grinning as they roughly arrested the first guy for no reason, cos they could enjoy the ensuing punch up- but not so much after they’d been petrol bombed. I gotta feel, looking at those kids get blindsided in that youtube video from salford, that the police really haven’t learnt their lesson, especially as lots of gangs in south london aren’t going to have a problem shooting the police)

          I know I’m generalising, but since you’re american, you’ll probably hate these guys politics (previous shows have been on anarcho-syndicalism and the autonomia in italy), but it’s worth suffering through it, since they go over quite a few of the causes of the riots in a… not quite sympathetic way, but not in the clueless bbc “but why are they rioting if the ipcc are investigating this” way. (actually, since you’re american, you may have to stop it quite a bit to look up phrases and stuff): http://soundcloud.com/guydemaupassant/novara-tuesday-9th-august-2011 (and yes, i know one of them’s called pierce peniless)

          The original article tho is kinda stupid, since american riots tend not to last very long, and you’re able stand inequality and neoliberal measures that would have led to insurrections in most european countries. 

        • [catgrin]

          Here’s an interactive map of all the locations where incidents have occurred:

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

          On the same page, there’s an animation that shows that the largest cities were hit first (London, Birmingham, and Liverpool) with smaller, more-affluent areas getting sucked in as mob mentality hit. The animation also shows more volume and duration of violence in areas of higher population. If you correlate with a crime map (or a real estate map) for any city it will show you that the greatest density of activity is in areas where poverty is highest, population is most dense, and crime is most common. That should help you get a better picture of the action.

          “Well-to-do” teens are not a group that wholly misunderstands “inequality.” Teens in general perceive themselves as adults, because they’re sexually mature and often work, and yet have fewer rights. (For example, they can’t vote.) It’s not surprising they’d participate, even if for them it’s more of a kind of violent tantrum or only half real. I’m not saying they all understand all the politics. I’m saying they feel and agree with the emotion, and teens are particularly prone to join groups.

          Why you think teachers are not affected is another question altogether. Even here in America, teachers are underpaid and overworked. In the U.K., the central government controls teachers’ salaries and benefits. Just like the union battles we’re having in America, teachers have been fighting changes to pensions and retirement age in the U.K. Strikes occurred in late June, so is it really so surprising that some joined riots in August? http://socyberty.com/politics/scale-strike-in-the-uk-over-600000-people-protest-against-the-pension/

          “Mob mentality” may give people the excuse they need to pop their emotional cork, but they won’t act out if there’s nothing wrong in the first place. In my eyes at least, “Inequality” is a simpler way of saying, “In the case of riots, there is a state of inequality that is in-repairable through the usual channels of political or social change.” It’s a state of inequality that the person on top knows about and refuses to change, and in doing so is perceived as misusing their power. It’s when the balance seems too akimbo that people get reactionary.

      • [catgrin]

        I’m a SoCal native, and have lived through various problems including corruption scandals here with our own police force. In the eighties, L.A. and O.C. cops were a violent bunch who’d hit first and ask questions later. When I was a teen, back in the mid-eighties, the city I was living in adopted a 10 p.m. curfew. Result: Out at a donut shop one Friday night at 10:30, a friend was stopped while walking to his car. He asked the officer detaining him if he could use the pay phone five steps away to call his mom. Then he misunderstood the dismissive grunt as a “whatever” (because that’s how his own father would have answered) and was clubbed in the back of the head when he stood up and walked into the booth (where would he run to?). I watched the whole thing happen with the rest of the group from inside the store. He was skinny, short, sixteen and knocked out cold. The only reason he got stopped in the first place was because he “looked young.”

        I agree with the idea that riots are a response to inequality. That’s why I also agree with Dave Allen’s statements. To ignore the parallels between two countries or two policies is begging for the same results. There is every reason to believe that the end goal of the policies that the Tea Party is instituting is political and social disruption. Plenty of pundits have suggested this, and it goes hand-in-hand with their non-voting tactics used to shut down all government action.  

        Here in the U.S. we’re already in a terrible economic climate. The majority of the population have made their desires clear, and economists back the validity of those desires as the best option to solve our economic and employment crisis. It’s getting really nerve wracking that a group of extremists with historically-proven bad ideas has taken over one side of an already right-shifted aisle.

        • [Guy Reading]

          I think there are also some pretty huge differences though. While lots of race riots were motivated by poverty, americans have been able to stand unbelievable levels of poverty, injustice and inequality. I think the effects of inequality are heightened by the impacts of class consciousness (like how racial consciousness was a contributing factor to the LA riots). Only england and france have the same feelings of class consciousness (the french are admittedly, less up on, which is why race plays a larger role in the banlieues rioting). Look, at most turns, we are alerted by the media to the fact that most MPs are upper or upper middle class, we take much larger exception to our cabinet being made up of millionaires and a huge fact has been made of the fact that MPs have been on holiday while poorer people are either rioting or feeling the effects of the riots. Britain is obsessed with class and inequality on both sides of the political spectrum- look at the constant denigration of public sector workers on the right.

          Fundamentally, riots are much less likely in america (guns), and the only things that have caused them are heavy handed policing (seattle 1999 (although whether a few smashed windows is a riot?)) and race. Class issues are sometimes brought up, but never elaborated on- for example, class comes up in fight club (which isn’t very representative i guess), but it’s never mentioned by name. 

          I really feel for you americans, but given that you’ve withstood some mind boggling levels of police brutality, poverty, inequality and injustice (ok, perhaps stonewall and that gay rioting about harvey milk in SF cancels that out) without either major riots (except the LA and cinncinati riots) or major protest movements (someone pointed out that the two recent major protests in washington have both been organsed by tv comedians- the rally for sanity, and that neo-nazi scumbag fest that glenn beck put on (i’m just joking before I get a ton of hate mail)). The thing is, we’re expecting really bad rioting over the austerity measures in a couple of years (no yoof clubs, no housing benefit, lower unemployment benefit, no jobs.) Thing is that you’ve been living it for the last 50 years. I mean, for gods sake, we were rioting in december over making tuition fees £9000 a year, and worrying how debts of £36,000+ will affect students lives, especially as they won’t be able to get jobs. Students in america rack up at least $100k in debt for non-oxbridge qualifications, and some hit $200k. However, dare to propose abortion and you’ll find nutters firebombing and shooting abortion clinics across the country. America is one f***ed up place.

        • [catgrin]

          America’s biggest problem is simply that it’s physically big. That combined with strong state identities allows people to have an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality about other states. They think of them like other countries, and for good reason. Basically, we’re a country with states the size of European countries (France and Texas are about the same size), and very different social and political ideals running throughout. Meanwhile, we’re trying to operate under a central government like a much smaller, more cohesive system, when we’re on the scale of the EU.

          It’s a skewed self-perception by our general population that allows our government to behave the way it does. “America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” is a concept that we’re taught to believe in from a very young age.

          Are you familiar with the Schoolhouse Rock educational cartoons?Here’s “No More Kings” which gives a very simplified (and in some ways very misleading) description of the events leading up and including the Revolutionary War. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7266360872513258185#docid=3888635757587611909 

          At the end you can hear voices declare, “We’re gonna run things our way!” and “Nobody’s gonna tell us what to do!” There’s an illusion of freedom that comes with living in America, and it takes a lot of injustice to counteract the belief that you’re a willing participant. We’re told all the time about how “free” we are, even comparatively how much more “free” we are than people living in other places. (Which is the excuse we’re given for our intrusions into other countries’ internal conflicts. We’re told that we are defending people who are not being represented fairly in their search for freedom and equal rights.) Unfortunately, the average American doesn’t bother to experience those other places. In 2005, The Economist stated that only 34% of Americans owned passports. With an ocean to cross, it’s expensive to travel to truly foreign places, and most Americans are far from wealthy. 

          Even without travel, people could choose talk to each other when they meet, but they don’t. Earlier this year I rented in an off-campus housing apartment for a month while visiting the midwest. While there I met two grad students and their wives who were staying in my building. After finding out they were Egyptian transfer students I asked if they knew if their families were okay. They were shocked. I was the first person they’d met who’d asked, and I’d met them after the fighting was over. It turned out one couple had two children that had been evacuated to the UAE, but not one person they knew in America had thought to ask after them.

          I don’t disagree at all. America IS one f**ked up place.

  • [Dave Jacoby]

    There have been several points where the Democrats have promised spending decreases over time in exchange for Republicans raising taxes now, and the taxes were raised (and used, politically, against Republicans) while the promised spending decreases never did. Sounds like a strong reason to never accept a tax increase.

    • [catgrin]

      I didn’t say I back new taxes. I said the Tea Party refuses, “not only to create new taxes on the wealthy” but also refuses to “dissolve long-standing exemptions.”  I back stronger tax enforcement and getting rid of tax breaks for those earning over $250k and corporations. What I posted in addition to that was current public opinion, which is being ignored by D.C. The problem with ignoring it is that we live in a country supposedly run by the people and for the people. 

      By the way, you simply can’t “never accept a tax increase.” It’s an impossibility. Revenue is produced through taxation, and must grow as infrastructure and population grows. Taxation is only an evil thing when it’s done without representation – when the government takes your funds and then plays with them without listening to you…. oh, wait…

• [Guest]

  ah, wonderful.  Vote (engage in the democratic process) for the Tea Party and expect (threat) riots (the anti-democratic political process) in return.