Some on the Left are interpreting the riots in Tottenham and Enfield as a sort of awakening. After the student protests and anti-cuts marches, the underclass has entered the arena, bringing to the television screens of Middle England the realities of life in Britain’s inner cities they had up to now forgotten or ignored.
Indeed, until a few days ago, the only time those rioting would have made it onto television was as comedy material for the sketch writers of Little Britain or as fodder for patronising reality shows.
It is true of course that if governments refuse to distribute wealth it will be done using force. After all, the rich have been "looting" the country for years in the guise of clever accounting, only to be given knighthoods and lionised by the media in the process. When disenfranchised youth do the same, the mainstream predictably sound-off like a Telegraph editorial about “violent thugs” and “feral youth,” ignoring the underlying deprivation at the heart of the matter.
What seems to have passed some by, however, is that disenfranchised youth burning and looting sports gear has far more in common with the "greed is good” mantra than it does with the cooperative control of the means of production; and when the cameras are switched off, it is the lives of the poor which will be blighted by these riots, not the gated communities of Kensington and Chelsea.
What large-scale looting demonstrates is that it is the battle of ideas where the Left is playing catch-up in Britain’s poorest areas. While middle class universities are hotbeds of youth radicalism, for the poor it is often the language of neo-liberalism that motivates. Aspirational rhetoric sounds different on the council estates of Woolwich or Peckham, but it is widespread and accepted all the same. Popular hip-hop music promotes not solidarity, but a desire to escape “the ghetto” – often by any means necessary. “Get rich or die tryin” was how American rapper 50 cent put it; and while “Fiddy” is very much out of fashion these days, the narrative of getting rich at all costs is still conspicuous, to say the least.
If you live in one of the above mentioned areas, the only realistic way to achieve celebrity or get rich – what actually matters if you watch television or turn on the radio – is to “loot” in one way or another. If that means breaking into shops, burning houses or selling drugs then so be it. The difference between this and those who deny funds to services through tax evasion is that when young black men “loot” the BBC will call it "totally unacceptable"; in the case of the former it will be put down to an individual becoming "tax efficient".
What someone does in a business suit however does not become ok simply because it is repeated by a person wearing a tracksuit. Neither is to be celebrated; and unthinkingly doing so does little to help those living in Enfield and Tottenham who aren't rioting, such as the elderly, terrified and barricaded inside their homes. Forgetting such people is one of the luxuries of the academic left, who can at times cling on to trendy terms such as “uprising” and “revolt” in a desire to attach themselves to youth and their attractive and dangerous anger.
In this vein, the riots demonstrate not only the consequences of the rampant free market, but the retreat of the Left from the council estate to the ivory tower.
This is moralising bollocks. Every time there's a riot, there's looting. Whether it's Sixties US, Eighties UK, Nineties US, or 10s UK, where there are riots, there is looting. It has never had anything to do with 'consumerism', unless 'consumerism' merely means 'poor people want what others have' - in other words, it means a hunger for justice, equality and inclusion. Yet today, relatively comfortable, reasonably well dressed and fed people who consider themselves to be on the Left feel comfortable using their laptops, iPhones, Blackberries, iPads, Androids etc. to log on to Twitter, Facebook or Blogger and complain about the selfish materialism of rioters.
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteAs you are well aware, we live in a society where getting rich and/or attaining celebrity status is considered all that matters. Pointing out that the theft of plasma televisions might be influenced by the values of bourgeois society is not "moralising bollocks", as you put it, but simply an acknowledgement of the obvious: that the ideology of society's dominant group often feeds down to the very bottom of society. The main difference being of course that the so-called "underclass" do not have the legal channels through which to pursue wealth - or indeed aqcuire plasma television sets.
Pointing out that it might be somewhat selfish to burn down a block of flats above a shop in order to steal a plasma television is not an indictment of the poor, but an indicment of capitalism itself, which drags the poor, along with the bourgeoisie, into the value system of the dominant class - especially so at a time when the left is as weak as it currently is.
The poor of course want what the rich have, as is only natural; but pointing out that adopting the methods of the bourgeoisie - i.e. getting rich at any cost - is related in some respects to modern capitalism is in no sense "moralising".