The Prince and the Pauper: On the UK Rebellion and Class Struggle

http://jacobinmag.com/blog/?p=1253

A good article with some intresting points thanks comrade
In my opinon the riots began as an expression of rage in one community with a mixture of angry locals, Anarchists and gang members.The looting was just the chickens comeing home to roost on our consumerist society,They just wanted stuff and as soon as people in other citys saw non whites and cockneys up to it they gave it a go themselves all over the country.

All that damage all those people lives ruined and even some people dead just for stuff.

the rioting was completely uncalled for. it didnt start because people in poor areas were feeling opressed and it wasnt that the youth were angry at the politicians. it was the acts of selfish members of certain communities who took an opportunity to vandalise and steal...this is fact. i live in an area that suffered from some looting and other such degenerate activities and even know some people who were involved. its a shame that there was NO political reasoning behind the riots because it could of been used for something worthwhile.

Read this report comrade (originally posted by coach on another thread) It may help explain the lack of political imput in the 'riots'

http://www.rkob.net/new-english-language-site/report-from-london/

Liverpool_Front_UK wrote:the rioting was completely uncalled for. it didnt start because people in poor areas were feeling opressed and it wasnt that the youth were angry at the politicians. it was the acts of selfish members of certain communities who took an opportunity to vandalise and steal...this is fact. i live in an area that suffered from some looting and other such degenerate activities and even know some people who were involved. its a shame that there was NO political reasoning behind the riots because it could of been used for something worthwhile.

Well said comrade.Asw ive said before ordinary working class peopel have finished blameing the scallys now and are now turning towards the government hypocrits.
The joke among my work mates is whats the diffrence between a stolen TV and a TV stolen through a so called unclear expenses system?
About 18 months lol
I dislike little thievs but I hate the big ones.Hopefully thsi will be spark that will lead us out of this sick system

Opportunistic people took advantage of the situation and there is no doubt in my mind that much of the rioting occurred because of the sheer hype that it was generating. A herd mentality. It is sad that many innocent people were injured and even killed by some of those rioters.

"Everyone on the left has pointed out that the riots in London are rooted in capital’s assault on the working class", they say, and I do understand this, but where was the reaction in ways other than rioting? Do they expect that riots will fully express their message? Do they have a concise, well thought out message to support their actions? One that everyone can understand?

I do believe the uprising itself had political origins. It always does come back to that, and denying this completely is a fatal error. The reason why these riots even occurred was because of the socioeconomic position of those protesting. This position is not presupposed, it exists because of the politicians.

So while I think the situation was taken advantage of, its antecedent was politics, if in a roundabout way.

Read this and consider what could have been done:
http://www.rkob.net/new-english-language-site/august-uprising/

Let me preface this by stating that I've intentionally avoided discussing the issue of the London riots because my knowledge regarding the specific details of the topic is negligible.

With that said, my view is that the riots were clearly a manifestation of the contradictions of capitalism. For example, capitalism naturally engenders a consciousness wherein commodities determine ones rank in the social hierarchy—the more expensive the commodity, the higher ones status is elevated. This is problematic due to the fact a significant percentage of society cannot afford frivolous, bourgeois trinkets. Capitalism offers this class of people two choices, which are to (1) accept their status at the bottom of the hierarchy, or (2) dispossess the wealthy. This cuts across age demographics, since the social status conferred to those able to partake in conspicuous consumption occurs very early in life, and this is pertinent to the London riots since many of the participants were relatively young.

The preponderance of the participants in the riots belonging to the lower classes of society is also important to bear in mind, since teenagers who feel they possess the prospects of a desirable future would rarely risk it so carelessly. In other words, people who feel as though they're stakeholders in society (e.g., the bourgeoisie and the various professional and coordinator classes) typically avoid behavior which threatens their status and/or future, whereas those with nothing or little to lose (e.g., the proletariat and lower classes) will be more inclined to start- and participate in- acts of aggression.

Considering the aforementioned young age of the participants in the riots, I would be hesitant to proclaim there was a political dimension to the London riots which exceeded issues pertaining to conspicuous consumption and stakeholder status. Nevertheless, the Left clearly missed an opportunity to take lead of the riots and bring to them a articulated program for social change.

Celtiberian wrote:Let me preface this by stating that I've intentionally avoided discussing the issue of the London riots because my knowledge regarding the specific details of the topic is negligible.

With that said, my view is that the riots were clearly a manifestation of the contradictions of capitalism. For example, capitalism naturally engenders a consciousness wherein commodities determine ones rank in the social hierarchy—the more expensive the commodity, the higher ones status is elevated. This is problematic due to the fact a significant percentage of society cannot afford frivolous, bourgeois trinkets. Capitalism offers this class of people two choices, which are to (1) accept their status at the bottom of the hierarchy, or (2) dispossess the wealthy. This cuts across age demographics, since the social status conferred to those able to partake in conspicuous consumption occurs very early in life, and this is pertinent to the London riots since many of the participants were relatively young.

The preponderance of the participants in the riots belonging to the lower classes of society is also important to bear in mind, since teenagers who feel they possess the prospects of a desirable future would rarely risk it so carelessly. In other words, people who feel as though they're stakeholders in society (e.g., the bourgeoisie and the various professional and coordinator classes) typically avoid behavior which threatens their status and/or future, whereas those with nothing or little to lose (e.g., the proletariat and lower classes) will be more inclined to start- and participate in- acts of aggression.

Considering the aforementioned young age of the participants in the riots, I would be hesitant to proclaim there was a political dimension to the London riots which exceeded issues pertaining to conspicuous consumption and stakeholder status. Nevertheless, the Left clearly missed an opportunity to take lead of the riots and bring to them a articulated program for social change.

Thank you for articulating my thaughts on the subject

It is true that these 'incidents' could have been ignited because of capitalisms blatant oppression of the working class, however this can only be blamed to a certain extent. I believe that looting took place sheerly for materialistic reasons, people being greedy. And althought i think that it is acceptable for the little man to take something back from society, smashing up shops and disrupting other working class peoples lives is not the way to do it. The way to show your hatred for capitalism isnt by turning on your own people but to unite your communities...a concept that too few people are willing to accept

Liverpool_Front_UK wrote:It is true that these 'incidents' could have been ignited because of capitalisms blatant oppression of the working class, however this can only be blamed to a certain extent. I believe that looting took place sheerly for materialistic reasons, people being greedy. And althought i think that it is acceptable for the little man to take something back from society, smashing up shops and disrupting other working class peoples lives is not the way to do it. The way to show your hatred for capitalism isnt by turning on your own people but to unite your communities...a concept that too few people are willing to accept

Great post mate sums it up very well.

I was just thinking the other day if it was just about disinfanchise of the worker class in the inner cities,How come the mainly Indigenous and run down towns of citys of the north east (Newcastle ect) see the same violence?.