I like this challenge. A great opportunity to wriggle around personal hypocrisy and face the reality of dealing with real shit when it hits the fan.
Coming from a broadly ZenStalinist perspective I would like to try to rationalise a form of libertarian anarcho authoritarianism coherently. Generally speaking these Daily Mail “grass a rioter” type things don’t appeal to me. But that’s usually because it is some young middle class type who even if I think they may be a twat does not really represent a threat to me and in some round about way I may be sympathetic with where they are coming from even if lobbing a lump of concrete at a cop might not be the most constructive or intelligent way of furthering the point. Then again sometimes there are certain activities which are considered crimes of the highest magnitude by the state where no expense is spared to try to track down and identify the culprits but I would see the “criminals” are anything but. With something of a working/middle class protestant work ethic up bringing I seem to have an inbuilt revulsion towards looting helped by the fact that I have always been comfortable enough to feel I have what I need (even if that does not include many of they flashy things which seem to be considered desirable and essential to most of the population). Probably the closest I have got to proper looting or handling stolen goods is i] taking small mementos from derelict buildings ii] being the beneficiary of bootleg recordings of Jesus & Mary Chain, Siouxise & the Banchees LPs etc shoplifted by school friends with more nerve/fewer religiously ingrained moral scruples than me iii] buying a locomotive number plate off a couple of Polish rail workers that I’m not entirely sure (on proper reflection) they were probably entitled to sell to me (and which subsequently I unfortunately seem to have misplaced). Not really appreciating the desperate desire to own what you can’t afford, or can afford but are happier to take for free, I can’t get into the mind of a looter. But from what I could put together there was some serious organised looting going on by organised professional criminals & gangsters and a lot of opportunistic scavenging under the cover of general disorder. I am sure there of people of all means who would help themselves to a giant flat screen TV just an arms reach away through a broken shop window. Personally I couldn't be bothered to carry it and would not want to then have to buy a TV licence. Capitalism / consumerism depend on creating endless want, greed and scarcity as well as making it clear to people that if they don’t have item X or brand Y then they are not a complete person. Therefore it is probably not surprising that those without the means to obtain what they “should” have, or who can’t be arsed to obtain it through the approved channels, will attempt to obtain what they “should” have through other means.
The violence of capitalism is now quite cunningly and effectively concealed having been partly exported. It isn’t really that different from the smoke and mirrors of much of the former Soviet Bloc which liked to present an image of a happy worker and peasant paradise in which everything was for and of the people, who all loved the Party and supported it 99.9% (or in the case of Albania approved Hoxa 119%). All property was the peoples, democratic government was by the people etc etc. Everyone knew the reality behind the veneer but it sort of worked and if it had been able to deliver consumer goods at Western levels may well have survived and fared better than it did. The real cost and violence of our consumption (social/environmental) is nicely hidden in a 21st Century acceptable Maoist Capitalism and associated S.E.Asian sweat shops and social disintegration (not necessarily, I think, deprivation) which is kettled and glossed over and around. But if the myth of the success of Soviet style state “socialism” was just that, then the happy smiling face of capitalism represented by those of us who feel reasonably content and comfortable with their lot and the advertisers whose job it is to remind us how much more comfortable we could be by acquiring more are little different because “IT” is not working for all and “IT” never, and can never, will pretty much by definition (never mind finite resources and toxic waste).
Ten years ago I was still quite personally deluded by the scope for humanity to change and to reform itself. Having been quite heavily involved in leftist/anarchist politics and being pretty much in that scene I had a false sense of what might be possible as I still did not really have a proper and realistic appreciation of life in the “real” world out there and “real” peoples lives - both the disenfranchised, the conservative well to do and the mass conservative working class (although the latter I suppose I knew the views of reasonably well having worked with many). Broadly speaking I think none of these groups (who I believe make up the bulk of the population) have any interest or desire to see radical change in society of the type proposed by the idealistic.
Personally I got fed up with the people, the petty squabbling, and what I saw as the lack or realism in the demands, manifestos or campaigns by most leftist groups. Also by the authoritarianism of the supposedly anti-authoritarian. I firmly believe that while capitalism stinks it exists because it works (by it works I don’t mean that it is either positive or that it works efficiently or in a particularly socially beneficial way or is anything like the idealised models presented by Marx or Smith) and it works because it matches our low evolutionary mental capacity as a species. Our base instincts remain those of the other species we share the planet with - cooperation where this makes mutual sense for survival but also a violent struggle for dominance between and within our species where conflict is as natural (under the right conditions) as the desire for sex. If we had truly broken away from our true roots as one branch of an evolutionary species struggling against other species and environmental factors to reproduce and survive, if we no longer had those biologically programmed survivalist instincts and were comfortable and unthreatened with ourselves as some sort of post-homosapien then we’d probably already be living in some weird post consumer anarcho/libertarian/commie paradise. As it is I think we could overthrow the state ad nauseum and we’d never leave Orwell's Animal Farm.
As for the use of violence by the state on my behalf I’d be digging out my social contract. If I was living in the thick of it and there was a bunch of gangsters doing gangster stuff (like trying to set my house on fire or break in using an axe) I don’t think I’d be in favour of rubber bullets. I’d probably be more in favour of live ammunition used fatally. We pay to be policed, to be controlled, we might profess not like it, or the way it is done, but hey at the end of the day the state says that in return for giving up our “right” to arms (which gives the state a measure of security from disgruntled us) it will protect us (as well as giving us a beating if we look like threatening the Levithan ourselves - but that is basically the deal with any state system) and charge us for doing so. Given that I am a pretty pathetic fighter and don’t fancy my chances against one anti-social element even an unarmed one, nor do I like the idea of being caught up in a spiral of personal retribution, I’d prefer a body who I pay to keep me safe to take the risk and responsibility it has said it will. Although if I was Kurdish I would probably be pretty content that self organised defence could be equally effective and would provide a fairly credible deterrent. The main thing that bothers me is that inevitably you will get miscarriages of justice (although at risk of sounding even more like a Daily Mail leader writer I think these occur in both directions) and people getting shot who shouldn’t be, but that is the nature of war, it’s dirty and you get blood on your hands. It is our luxury to be able to sit in our equally reasonably secure ivory towers and philosophise over all this. Anyone who does not like the state and decides to fight it at whatever level has to understand that the state will probably react and may act illegally or disproportionately but the chances are the majority will either sympathise with the state or just not give a damn one way or the other. The chances are the state will also generally fear an organised intellectually grounded war of position more than it does an unruly rabble and gangster society that destroys social solidarity and mutual aid and is based on base violence (as long as that does not come to threaten wider society in a serious way). So both are likely to be met at different stages in the perceived threat they represent but with similar counter measures and seriousness. The positionists are more likely to be dealt with harshly by the legal system as they are likely to be more responsive to sanctions.
Any new laws, emergency legislation, exceptional measures will inevitably become normalised in the same way that the interpretation of “anti-terror”, stalking and public gathering legislation has been. I believe this legislation has generally been more heavily used and more effectively used against the generally “law abiding” but protest/change minority than those against whom it was supposedly brought in to control. Once public order policing includes a new arsenal of equipment for the police to use I imagine the willingness to use it would follow the same patten as it did in Northern Ireland (why have it if you don’t use it). I don’t think that the weapons available are a deterrent, they just change the nature of any conflict and raise the stakes. Although this is double edged. I know there are those living in their own little worlds where the revolution is just waiting to happen (if the conditions can be made right) who would welcome paramilitary policing as a sign that the state was loosing control and would welcome increased paramilitary policing as contributing to increased tension, conflict and the fuel for revolution. Then there are those on the liberal and or (thinking) conservative right who oppose militarised policing for the same reasons.
And social media? Anyone who uses social media to organise “naughtiness” must be aware that it will be monitored. Social media is part of the new - but pretty delusional - battle ground and is used by all sides but ultimately (no matter how clever Anonymous etc are) it belongs to the state, it is their asset for us to play with while we are allowed and to the extent that we are allowed. Personally I think that the freer and less controlled it is in a sense the better for the thinking state it is “They” can see what they want, know what we are thinking and to an extent it provides a safety valve off the streets for people to engage in electronic naughtiness rather than ramming the gates of Downing Street thinking it is going to change the world.
It’s not at all all down to social deprivation either in my humble opinion (although deprivation is certainly a factor in creating social conditions favourable to social breakdown). It strikes me as a little odd that many of those who are theoretically anti-state (and I’m sure I’m as guilty here) spend so much effort blaming the state for the way things are and demanding that the state solve the problem differently as if it had some panacea up its sleeve. I think there is a reluctance by us all to take personal responsibility for our actions and for looking after our own welfare. Now, I’m sure that the Welfare State was seen by those who proposed it as a great social good. However, there were equally those (especially on the thinking right) who saw it as a social tool which could help to undermine mutual aid and social solidarity and release the pressure for more revolutionary social change. Based on my pessimistic opinion that no state, or none state, system us semi-evolved simians (no offence to simians who are perfectly evolved for their societal needs) were to develop is likely to be any better than what we have (especially one emerging fresh from the smouldering ruins of the current world system) I still tend to think having the Welfare State (with all its faults) has been better than not doing (although I’d be curious to have seen what would have happened socially without it by now). I also think that an economic system in which wealth is more equally distributed (and I don't mean as welfare payments) and in which meaningful employment for a living wage is a genuine aim are polices that are beneficial to society as a whole and are a form of security assurance for all worth the cost (although the invisible economic terrorists in their glass towers would probably beg to differ).
However, while I think that a “good” society can assist with the replication of people who feel better about themselves and who are more able to feel empathy for their fellow “man” it does not change the basic evolutionary brain make up of homo-sapien which is still in survivalist hunter gatherer mode while social organisation and technology have got a million year head start on biology.
Onto the question of the gangster kids. I can accept that they are the product of certain social conditions. Based on my limited experience in one particular area I would also argue that just because they are violent, lacking in social skills and generally unpleasant they are not all necessarily from particularly deprived backgrounds. There are still a good number of children/teens growing up in real deprivation who are peaceful, have ample social skills and are surprisingly pleasant. I am sure there are those who would argue that this lack of anger and rebellion is actually a sign of weakness and a lack of unconscious revolutionary zeal. However, some of the young who come from deprived backgrounds yet receive the love and support that others from equally deprived or much better off back grounds don’t, manage to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and are much better for it. There is a lot of pressure on children/teens to be bad. I went to a particularly unpleasant Comprehensive school in the 80’s where violence and bullying were commonplace (perhaps not to the levels of today but bad enough) and where my resistance to being part of that was punk and Goth (rather than becoming part of the Ben Sherman, Lacosste[?] elite). The dealers of violence were not all deprived kids by any means, some went on to become bankers where I’m sure the violence they learned and practised at school came in very handy. It should not be for the state to take responsibility for parenting. However, I do not see why parents should not be held responsible for their off-spring. It is not unreasonable (I suppose) that the state should provide support for parents (decent accessible childcare facilities so parents can go to work and pay their bills). I also think that a lot of these lost kids can be changed if they are taken out of the environment in which they have come to exist in a Lord of the Flies on crack and given pretty intensive support (a lot of work I’m sure but probably cheaper and no less futile than trying to build Western style “civilisation” in Afghanistan). But the other angle (and I’m sure this will get me plenty of hate mail on top of what’s gone before) is the whole population thing. Now the more people you ram into an over crowded space without facilities to satisfy all and space to call their own the greater the scope for conflict, violence and exploitation. Urban living is stressful. bringing up kids drives people mad and ages them prematurely, especially in urban settings and confined spaces. Personally I would love to see a zero child policy. However, I know some people would find this a little draconian so I’d be prepared to settle for a one child policy. It would work like this. Now part of me would just like to scrap Child Benefit but I recognise that there are probably good parents who could really use the benefit to give their one child the best start in life, so OK the one child gets benefit - but the biological father gets a vasectomy (OK, being a softy I’d perhaps let him wack a tube of sperm into the deep freeze just in case child one meets a bus unfavourably). Mother has a second child then no child benefit and she has to pay a carbon footprint tax for child number two based on the environmental damage that child is going to inflict on the planet over its life time. So basically it’s not stopping people from reproducing, it is just requiring that they can support the full cost of their actions. I would also favour the introduction of National Insurance related incentives for teens and post teens not to become fathers / mothers in their twenties together with proper sex education, good scare films about the misery of premature parenthood and positive propaganda about how you can enjoy early adult life more without the patter of tiny feet and stinking Pampers. And yes I am deadly serious. Reproduction is bad for the planet and very bad for humanity.
As for the question about shop a looter. It could be seen as all very Big Brother but it’s just another aspect of the way things are going. For those living in shit estates being terrorised by thugs who don’t give a shit though the opportunity to safely shop a few of those who are making their lives a misery must be great. I’ve come across families in Haringey who have put up with all sorts of harassment from gangsters, whose kids have been targeted etc. I think if I was a single parent trying to keep my child out of trouble and I could identify half a dozen miscreants and get them put away I’d probably do it and hope that they didn’t simply become “bad-boy” role models for another generation.
With the post Cold War era we entered a new era of exceptionalism that found its true foundation post 11th September 2011, that one is getting a little tired, the riots should help to usher in a new exception. Of course any measures that are used to police the “exception” will pretty inevitably become the rule. States of Emergency and “exception” set precedents that never really go away and have an impact beyond and more long lasting than the stated cause. However, that is just a part of the inevitable collapse of civilisation and the eventual suicide of capitalism through it’s inherent contradictions. Hopefully it will also be the collapse of homosapien as the dominant species on the plant.
Now please can the proper biologists, sociologists, criminologists, social workers, Marxists, libertarians, anarchists, liberals, security forces, bloggers, looters, gangsters, pundits etc tell me how wrong I am.
