Saturday, September 17, 2011

Riotous Nonsense by Harry Powell

Democracy and Class Struggle publishes this contribution to the debate on the recent Uprising in Britain. This contribution takes a different view from other contributors and is the view of Harry Powell and not Democracy and Class Struggle.

A great deal has been written about the recent urban disturbances in Britain and a lot of it is nonsense.

For example, Robert Borba of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA wrote: "… what is taking place on Britain’s streets is a revolt against an oppressive state apparatus that is enforcing an unjust society, an apparatus that has lost much of its legitimacy in the eyes of millions. It is a revolt against state-backed racism … . It is refusal by hundreds of thousands of youth to accept a world where they are destitute, with no jobs and no future." The general idea being put forward here, and by some others, is that the disturbances were a widespread, conscious revolt against the capitalist system. I do not think that the evidence supports this assertion.

The incident that sparked off the rioting was the police shooting Mark Duggan in Tottenham, North London on 4th. August. After an unsatisfactory response from the police to their enquiries the family and friends of Duggan held a protest outside a police station. This attracted other people and developed into more general disorder involving fighting with the police, damage to buildings and looting from shops. This sort of disorder spread to other areas of London and outside in cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham. Just as suddenly as these outbursts had begun, they came to an abrupt end on 10th. August when the weather turned wet. As someone commented, "I don’t recollect that the Russian Revolution came to a sudden halt when the weather turned bad."

Chairman Mao said, "No investigation, no right to speak." The present writer does not claim to be some sort of expert on urban disturbances but for forty years in Nottingham I have lived in and near the localities where such outbursts have occurred, both past and present. I have carried out political work in these areas, particularly anti-racist, anti-poll tax, anti-war and anti-voting campaigning. Thus I have some first hand experiences I can draw upon in assessing the reports and analyses of other people.

For the most part the riots occurred in urban areas where there is much unemployment and underemployment, large numbers of ethnic minorities, poor housing and limited social facilities. It is the young people in these areas, particularly black ones, who have high rates of unemployment and very limited opportunities. The class composition is largely working class (proletarian) with some middle strata elements such as small shopkeepers and business proprietors (petit bourgeois) and gentrified enclaves of more affluent business and professional people (manageriat).


One interpretation is that the disturbances were at least partly a reaction by black youth against the discriminately racist treatment of them by the police. In particular the prevalence of ‘stop and search’ operations by the Metropolitan Police in London is seen as generating resentment on the part of black youth. Mark Duggan was black and the police shooting him certainly sparked off the disturbances. However, from the incomplete picture we have of the circumstances of the killing it does seem that Duggan was carrying a gun. In Britain, unlike America, very few people habitually carry handguns and most of those who do so are criminals. The fact of the matter is that knife and gun crime carried out by young people is a serious problem in many British cities, especially London. The police have been criticised, not least by people living in the affected areas, for not doing enough to contain and reduce such crime. (In the Meadows area of Nottingham some years ago the residents were fearful of armed gangs of drugs dealers and demanded that the police institute regular patrols of armed officers.) This is a major reason for police stop and search operations. True, black youth are disproportionately targeted, not always sensitively handled and many perfectly innocent young people caught up in such operations come to feel victimized and resentful towards the police.

Borba and others highlight the racist attitudes and behaviour of the police. Certainly the police are far from being free of racism as they are drawn from the wider society in which racist attitudes are still widespread. Thus some of the police are racists but not all of them. There were similar urban disturbances in Britain in 1981 and in subsequent years. Then almost certainly the main factor was resentment by black and Asian people against racist treatment by the police. As a result much action has occurred within the police forces to try to combat their racism and in my view with some success. Even so there are still many instances of police racism. It is also the case that the Metropolitan Police have seriously bungled operations leading to the deaths of innocent people as in the cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson. It is hardly surprising that many young people, especially in London, treat the police with suspicion.

But it does not necessarily follow that all the black and Asian people participating in the riots were protesting about racist police. Back in 1981 in Hyson Green Nottingham I witnessed a group of mainly black people laying siege to the local police station. At the same time around the corner other people, many of them black, were busy looting the local shops. The former group were probably motivated by resentment of police racism while the latter group were clearly simply out for personal material gain. Back in August in Nottingham several police stations were attacked. An acquaintance lives near one of the targets. She saw a gang of black youth come up her street, on their way to attack the police station, and as they proceeded they trashed every car parked in the street. These belonged to the residents, predominantly council tenants, mostly on lower incomes. (My acquaintance’s car was so badly damaged that it was written off by the insurance company.) It is not plausible to try to explain this incident as a protest against police racism.

It is easy to see why the family and friends of Mark Duggan were upset by the police’s insensitive handling of that case and why some other people interpreted this as a case of police racism. But this is hardly an adequate explanation of the widespread disturbances that occurred in many parts of Britain.


Of course, by no means all of those active in the recent disturbances were black and Asian. Many "white" people were actively involved and arrested, especially young ones. Some people, such as Robert Borba, claim that it is the lack of opportunities for young people, of all ethnic groups, in these deprived areas which explains the riots: "It is refusal by hundreds of thousands of youth to accept a world where they are destitute, with no jobs and no future."

It is objectively true that in these areas there are limited educational and employment opportunities for young people. Many of them are demoralized and bored and some of them drift into gangs and criminal activities. Many do hold a vague resentment against the system which degrades them. However this hardly constitutes a definite class political consciousness in the Marxist sense. Having tried to politically engage with such young people, my impression is that most of them have no real conception of who are their rulers and why they are in a disadvantaged position in this society. Indeed many of them at least partly embrace the media’s definition of them as inadequate and undeserving in various ways. Many admire rich people such as footballers.

The Coalition Government elected in May 2010 has been introducing a draconian programme of cuts in public spending so as to pay off the massive government deficit brought about by the need to bail out the banks three years ago. These include cuts in welfare benefits, support for disadvantaged people, spending on education and training etc.. These will particularly impact on the deprived area where the riots occurred. Some people suggest that this is a cause of the August disturbances but this is not very plausible because the cuts have not yet really begun to have a serious impact.

It is hardly surprising that some of these people should seize upon an opportunity to relieve the monotony and boredom of their lives by going on the rampage. Also we live in a capitalist society where there is constant pressure to acquire material possessions beyond the means of unemployed youth. Here was an opportunity to grab some goodies such as flat screen televisions, laptops, ipods, etc. for free. Even so, it is unlikely that those doing the looting saw themselves as taking their revenge upon the bourgeoisie, as "expropriating the expropriators". Given the temporary breakdown of civil order an unexpected opportunity arose. It was just sheer opportunism.


As people arrested appeared before the courts it became clear that they were not all poor and oppressed. Many of the rioters were in education and employment, some in well-paid jobs. They are not in serious poverty nor are they lacking opportunities. So why did they get caught up in the disturbances?

There is nothing new about sudden, spontaneous outbreaks of civil disorder in modern Western societies, especially involving young people. Back in the nineteen fifties and sixties there were many cases of "youth disturbances" in countries such as Britain and Germany. A well-known example was the Mods and Rockers disturbances in Britain in 1964. (See the film ‘Quadrophenia’) Rival groups of teenagers congregated in seaside resorts on holiday weekends engaging in rowdy behaviour and a certain amount of violence and vandalism, probably somewhat amplified by the attention it received from the media. This was a period of full employment and rising living standards, especially for young people. These rioters could afford motorbikes, scooters and expensive trendy clothes. Some commentators tried to interpret their behaviour as a youth protest against the system but it was not plausible. The disturbances stopped just as suddenly as they had begun. Another example is the soccer hooliganism present in Britain during the nineteen seventies and eighties. Again, attempts to explain it in terms of class conflict are not very convincing.

The fact of the matter is that spontaneous civil disorder, on a small or large scale, has been a recurrent feature of modern capitalism. Quite often the initial "spark" which gets it going remains unclear. In certain circumstances people who are normally law-abiding can get caught up in the excitement and do things which they would not normally do. A case known to me in Nottingham was a young man, an apprentice electrician, who during the 1981 riots found himself in the thick of it, picked up a stone, threw it at a shop window, got arrested, convicted and fined in court. He had never been in trouble with the law before and has not been so since that time. In the recent disturbances it seems that many of those rioting were engaging in this sort of impulsive, spontaneous behaviour.

A lot of the riotous behaviour was not to obtain desirable consumer goods but simply to destroy property. The proprietor of a shop in Manchester selling expensive Bang und Olufsen hifi equipment was somewhat put out because the rioters did not steal his goods but simply destroyed them. It might be claimed that the culprits were somewhat inarticulately expressing their resentment at the rich who could afford such luxuries. However a lot of the damage in the riots was inflicted on small local businesses and cars parked in the streets. The victims were not multinational corporations but local residents. Some of these business will not reopen and this will further economically depress these already deprived areas. In Dalston, East London where many Turkish and Kurdish comrades live, people mobilized to defend the local shops against the rioters. I hope that the Turkish and Kurdish Maoists who live there participated in this defensive action.

The truth is that in the right circumstances most of us are capable of getting caught up in riotous, anti-social behaviour. The ruling class are no exception. Consider the hooligan behaviour of people such as David Cameron and Boris Johnson during their student days in the Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. This sort of spontaneous release of normal constraints on personal behaviour is not a revolt against the system.


It is undoubtedly true that capitalism spits out people at the bottom of society. Its economic contradictions operate such that a section of the proletariat are relatively lowly paid, regularly unemployed and underemployed, have poor standard housing and live in areas with limited social facilities. These people are the lower sections of the working class and it was only during the thirty year economic boom following World War ll that their numbers proportionately diminished. Both before and after this period they have constituted a significant minority of the population in Britain who are now disproportionately drawn from non-white ethnic minority groups.

Given the lack of legitimate opportunities for personal improvement, it is hardly surprising that some of these people become involved in crime, both against property and persons This is the lumpenproletariat, criminal and anti-social elements which prey off other people living in the same area. These are the burglars, muggers, pimps, drug dealers and street gangs who often make their neighbours’ lives a misery. Yes, I know that these are people whose behaviour largely results from their class position at the bottom of capitalist society just as surely as the behaviour of swindling financiers is determined by their position at the top of capitalist society. None the less, the great majority of people living in these areas for very good reasons regard the lumpen elements as an enemy.

The victims of these crimes are mostly people living in the same areas and not middle strata and bourgeois elements who live elsewhere. There is rivalry among the criminal gangs involved in these activities and they usually arm themselves with knives and guns. The macho gang culture so generated in these areas spreads among local young people who are not necessarily directly involved in criminal activity. It is difficult for children growing up in such areas not to be influenced, They engage in much anti-social activity to the distress of other local residents. Injuries and deaths caused by the use of weapons by rival gangs are quite common. Some years ago at the school at the top of my street two criminals involved in a car chase pulled into the school forecourt and proceeded to shoot guns at each other. A bullet lodged in the windscreen of a coach waiting to transport some of the pupils.

For twelve years I lived in the St. Ann’s area of Nottingham, an inner city area largely consisting of council housing with high levels of unemployment and many black and Asian residents. My house was burgled on three occasions and I had to install window bars, toughened glass panes, a burglar alarm and security lights. Anything left outside in the garden, however trivial, would be stolen. My experience was typical throughout the area. Cars parked in the streets were broken into in broad daylight and people passing who dared to remonstrate with the thieves were threatened, often with knives. An acquaintance of mine was confronted by muggers who then beat him up because he had no money. The victim spent many weeks in hospital recovering from his injuries. The criminals committing these acts lived locally. Prostitutes were soliciting on the street outside my house. Many of these women were being run by pimps and many of them needed the money to feed their hard drugs addiction. The pimps and drug dealers lived in the area and when they fell out with each other would use knives and guns to settle scores. Also youth gangs made peoples’ lives unpleasant by harassment on the streets and damaging property.

It is hardly surprising that the great majority of residents in St. Ann’s – and in another similar area of Nottingham, the Meadows – were demanding action by the City Council and police to deal with these scum, the criminal and anti-social elements. One response by the Council has been to introduce all sorts of security measures to these areas. These include installing burglar alarms in dwellings, building walls and steel fences to make entry by burglars more difficult. Residents wanted more police patrols, especially on foot, for their protection. In the Meadows residents felt so intimidated by armed gangs that they requested the police to start regular patrols by officers openly carrying firearms, something which had never been done before in Britain. It is an unpalatable fact for most leftists that the main problem with the police that most people in deprived areas in Britain have is that the police are not doing enough to protect residents. The police are not generally regarded as oppressors. Many surveys carried out in such areas in Britain during the last forty years bear this out.

Some anarchists see professional criminals as engaging in some sort of rebellion against capitalism. This is nonsense. These criminals are informed by a crude, caricatured version of the dominant bourgeois ideology. They aspire to a life style based around expensive cars, jewelry and clothes. In order to achieve their aspirations they are prepared to oppress and exploit the people in their own localities in the most vicious and crude manner making the worst capitalist employer seem like a saint in comparison. They are the scum of the earth.

The police try to clamp down on criminal and anti-social behaviour, not least at the insistence of local residents who are the main victims of such conduct. However well local people organize themselves in community groups they are not equipped to take on vicious, armed criminals. Only armed police can do this and clashes between the police and criminal/anti-social elements can take on a racial character given that the police are predominantly white and those they are dealing with are disproportionately, although by no means exclusively, from black and Asian groups. This is not to deny that some police officers hold racist attitudes and thus have negative views of black and Asian people. Even so, the police, who are drawn from the wider society are not uniformly racist and the proportion of them with such an outlook is less than in the past. Now there are a significant number of black and Asian police officers.

On the street where I live we had a problem with a hooligan youth gang harassing residents. We had to form a residents’ association to try to deal with the problem and we went to the police and insisted that they take action. The gang was multi-ethnic in composition and some of their parents accused the residents and police of being racists. Some of the police officers involved were of Asian background and they were not impressed by these allegations, the charge of police racism being a common defence put forward by delinquents. I was somewhat amused one day when I saw the gang leader, from an Asian family, who had broken his bail conditions being taken away by two Asian police officers.

Yes, the police are an important part of the repressive apparatus of the capitalist state. Their main function is to control the working class so as to maintain capitalism. This was very clear during the Miners’ Strike during 1984-5 when they used all sorts of illegal methods to contain the miners. But it is also true that a secondary function of the police is to uphold general public order so that civil society can effectively function. Unless the criminal and anti-social elements who prey off the working class and middle strata are combated and contained then everyday life would become very difficult. Ordinary people have neither the organization or skills to deal with criminals and street gangs.

Now it is becoming clear that many of the people arrested in the riots had previous criminal convictions. So at least some of the rioters were delinquents who seized the opportunity to engage in thieving, not just from commercial premises but from anybody who happened to be around as well. In no way were these people protesting against the rule of capital. As for attacks on police stations in Nottingham, the word on the street is that these were carried out by criminals, especially drug dealers, who seized the opportunity to get back at the police who persue them.


In Britain the objective conditions upon which a growth of revolutionary consciousness could be based are becoming more favourable. The financial crisis three years ago and the subsequent unemployment, falling living standards and cuts in public services are impacting on millions of people, especially the lower sections of the working class. For some years inequalities of income and wealth have been widening to greater differences than they were a century ago. The legitimacy of the state has been undermined by the scandal two years ago of Members of Parliament enriching themselves by blatantly fiddling their expenses claims. There is widespread disaffection with the war in Afghanistan. A new financial crisis brought about by problems with the Eurozone could occur. And yet the subjective conditions for taking advantage of this situation in Britain do not exist. There is no Marxist-Leninist-Maoist political organization in Britain.

The lower sections of the working class – the sort of people who live in the areas where the riots occurred – are, given their objective conditions of life, potentially open to influence by revolutionary ideas. However most leftists avoid these people like the plague. The Trotskyist and revisionist organizations have a predominantly middle strata membership who mostly do not live in these areas. They show little inclination to do any serious political work in these localities. There are occasional forays into these areas when racists and fascists stand in elections. Such action mainly consists of door-to-door leafleting telling people not to vote for such candidates but sustained political work is not carried out. Anyway these lefties pedal reformist rather than revolutionary ideas in their little newspapers. As for the few people of Maoist sympathies in Britain, they are not organized so cannot really do anything.

I was active in the anti-poll tax struggle in the St. Ann’s area of Nottingham in 1989 to 1991. (The poll tax was a change in local taxation brought in by a Conservative Government which massively shifted the burden of paying for local services from better off people onto those with low incomes.) In over fifty years of radical political activity in Britain the anti-poll tax campaign is the only occasion on which I have seen large numbers of working class people – many millions – become actively involved in a political campaign. Throughout Britain anti-poll tax groups were formed and these campaigned for people to refuse to pay the tax. This did not happen spontaneously. It was necessary to campaign door-to-door to persuade people to withhold their poll tax payments. In St. Ann’s we held public meetings which attracted quite large audiences of working class people. This was most unusual.

In March 1990 a large national demonstration against the poll tax was held in London. This was attacked by the police but the demonstrators fought back. They held the police at bay and damaged expensive cars, upmarket shops and offices of large companies. The media dubbed this occurrence the "Poll Tax Riot" but the outcome of it and the mass non-payment was the Conservative Government backing down and scrapping the tax. Also it was an important factor in bringing about the downfall of the apparently impregnable Margaret Thatcher as prime minister. Unlike the recent riots, this was a real political rebellion informed by the conscious aim of stopping this iniquitous tax.

Although the Labour Party said it was against the poll tax, it urged people "not to break the law" and to pay it. Indeed, in Nottingham the Labour-controlled City Council boasted about the zeal with which it set about prosecuting those refusing to pay. Meanwhile with the poll tax abandoned the Trotskyites and revisionists urged people to vote Labour in local elections. In Nottingham some of the other activists stood in the local elections as protest candidates against the Labourites’ persecution of poll tax defaulters. By then the campaign had largely dissipated but we did attract a respectable number of votes.

The poll tax was a serious blunder by the Conservative Government because they enacted an obviously unjust measure clearly aimed at the working class and which directly impacted on all of them. Thus it was relatively easy to mobilize people to not pay the tax. Even so this only happened because of deliberate efforts by activists to raise people’s political consciousness. From a Maoist perspective it was not possible to secure any lasting political influence because we had no revolutionary organization.

Another type of campaigning in deprived areas of Nottingham I have been engaged in is urging people not to vote in national and local elections. This receives a largely positive response because the majority of people in these areas do not usually vote and so do not need much encouragement to abstain. It is noticeable that since the first term of New Labour government, which ended in 2001, many working class people have finally abandoned their support for Labour. Working class voters are now no more likely to support Labour than other parties.

However people’s alienation from the capitalist political system, bourgeois democracy, does not mean that they think it is possible to get rid of capitalism and replace it with something better. While they have no confidence in the existing order they feel powerless to do anything about it. Half a century ago in Britain there were millions of people, both working class and middle strata, who thought of themselves as "socialists". This did not mean that they had a sophisticated grasp of Marxism but it did mean that they held a basic conception of the class division under capitalism, the iniquity of it and the need to change the system to one more equitable, to some sort of socialism. This political consciousness has considerably diminished and now only a small minority of people call themselves socialists. Very few working class people identify as socialists and there are probably more middle strata people who do so. The level of class political consciousness of the working class in Britain has greatly diminished during the last fifty years.

When campaigning for abstention in elections some people do ask what is the alternative to the present system. If one says that it is socialism then usually this does not meet with a positive reception. Most people see it as something that was tried and failed in Russia. Also as a result of intense anti-communist propaganda in the media, especially during the last twenty years, many people – probably a large majority - see socialism and communism as highly undesirable, oppressive systems. It is very difficult to combat this negative perception in the context of street campaigning. Better propaganda materials are needed to educate people about socialism and communism. However the most effective way in which people would become interested in revolutionary ideas is by revolutionaries taking the lead in generating popular struggles against the oppression and exploitation of capitalism. This can only be done really effectively if revolutionary communists are organized and in Britain they are not.

The major radical campaign in Britain during the first decade of this century was the anti-war movement, Stop the War Coalition, following on from the 9/11 incident. Before and after the attack on Iran in 2003 literally millions of people turned out to protest against the war. Some working class people did participate but the demonstrators were disproportionately drawn from the middle strata. In Nottingham campaigning street stalls were held in predominantly working class areas. These were run by non-Trotskyite elements because the Trots did not want to campaign in such areas. In the early years we met with a rather cool reception from the local people. Most of the British soldiers come from working class families, especially the poorer ones, and people felt that they should support "our boys". Attitudes changed as it became clear how futile were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the Labour Government had blatantly lied to the public about non-existent "weapons of mass destruction", etc.. Many people in the more deprived working class areas have relations and friends in the army who have been killed, injured or mentally destabilized. We started to get positive and angry attitudes against the wars. Even so, these people were not prepared to turn out for the sort of marches, demonstrations and meetings run by the Stop the War Coalition. Many think that this sort of activity will make no difference and they are right.

During the last few years the British Government and media have mounted a massive propaganda campaign in favour of the war in Afghanistan. Instead of trying to persuade people that the war is any good the focus has been on the "brave" British troops and how we should all support these outstanding "heroes". We have been treated to spectacles such as the flag-waving ceremonies at Wooton Bassett to salute dead soldiers being brought back. The Stop the War Coalition, led by Trotskyites and revisionists, has completely failed to combat this chauvinistic propaganda. A number of soldiers I have spoken to are not all that keen on being "heroes" and through their experiences in Afghanistan have come to realize that it is a rotten and futile war. Clearly they need to be encouraged to dissent from further service in Afghanistan. Yet nobody is prepared to campaign to urge the troops not to fight. The leftists are afraid of being labeled as unpatriotic if they do so.


1. The disturbances in Britain during August 2010 were not a revolt against capitalism and neither were they primarily a protest against police racism. For leftists to try to make out that they were is a case of what Lenin called the ‘worship of spontaneity’.

2. Lumpenproletarian criminal elements were prominent in the disturbances

much to the disgust of other residents in the affected areas. These criminals are thoroughly reactionary and enemies of the working class.

3. The low level of political class consciousness among the working class in Britain could be raised by sustained agitation, propaganda and practical political campaigning among such people. In the right circumstances they are capable of taking conscious political action against the system as was demonstrated by the anti-poll tax struggle of twenty years ago.

4. The experience of Britain during the last few decades demonstrates the essential correctness of Lenin’s thesis that a political class consciousness cannot spontaneously arise among the working class. It has to be developed by a revolutionary political party persistently and consistently agitating, propagandizing, organizing and leading working class people in struggles against capitalist oppression and exploitation. The Trotskyite and revisionist organizations have shown themselves to be incapable of assuming this role.

5. There is an urgent need to form a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist political organization in Britain. However it does not seem that the personnel capable of doing so actually exist.

Harry Powell September 2011


Måns Johansson said...

Crystal clear analysis, toggled with a few suggestions. Best analysis of the riots so far.

Anonymous said...

'5. There is an urgent need to form a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist political organization in Britain. However it does not seem that the personnel capable of doing so actually exist.'


your last point is fatalistic. does this mean you have given up on revolutionary politics? can you not form a YCL group from the strata of the people who rioted? Perhaps what the British Communist movement lacks is someone equivalent to Lenin or Mao. Robert Borba would probably suggest Avakian is that man. WHat do you think? is there no hope at all??!! what about the Anarchists?

Gerry D said...

This is a shameful article and an example of what passes as Maoism in the West. I'm not a Maoist but this isn't the kind of thinking that has led to a revolutionary situation in Nepal or the ongoing successes of the Naxalites. You're right in your comments on the Trots. They still have an idealized of the industrial worker and heroic shop steward. They dogmatically hold on to a working class made up of miners and shipbuilders which is not as large or influential as it once was, yet they have not oriented themselves to it. Though they are anti-racist, their view of the working class in the West is influenced by the conception of what was once the white working class in Britain. A sort of unconscious chauvinism. The lower strata of the proletariat you speak often made up of immigrants in minimum wage service sector jobs must be engaged into politics. This is where I agree with you 100%. I have serious disagreements on your comments about the lumpenproletariat. In these areas people come and go out of the lumpen. There are the full time hustlers and pimps who make a life of it. There are however proletarians with few other choices who who drift in and out of drug dealing and gangs. There are not always lumpen for life. Yes some workers regard the lumpen as their enemy but this ignores real life inter-personal dynamics. Many workers have friends and family members who may drift into this group. They are going to be concerned and also seek to change their behaviour, to channel their frustration elsewhere. It should be the job of revolutionaries to build bridges to bring the lumpen back into the wider working class. There are backward ideas among the lumpen, but among the working class too. You miss how lumpen sectors have gotten involved in politics. This can be seen in the US with the Black Panthers and George Jackson. These movements have had serious problems but they can teach lessons on how to organize among the lumpen. The attack on spontaneity is a classic one from Marxist-Leninists, but fails to comprehend reality. Your example of the poll tax riots is a great example of what can be accomplished with organization. I believe in the need for a party and a programme. However such movements often arise and are forged in the heat of struggle. Comparing the poll tax riots as proper working class militancy to recent riots in London is idealism and dogmatism. The Bolsheviks had theory but they also adapted themselves to changing circumstances. Look at the February Revolution. It was spontaneous and the Bolsheviks successfully transitioned into the situation in Russia after the fall of the Tsar. The London riots show that there is militancy among the lower classes and the opportunities for communists are great. The aftermath of the riots are not a time for your negative view which borders on a tacit acceptance of police repression.

Mike Ely said...

Here is what I wrote, on Kasama, about these matters (though I was talking about the British conservative media, not conservative respectability among the left):

* * * * * **

The title of this piece is: "Violence and street-fighting: Who says it alienates the people."

* * * * * * * *

Chinese revolutionaries used to say:

“The emperor can burn villages, but the people are forbidden to even light a candle.”

The blood-curdling howls from Britain’s political establishment can be heard all the way across the Atlantic.

They are outraged over intense nights of uprising in British cities — at the street-fighting, at the open violence against police, and of course at the looting.

The hypocrisy and double-think are massive — ruling classes armed with nukes scream against kids with stones. The perpetrators of historic arson (Dresden!) suddenly quiver over a few burning cars.

That class that now fetishizes “peaceful protest” secretly unleashed killers on Bloody Sunday and suppressed knowledge of their crimes for years.

Those who have everything now denounce the looting by those who have nothing. A ruling class built on the plunder of a global empire denounce no-future kids for a little street-level redistribution of wealth.

We Maoists in the U.S. (who have engaged politically in many such uprisings of the poor and young) jokingly call looting “anticipatory communism” — to each according to their need! It is, as i said, a joke -- but it is a joke that makes a deep demarcation from the staid and painstakingly respectable.

Let those British upper classes sputter and scream. Let them proclaim their doctrine of moderation-for-the-people and practice their mass-murder-for-the-empire. Let them imply that their police murder is not a justified provocation.

Every word they utter is self-exposure, nonsense and hypocrisy.

Those who rule society often have no idea how much they are hated, and how little their institutions and laws are respected. And when they get a glimpse, they respond with fury, with lies, and with calls for vicious counterrevolutionary punishment.

They can call us all thugs and criminals if they choose. (After all there is freedom of the press for those who own one.)

Opinions vary of course. There are those who are fearful and indifferent. There are those who repeat whatever the media tells them to think. There are those who hate disorder and the anger of youth. But the fact is that there are millions of us who find this society and its crimes intolerable — and who are just waiting, aching, for a spark to light the flame — and are dreaming of that moment when their system itself is shoved into the abyss.