Showing posts with label London Riots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London Riots. Show all posts

Monday, 13 August 2012

Thomas Bresolin: Сучьи войны (Bitch war)

Following on from our post about Chris Burden, Martin Lang makes a connection between Burden and a contemporary artist who inflicts violence on himself, on others and encourages others to inflict violence on him. For 'Bitch War' Bresolin carried out an eight-day hunger strike culminating with a performance in which he was force-fed (see the video below).

 
Read Martin's full review on a-n online here (or see below) to find out how he links Bresolinand Burden and how he thinks Bresolin's eight-day hunger strike was not out of solidarity for prisoners, but for starving artists.



Sunday, 14 August 2011

On the Drivel Regarding National Service

I've been hearing a lot of "Bring back National Service, that's sort 'em out" rhetoric recently from the reactionary right.  Obviously, it won't "sort 'em out" as after they leave the service they will return to the same conditions as before - which are bleak.  The evidence at home shows that large numbers of ex-servicemen and women have problems (re)integrating into society, and record numbers end up in prison.  Also, Greece has compulsory National Service and they're not exactly unused to the occasional riot, are they? But OK, let's do it!  Let's bring back National Service, but there a re few things to consider first...

Just a reminder: Not all young people rioted, they're not even all criminals!  Young people didn't cause the banking crisis - they were too young to get jobs then.  They couldn't vote against measures to take away EMA and triple university tuition fees - in our democracy those under 18 don't get a say about how their future will pan out.  I'm serious, not only can they not vote (if under 18) but society attacks them if they try to have any democratic voice.  Look at the student protests.  There were many asking "shouldn't they be in school" and calling for expulsion - even for those aged 16-18... in POST COMPULSORY EDUCATION.  The police then kettled children, for hours, with no food or water, with no toilets, in the freezing cold.  The intention? To make them think twice about ever protesting again.  There were no such kettles during the August Riots.  No, our youth didn't cause the mess, but they have to pay for it.  Pay through education, and then pay through unpaid volunteer posts and interships, pay inflated rents and property prices (that older generations have benefited from).  Previous generations benefited from both social housing and the right to buy - but we didn't build any more Council Houses for this generation. 

Choose a job? I don't understand...
If we want to bring back National Service in order to re-connect with our youth and show them that they are part of society... isn't introducing a blanket punitive measure against the youth problematic?  It's OK though, I've got the answer: compulsory National Service for everyone, regardless of age.  Let's prove to the youth that National Service is a good thing, of benefit to all (still sound good?).  In addition, this will address the minor issue (see my previous post) that the majority of those arrested for rioting were in their 20s (some in their 30s).  And it doesn't matter if you have a job - you still need National Service to sort you out, as proven by the Postman a Teacher, and 11 year old boy Sun headline.  We're all in this together! 

Oh, but what about civil liberties, what about those who refuse to do it?  Put them all in prison?  This could be a disaster, the prisons are already full - and we already imprison more than our European neighbours.  Mass objection could ruin my plan - damned pacifists!  OK - we'll make it National Service, not National (Military) Service.  You can join the Red Cross, or work for a local Charity instead if you like.  In fact you could sweep the streets, work in a hospital, care for the elderly or mentally ill etc etc.  What about the people who already do these jobs?  Tough, they need to do it unpaid, out of civic duty, for a year.  Hey, I'm liberal though, you could even do it abroad it you like through organisations such as VSO, Raleigh International, GAP, Christians Abroad etc.  Yeah, this will help us realise the good things about Britain (by seeing those worse off abroad), and it will help improve international relations as we (literally) build bridges.  Oh... what if people still refuse?  We can't make them do it, and we can't lock 'em all up... 

Right, got it!  It's not compulsory.  It's optional.  What if they don't choose to do it though? Ah ha!  Got it!  Having completed a year's National Service entitles you to some benefits.  Yes, the right will like that.  You don't have to do it at all, as long as you don't ask for anything off the state.  If you're already working as a nurse, for example, you're already contributing to society in two ways a) by working as a nurse and b) by paying taxes.  If you're unemployed and can't get a job, you'll get a guaranteed voluntary post (Military, Charity or other public service) which will give you something to do for a year (instead of rioting one presumes), it will give you something on your CV, it will raise your self esteem, and, if you still can't get a job, you can legitimately claim some sort of benefit - why not JSA, maybe others too, because you're "paid in" through unpaid labour.  Actually, if this isn't punitive, why not even pay people to do it? Yeah that would incentivise people - just minimum wage or a token stipend so people can afford to do it though. 

Uh oh... I've forgotten something haven't I?  The cost.  How much will it cost to implement this scheme?  Someone's got to administer it.  It has to be linked to the benefits system (and possibly National Insurance).  We've got to pay them, and we've still got to sort out conditions for when they return from National Service and re-integrate into society.  Hmmm... Wouldn't it be cheaper, and more effective, to invest in jobs, re-instate the EMA,  and revoke tuition fees thus giving people prospects - which would make them feel they have a stake in society?  Just a though...

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

The Emasculated and Infantilised Strike Back


“I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables - slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We’re the middle children of history man, with no purpose or place. We have no Great War, no great depression. Our great war’s a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires and, movie gods and rock stars – but we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off” Fight Club
The fact that Fight Club is over 15 years old is startling.  It was eerily prophetic - and not just in this quote.  Two points, you could argue, from the quote above are now inaccurate though.  
  1. Our generation already has its own "great war" - the continual war on terror and 
  2. We are entering our "great depression", that of the wake of the global banking crisis.
But the war on terror is not "real" in that it does not directly affect that many of our citizens (compared to WW2 for example).  There is no "excitement" no conscription or blitz spirit.  It just drags on, being used to excuse the erosion of civil liberties. 

Indeed we are living in a neo-liberal consumer society though: proven by the looting of trainers.  That's all these people have left to aspire to.  And the system is broken, we all know that.  The banks have collapsed but so unthinkable is it that capitalism might fail, the state intervenes to ensure it's business as usual.  Bankers still get their unlimited bonuses - someone else will have to pay. 

We are living in an emasculated society where Dads are demonised (see Fathers for Justice) and all men are treated as potential sex offenders.  Traditional "masculine" industries have gone.  As you'll see below, young men in particular, and young people in general, are treated like children.  It is this kind of nanny state approach that makes people act like children and makes young men violent.  


Croydon Clean Up Brigade
Croydon Clean Up Brigade2
I went into Croydon this morning to take photographs of the aftermath of last night's riots - which spread across the Capital and, now,  the country.  I've spent the day talking to people on the street and watching the news footage as well as reading articles online and through Twitter etc.  One thing that strikes me is that everyone wants to know "why" (as if the youth are asking for something and if only we could give it to them they'd stop).  When anyone tries to explain underlying reasons they are quickly shot down as "not good enough" and the rhetoric returns to "it's all just mindless opportunism and criminality" (as if the two things are mutually exclusive).  What people can't grasp is that it is mindless opportunism but this doesn't mean there aren't reasons for this.  No, it's not a coordinated political uprising.  It's a load of people who are fed up, bored, and have got nothing to lose.  Yes, they are having fun (they're having the times of their lives).  They can't believe that they're getting away with it, no one is stopping them and this makes them feel empowered.  The other thing that I hear repeatedly is a patronising infantilisation of these people, who are usually referred to as "kids".  There are repeated cries of "what are the parents thinking....why have they let them out, they should be at home".  The Met has called for parents to check on their children and keep them in tonight but at the same time they have admitted that 80% of those in custody are in their twenties.  And those in their teens? Should we be referring to them as children?

Last night I saw Ken Livingstone give the best explanation of the rioter's motives.  He came under attack from the BBC reporter who interrupted to ask something like "but isn't it just criminality and looting, plain and simple?" to which Ken replied something like "of course it is, but why is it happening now?".  He went on to remind us that for the first time since WW2 we have a generation with worse prospects than their parents.  These youths, he says, are are criminals, yes, but they are disaffected, they feel that no one at the top of society (government) cares about them or speaks for them.  They have no prospect of a job, cannot provide for a wife and family, half the students in college don't know if they will be there next year because EMA has been cut.  That's why there is the fearlessness, they don't care, they have nothing to lose, they don't have a stake in society.  Not everyone takes to looting though Ken points out that the rioters account for less than one tenth of one percent of the Capital's youths.  It's not a political statement - it's anger and it's disaffection. You can hear the interview here.  

Of course Ken could have gone further.  He could have cited cuts to youth clubs and services.  He could have mentioned that Londoners, on average (unless helped financially by their parents) cannot expect to buy a house until they are 37, and young people now spend half their income on rent.  Ed Howker and Shiv Malik sum this up in their book "Jilted Generation: how Britain bankrupted its youth", in which they discuss what sort of a deal this young generation has got as compared to previous generations - taking into account opportunities, income, and cost of living.  To sumarise, they find conditions have worsened for young people:  
  • 25% of young people are still living with their parents - long into their twenties, this affects their ability to form relationships, men who live with their parents are more likely to become violent, 
  • There are 1.7 million families on the Council Housing waiting list (these are not old people), governments deal with this by giving them money to rent privately, which helps prop up landlords instead of building more Council Houses.  
  • This generation cannot have a university education unless they're prepared to take on huge debt (£9K per annum in fees but the total cost, including loss of earning could top £100K).  Even if they do get a degree they can look forward to a "competitive" job market where they may have to work in low value McJobs and undertake unpaid interships until they are "allowed" to get a proper, adult job.  
  • At the same time the government pays winter fuel payment to over 65s - 80% of whom don't need it.  If this was means tested the savings could pay for student tuition fees.  But they don't do that - young people aren't allowed to vote you see.  
  • Any help young people get is based on their parents' income.  This is, in itself an infantilising act as an 18 year old - capable of voting, joining the army, paying taxes, etc is still treated as a child.  
  • The government say that tuition fees have to increase because more people are going to university, but if more people use the NHS or the roads or any other public service what happens? The public pay more, through taxation.  This logic only affects our generation.  
  • 1.5million young people unemployed (1 in 5) and they are unemployed for a significant amount of time.  If this continues we will have a lost generation.  
  • Young people's careers start much later (after Uni, interships and unemployment) thus infantilising us further. 

Hear Malik and Howker discuss the book here

Yet this isn't a good enough "explanation" for many pundits or Joe Public.  I've still heard calls for water cannon, rubber bullets and "send them to Afghanistan".  How about treating them like adults, giving them opportunities and responsibilities?  "Sending them to Afghanistan" would, however, have a positive outcome: it would enable "them" to experience "the real", something beyond the everyday malaise that they experience - something akin to what is being experienced now.  It would be one opportunity, but there should be more for this generation to choose from, not be pushed into as some sort of punitive measure - punitive for what? These people didn't cause the banking crisis, they probably didn't vote Tory (if they were old enough to vote in the last election).  In fact, hang on a minute, who did vote to bail out the banks and pay the price through public sector cuts and the systematic dismantling of our Higher Education system? Certainly the Tory voters were not a majority and those who voted Lib Dem, who have been utterly betrayed. This government has no control of the streets and no mandate to govern.  I call for a general election now and hope that a new coalition wins - a coalition of the left - because Labour won't help these people, Labour won't restore free Higher Education or punish the banks.  We need a new politics where the Greens and the Communists can affect Labour and the Liberals to pull them away from a centre-ground consensus that a neo-liberal, free-market society based on continually increasing consumption is the only way.  That only Capital, not culture, matters.  We have seen the beginning of troubles - stemming from the banking crisis or credit crunch - but capitalist consumerism will only send us head-on into an apocalyptic scenario of global warming and a rising global population fighting over depleting resources.  The system needs to change, the question is a) has the revolution already started and b) do the left have the answers to fix the mess?