London's burning. Anarchy in the UK. But this time much more like serious Brazilian anarchy than punk rock in it's prime.Decades of social corrosion in the UK have led to this. Back in the day, circa 1980, UK riots had a bit of "class". They were "about" something, usually inequality and unemployment, albeit still no excuse for urban warfare. But today there isn't even the pretence of ideology. Just DIY "summer sales" by Blackberry-touting louts, of both sexes, spurred on in their looting by a national religion of cynical, celebrity-led consumerism and the almost complete extinction of personal responsibility.
Allied to New Labour's 13-year misuse and abuse of the benefits system, plus its bureaucratic handicapping of the police and social services, what you are left with is a corresponding sense of entitlement. Never an attractive quality, it now sits particularly awkwardly with bankrupt Britain. If the 1980s was the yuppie decade, swinging to the tune of "work hard, play hard and you can have it all," the last decade and a half has been, simply, "you can have it all ... because it's your right". Or more succinctly, as in the advertising slogan, "Because you're worth it!" No need to work for it; just demand it. Or steal it.
For these mollycoddled teenage thugs, the old Dire Straits line, slightly modified and irony-free, serves as a perfect rallying cry: "Get your money for nothing and your kicks for free." Or perhaps it should be an inversion of JFK's famous line: "Ask what your country can do for you !"
However, the "haves" in today's Britain are just as much to blame: they were too busy feeding at the trough to care about the creation of this superficial, ignorant and vicious underclass. A cynical society, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, created a generation raucously demanding "respect" yet utterly clueless as to the real meaning of the word.
As my neighbour Mark, an expat Brit, said to me: "If it was in Brazil they'd just shoot them and that would be that." While obviously not in favour of such extreme methods, I can't help feeling doubly angry at the yobbish freeloading morons who have no idea how easy life is in the UK compared to, oh let me see ... Brazil ?
Back on "home" soil, I note a big red cover story in the current issue of a leading business magazine: "Consumers in the Red", it shouts. A quick scan of the piece suggests dire warnings about a naive nation that has embraced the consumer society a little too warmly. Things are now approaching boiling point, as increasingly unaffordable monthly installments push many to the brink of financial ruin. I fretted about this in my very first blog post.
Brazil-the-commodity-exporter and Brazil-the-consumer-society are two completely different countries, residing on different continents, if not planets.
And how will Brazil-the-consumer-society deal with it's mounting problems, particularly the widening current account deficit ? Well, President Dilma Rousseff yesterday told her fellow Brazilians not to stop consuming. Parroting her predecessor Lula's words, she said "We should not stop consuming because we're not under any threat."
Sure you're not, Dilma. As a politician you have a big fat salary, inflated by a recent and obscene pay rise. Brazil's governments are VAT junkies and since there is never any Plan B in this country the only thing they know is to do more of the same: keep collecting those consumer taxes so you can squander them on yet more inefficiencies and corruption. Live for today Brazil, to hell with tomorrow.
London's consumers are becoming indistinguishable from thieves while Brazilian consumers allow themselves to be robbed every time they enter a shop or pay a bill. But when enough of them are drowning in debts, a day of reckoning will surely arrive.
This article in The American Spectator covers a similar theme. Here's a sample:
"It may seem a bit unfair to rain on Brazil's parade, but just as Lula's personality drove the success of his presidency, that same flamboyance obscured the reality of his country's shortfalls. By focusing on easily accessible credit for low-income and no-income households, there has been a burgeoning of the availability of all manner of consumer-oriented products. Government-backed credit facilities encouraged buying that in turn manifested the illusion of general well-being. Ultimately, even though the economy gave the appearance of blossoming, it was not because of real structural changes but rather speculative investment based on a perception of broad economic gains. Without the confluence of a historic rise in commodity prices and massive orders for raw materials by China, Lulismo had no real base.
Inevitably inflation has pricked the credit bubble, forcing a tightening of monetary policy and thus restricting access to the past's extravagantly affordable lending rates. The consumers, especially the least advantaged, have lost their ability to keep up their newly found ability to buy. An environment of substantial interest rate rises is now too burdensome to sustain the high level of investment necessary to keep Brazil's economic pot boiling. Things may turn around again come Olympic time, but it certainly won't be because of Lulismo or any other game of political mirrors.
The illusion of Lulismo may still exist across Latin America, but not in the more financially hard-nosed environment of European and Asian financial capitals. Caution is the word when it comes to Brazil -- in spite of the charm and fashionable socialist objectives of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his political heiress, Dilma Rousseff."
Update: Found this quick analysis of the London riots interesting (via Sky News):
Clive Bloom, author of Violent London: 2,000 Years Of Riots, Rebels And Revolts, told Sky News Online that for the capital unrest was unfortunately, nothing new. He said London today is much like it was three centuries ago and the lawlessness of the city has always gone up and down.
"The 18th century was essentially a lawless period. The underclass areas were surrounded by very wealthy areas - pockets of wealth were surrounded by poverty. So there were times when the areas of poverty wound spill over and there would be days of rioting, just to let out the adrenaline. When you ignore very poor people, they decide to take the law into their own hands.
"The morality of property - the idea of the morality of property - they don't understand that a pair of trainers has to be sold to you - they can't just take it. And now they realise, no one's stopping them.
"The action is entirely criminal but the underlying social issues are not criminal, and they need to be dealt with very carefully." But Mr Bloom added that gang culture also played a big part in the wanton criminality.
"The inward looking nature of those in the poverty areas has exploded onto the streets. There's no political agenda in roaming the streets - it's just thuggery. It's the spending of the underclass. They see some trainers they can't afford, so they steal them. It's buying without money.
"Young people in these areas gain their social status from gang culture - not from, like before, church or teachers. It's gang culture spilling out onto the streets. They have built themselves up outside the church and youth club networks.
"It's inward looking, rather than looking at the wider society... These are kids who would probably not have gone to youth club - youth clubs represent authority. The old fashioned youth club is gone... what's replaced it is social media, Twitter. And that is distance relationships... You're having a relationship with someone you don't know. You're someone who's like me, let's go get some trainers."
Update 2: Thus article arrived in my inbox today:
Criminologist and author of Scared of the Kids, Dr Stuart Waiton argues that there are clear reasons for the riots - the key one being the collapse of authority in society.
RIOTS IN LONDON
As a director of a youth charity, a criminologist and author of a book called 'Scared of the kids' it may appear strange to call on the police to get a grip - but somebody has to. The impotent approach of the police has helped to encourage these copycat riots, as one rioting youth in Manchester explained, 'It's the government. The government has no authority'. Describing the clear lack of authority demonstrated by the police who stood back and watched the rioting take place, this opportunistic youth recognised an open door - a vacuum of authority - when he saw it. Consequently a number of antisocial youth have acted and a relatively minor event in London that could and should have easily been nipped in the bud has subsequently escalated.
At the same time however the kids rioting need to be told to get a grip. Some resentment of the police may have triggered events, but from the images online and on YouTube much of what is taking place is clearly opportunistic and narcissistic. Where the 80s riots had a genuine political undercurrent and were formed in response to serious police harassment and discrimination in society - these rioters are more like joy riders, getting a thrill (and a free Widescreen): Not part of a community but the reflection of the loss of one - asocial individuals laughing as they trash shops and set houses on fire. Unfortunately today's 'non-judgemental' therapeutic culture has encouraged the more asocial and self involved aspect of some young people's personalities to come to the fore. For many of these rioters, hearing the black Hackney women screaming at them (seeYouTube clip) and telling them how infantile and inadequate they are would have been a new experience for them. Today, from the top of society down through professionals there is a tendency to flatter and patronised the young - something that again appears to reflect a loss of a sense of purpose and authority by our leaders and within societies institutions.
At the same time as there being not enough policing and the assertion of authority with these riots, more widely there has been far too much policing and regulation of relationships between adults and young people in communities. In 2001 when Scared of the Kids was first published I argued that the rising regulation of communities via ASBO's, curfews and even the new vetting of adults who want to work with young people would have the impact of making local adults impotent, discouraging them intervening, engaging with the young and socialising them. This is what has now happened. Excessive state intervention and 'support' of communities has in essence undermined local adult authority.
Too much attention (and money) has been spent on antisocial behaviour in recent years when the much more fundamental problem is the creation of an asocial society - one in which the authorities may discuss 'respect' as an apparent antidote to antisocial behaviour but do so in a morally and politically empty, self referential and therapeutic way. When everyone and everything is deserving of 'respect' it simply turns into a form of indulgence and flattery lacking content and actually limiting the capacity of older people and communities from forming and indeed enforcing a sense of what is right and wrong. When another young woman on the streets shouted, 'You show me respect and I'll give it you back' (as her friend giggled in the backgroud), she was simply parroting the message of the empty Respect Agenda developed by the last Labour government which likewise was built on the idea of 'Give Respect - Get Respect' - as if 'respect' is something that can be bartered rather than being a reflection of clear adult and societal values you look up to.
The result of all of this, the crisis of elite authority, the undermining of spontaneous adult authority in community and the more patronising and morally vacuous 'self esteem' obsessed approach of authorities and educationalists has helped to create a more disconnected and self absorbed group of youngsters.
Coupled with a confused and impotent police force the result has been mayhem.
Dr Stuart Waiton is a sociology and criminology lecturer at Abertay University and chair of the youth research group Generation Youth Issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment