It's a little over a week since the riots have ended, and much has been written about the cause and effect. Depending on your political standpoint, you will have opinions about why so many young people chose to act in such a way, at such a time. There are the usual reactions from the right about the working class lacking a moral culture, and equally as typical analysis from leftist commentators eager to blame social inequality and injustice. Despite some knee-jerk judgements from the usual suspects, It's been heartening to see some very measured and thoughtful responses from a number of journalists and bloggers, notably including some Welsh, such as Professor Dave Adamson and the Bevan Foundation, as well as some exceptional pieces written by some unlikely sources - Russel Brand, I'm looking at you.
Amongst much of the analysis there are similarities which have included the acknowledgement of a disenfranchised generation that is simply disconnected from any form of mainstream society, and one which has never been offered any ownership of it (indeed, some have argued that the generation in question has been proactively excluded). Also, there have been many who have drawn comparisons to the banking fiasco and MPs' expenses, but more often than not they begin and end at examining the concept of criminality and the consequences (or not) of one's actions. I cannot disagree with these arguments, indeed I am left wondering if MPs would forgive the looters if they reimbursed the shop for the 40 inch flatscreen the stole, in the same way they simply reimbursed taxpayers. However, I feel there is something else to be said; something about what drives this behaviour dominating and permeating all sections of society; driving bankers to lie, steal and cheat, MPs to fiddle, young people to loot.
Our value system, so steeped in neoliberalism, is based on personal selfishness, greed and consumption, which feeds and breeds on itself; a world where anything and everything is available at the click of a mouse needs its citizens to spend to maintain its systems and hierarchies. It is argued that this form of free market late-capitalism is the machine which drives progress, and most would acknowledge that we witness great technological innovation that we all value and increasingly depend upon; from iPhones and iPads, to laser eye surgery and stem cell medicine. However, in a world where absolute wealth and power is divided and concentrated unequally, there is a significant price to pay for inculcating and perpetuating such a value system, the result of which we are currently witnessing.
Proponents of the system espouse its ability to meet the needs of most, but it's a cancerous economic model and set of values for society, for everyone, including the richest who think it's the highest form of organised civilisation - we are, after all, humankind. However, its survival depends on its ability to engage a majority, and it works as a way of maintaining consent; whilst it is in no shape or form a system that any human would consciously advocate given all the information, most people exist in and of their society and function (usually unconsciously) on a day-to-day basis as consumers who consent to and perpetuate the hegemony and economic system.
Whilst we can attempt to delineate the different component parts of neoliberal social and economic policy, I would argue that they are inseparable; the ideology, or more accurately, the hegemonic set of values, is the price society pays for maintaining such an economic system. If hegemony changes, then capitalism fails. It is possible, that the most effective way to counter neoliberalism is to explicitly promote a different worldview. And to be honest, there's some merit in this approach given that it has proven very difficult to mobilise that section of society that the system 'works for', and actually, it's this aspiring working class which can be the most unsympathetic group, a product of the media's manufacturing of consent.
Neo-liberalism is an economic model and ideology which has dominated Western civilisation for over 50 years. Gradually, our understanding of the world has become increasingly focused on the individual, manifested in private ownership, personal isolation and the deterioration of the collective - remember someone once saying there's no such thing as society? Undoubtedly, any breakdown of the moral code, and the riots particularly, are the direct result of a society bankrupt of any spiritual or intellectual commodity, even if the individual rioters are unaware of the ideological subtext. The fact is, the neoliberal proprietors of the prevailing hegemony of western society exist to increase the wealth and power of an elite 10% (which is being constantly concentrated), maintain a level of accepted and consented comfort for 60%, and marginalise the remaining 30% (these are my own figures, and not necessarily statistically accurate). The marginalization is delivered via the middle 60% and through the control of old forms of media (think King Murdoch and News Corp), and the recent hard and fast cuts to benefits and direct services such as youth clubs in the poorest and most volatile communities in England have expedited the total disconnection of a generation and section of British society. In a world of such conspicuous consumption, looting is the logical and reasonable end of civil disobedience. However...Smashing up Millbank, it ain't, and poor, powerless, innocent communities have been caught up in hugely destructive activity.
Of course the looters and rioters don't feel a sense of injustice at the economic inequality of capitalism, and of course the inequality didn't directly cause it. But it is part of the system, or actually, systems, which got us to this point. They looted because all around them people relentlessly consume everything in their path, and, whilst a failure to compete economically, and thus consume legitimately, must have played a part, it certainly wasn't the only reason (as evidenced by the arrest of a primary school teacher, to name but one). Ultimately, they didn't loot because they couldn't afford the products, like bankers didn't take huge bonuses because they were skint...
Whilst the economic model and ideology of neoliberalism are inseparable, I believe it is important to focus on what we can change and start where people are at. The socialist revolution isn't going happen tomorrow, and most people (for whatever reason) want integration into the mainstream culture of society; they want it to work for them. That is why I believe we must seek to fundamentally change the economic model of our country, which values the contribution of communities and which uses a unit of currency which is centred on collective action and ownership.
Finally, I'd like to attempt to draw some lessons from our work in a Welsh post-industrial community that has seen its fair share of inequality and injustice, poverty and disadvantage, but also one that has fought back, through solidarity, learning, and resilience. Locally, we see a huge difference in how people view the world because they are involved in (and work for) businesses that don't ruthlessly pursue profit at all costs, businesses that reinvest in the communities that they serve. Most people who are involved in these organisations wouldn't necessarily understand the minutiae of Gramscian ideology or Chomsky-esque models of how the ruling class rules, but that's kind of the point. However, despite an understanding of highfalutin, pompous analysis, participation in an alternative micro model of economy (or more to the point, meaningful jobs) has changed the way people feel about the work they do (not always, obviously - most people will always hate Mondays), and participation in this macro cycle of learning has offered them opportunities to rethink what they value in this world, slowly but surely shifting focus from the individual, selfish, greed peddled by some in the press, to values around collective human well-being, community and reciprocity, because people, quite simply, are fundamentally good. Billy Bragg sings a song about keeping faith in humanity, and now, more than ever, we should all do the same.
DC
