The idea that there was no 'political content' to the conflagrations after Tottenham is simply a polemical convenience on Heartfield's part. Among the major confrontations were fights between youth and police in several major cities. Sometimes the kids armed themselves, or set up barricades, or used petrol bombs. Sometimes they simply outnumbered vastly better armed riot police. In each case, they took physical risks, and certainly risked arrest and imprisonment, in a way that belies any notion of mere 'opportunism'. This is at least as important as the looting which took place, but seems to have been largely eclipsed in the commentary. It bespeaks a severe crisis in the state's ability to process antagonisms in a way that maintains consent. In fact, the pattern is not unusual, as the literature following the LA riots attests: first there is a perception of injustice that is borne grudgingly and quietly; then there is an intolerable violation that sparks a conflict; then there is an opportunity opened up by a breakdown in policing. In many cases, youths with long-standing grievances against police, and a contempt for the Tories, the rich, etc., saw the opportunity opened up by the failure of policing in Tottenham and decided to have a go themselves. That more readily explains their behaviour than the simple 'criminal opportunism' mytheme that the Sp!ked lot are putting about (replete with lashings of that prolier-than-thou invective that these working class heroes love to serve up between multinational-sponsored conferences). As for the looting itself, it is worth noting the uneven patterns here. Much of it was destructive without having any pecuniary value. Some shop windows were smashed without goods being taken. Much of what was 'looted' was not particularly saleable. Some of it specifically targeted large corporations; some local businesses. If lessons from the Sixties US riots hold here, some of this could be because local businesses. There is no doubt that among the various, complex processes that unfolded as part of this rioting were some unjustifiable actions - fatal assaults among them. Not every action that can be included in 'the riots' has political content, or refers to an injustice. But much of it did have political content, and even where it did not, it certainly had a political context. The role of marxists, one would think, would be to develop this understanding.
> To put it bluntly, most people, including most working class people,
> are wholly out of sympathy with the rioters – and judging by their
> statements to the courts, most are themselves deeply ashamed of what
> they have done.
Statements made to the courts are meaningless indicators in this respect. James Heartfield probably hasn't been attending the courts as some people I know have been, and thus isn't there to see the stipendiary magistrates on the rampage. The ridiculous sentences being handed out are intended to terrorise people. Naturally, people are issuing whatever worthy sentiments the court demands of them, to reduce the severity of their absurd punishment. It's no good wagging the finger and assuring us that "they're all thoroughly ashamed of themselves". I've never had much respect for Heartfield's intellectual probity, but it's depressing to see him dispensing pieties like some prefect at a school assembly.