http://jacobinmag.com/blog/?p=1253
Today, with England in flames, we identify two representative responses. The first recalls the enthusiasm of the Sex Pistols for “Anarchy in the UK”: Malcolm Harris<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fjacobinmag.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D994&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFRqFegfP0nvN0Qa6k6KXPkK_K0nA>celebrates “grassroots Keynesians, increasing aggregate demand one broken window at a time.” This is a tradition inaugurated by Guy Debord<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpluselectrification.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F08%2F11%2Fsociety-of-the-skeptical%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEzSvSMT-gVaJ1xFxRSToF_u8Hzjw>, who wrote of the 1965 Watts Riots that looting “instantly undermines the commodity as such.” At the other extreme is the motto from “God Save the Queen,” which sees “no future” for the left. Owen Jones<http://www.labourlist.org/the-riots-are-a-catastrophe> writes on a Labour Party-themed website that the riots are a “catastrophe,” traumatizing and terrorizing middle-of-the-road Londoners. He warns that the inevitable consequence is a right-wing backlash: the middle class will turn against the poor, furnishing a justification for state repression.
[...]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2011-08-15, at 5:23 PM, Lenin's Tomb wrote:
>
> > On 15/08/2011 21:35, c b wrote:
>
> >> The looting that followed was opportunistic and destructive, without
> >> any political content at all.
> >
> > ...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.
> >
> >> To put it bluntly, most people, including most working class people,
> >> are wholly out of sympathy with the rioters…
>
> ====================================
>
> No doubt those people, including working class people, who were most out of
> sympathy with the rioters were also those most in sympathy with the royal
> couple, whose wedding a little more than a week earlier reportedly cost the
> British economy more than the looting. Not that I would begrudge those
> British workers who received the wedding day off with pay some extra leisure
> time. But in general these ostentatious royal circuses are obscene, all the
> more so when set alongside the current austerity program being imposed on
> the British working class by the Cameron government. That seems to me the
> proper context through which to view both events.
>
> Also, I believe Lenin's Tomb reply was aimed comments by James H. rather
> than "cb" identified above.
>
> * * *
>
> Looting hit economy less than royal wedding
> By Sarah O’Connor, Rose Jacobs and Jim Pickard
> Financial Times
> August 12 2011
>
> The looting and burning of UK cities this week probably had less impact on
> the economy than the royal wedding – at least in ways that statisticians can
> easily measure.
>
> Roughly one tenth of the country’s shops, pubs, restaurants and clubs were
> directly or indirectly affected by the riots, according to an estimate by
> the Local Data Company. Even in unaffected areas, many shops closed early
> for several days this week.
>
> While that will have depressed retail and leisure sales at a time when
> people are already spending less, the rest of the economy kept humming as
> usual. “The fact that you still saw the wider service sector and the
> manufacturing sector continue on regardless means we are looking at a far
> smaller impact than something like the royal wedding [when everyone took the
> day off],” Philip Rush, UK Economist at Nomura, said.
>
> […]
>
>
> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/df10b5cc-c4ff-11e0-ba51-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1V2zJUzTD
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>