When I point out that the Socialist Workers' Party line is that the riots are the stirring revolution, See-less complains that there is no such line. But there is. It is here, on record, in the 13 August edition of Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2011/2264/issue2264.pdf) There you can read that the riots are part of an Urban Revolt spreading Across Britain, and that they are part of the same wave of revolt as the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, no less.
Of course, everyone knows that this is absurd - even Seymour, which is why he is retreating from that argument already. When the next issue of Socialist Worker comes out, there will be rather less of the 'coming revolution' talk about the riot, and, no doubt, more of the labour left line that the rioters are 'Thatcher's Children', and victims of the consumer society.
Seymour complains about my explanation of the looting as larking about, as bad sociology. 'Gee officer Krupke!' What's to explain? The looting was pretty self-explanatory. There is no need for sociology here.
Indeed, if it was a political act, as Seymour says, it would not need explaining, but would give an account of itself. As politics, you would have to accept, this was pretty bad politics, convincing nobody of anything - unless you count convincing everyone else that you are an idiot.
The poster who said this was 'anti-politics' was closer to the truth.