Daylight Robbery, Meet Nighttime Robbery
Naomi Klein | 18.08.2011 06:35 | August Riots | Policing | Social Struggles | Sheffield
I keep hearing comparisons between the London riots and riots in other European cities—window smashing in Athens or car bonfires in Paris. And there are parallels, to be sure: a spark set by police violence, a generation that feels forgotten.
But those events were marked by mass destruction; the looting was minor. There have, however, been other mass lootings in recent years, and perhaps we should talk about them too. There was Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion—a frenzy of arson and looting that emptied libraries and museums. The factories got hit too. In 2004 I visited one that used to make refrigerators. Its workers had stripped it of everything valuable, then torched it so thoroughly that the warehouse was a sculpture of buckled sheet metal.
Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn’t Baghdad, and British Prime Minister David Cameron is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.
How about a democratic example then? Argentina, circa 2001. The economy was in freefall and thousands of people living in rough neighborhoods (which had been thriving manufacturing zones before the neoliberal era) stormed foreign-owned superstores. They came out pushing shopping carts overflowing with the goods they could no longer afford—clothes, electronics, meat. The government called a “state of siege” to restore order; the people didn’t like that and overthrew the government.
Argentina’s mass looting was called El Saqueo—the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country’s elites had done by selling off the country’s national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatization deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package. Argentines understood that the saqueo of the shopping centers would not have happened without the bigger saqueo of the country, and that the real gangsters were the ones in charge.
But England is not Latin America, and its riots are not political, or so we keep hearing. They are just about lawless kids taking advantage of a situation to take what isn’t theirs. And British society, Cameron tells us, abhors that kind of behavior.
This is said in all seriousness. As if the massive bank bailouts never happened, followed by the defiant record bonuses. Followed by the emergency G-8 and G-20 meetings, when the leaders decided, collectively, not to do anything to punish the bankers for any of this, nor to do anything serious to prevent a similar crisis from happening again. Instead they would all go home to their respective countries and force sacrifices on the most vulnerable. They would do this by firing public sector workers, scapegoating teachers, closing libraries, upping tuitions, rolling back union contracts, creating rush privatizations of public assets and decreasing pensions—mix the cocktail for where you live. And who is on television lecturing about the need to give up these “entitlements”? The bankers and hedge-fund managers, of course.
This is the global Saqueo, a time of great taking. Fueled by a pathological sense of entitlement, this looting has all been done with the lights left on, as if there was nothing at all to hide. There are some nagging fears, however. In early July, the Wall Street Journal, citing a new poll, reported that 94 percent of millionaires were afraid of "violence in the streets.” This, it turns out, was a reasonable fear.
Of course London’s riots weren’t a political protest. But the people committing nighttime robbery sure as hell know that their elites have been committing daytime robbery. Saqueos are contagious.
The Tories are right when they say the rioting is not about the cuts. But it has a great deal to do with what those cuts represent: being cut off. Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered—a union job, a good affordable education—being rapidly sealed off. The cuts are a message. They are saying to whole sectors of society: you are stuck where you are, much like the migrants and refugees we turn away at our increasingly fortressed borders.
David Cameron’s response to the riots is to make this locking-out literal: evictions from public housing, threats to cut off communication tools and outrageous jail terms (five months to a woman for receiving a stolen pair of shorts). The message is once again being sent: disappear, and do it quietly.
At last year’s G-20 “austerity summit” in Toronto, the protests turned into riots and multiple cop cars burned. It was nothing by London 2011 standards, but it was still shocking to us Canadians. The big controversy then was that the government had spent $675 million on summit “security” (yet they still couldn’t seem to put out those fires). At the time, many of us pointed out that the pricey new arsenal that the police had acquired—water cannons, sound cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets—wasn’t just meant for the protesters in the streets. Its long-term use would be to discipline the poor, who in the new era of austerity would have dangerously little to lose.
This is what David Cameron got wrong: you can't cut police budgets at the same time as you cut everything else. Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves, you should expect resistance—whether organized protests or spontaneous looting.
Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn’t Baghdad, and British Prime Minister David Cameron is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.
How about a democratic example then? Argentina, circa 2001. The economy was in freefall and thousands of people living in rough neighborhoods (which had been thriving manufacturing zones before the neoliberal era) stormed foreign-owned superstores. They came out pushing shopping carts overflowing with the goods they could no longer afford—clothes, electronics, meat. The government called a “state of siege” to restore order; the people didn’t like that and overthrew the government.
Argentina’s mass looting was called El Saqueo—the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country’s elites had done by selling off the country’s national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatization deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package. Argentines understood that the saqueo of the shopping centers would not have happened without the bigger saqueo of the country, and that the real gangsters were the ones in charge.
But England is not Latin America, and its riots are not political, or so we keep hearing. They are just about lawless kids taking advantage of a situation to take what isn’t theirs. And British society, Cameron tells us, abhors that kind of behavior.
This is said in all seriousness. As if the massive bank bailouts never happened, followed by the defiant record bonuses. Followed by the emergency G-8 and G-20 meetings, when the leaders decided, collectively, not to do anything to punish the bankers for any of this, nor to do anything serious to prevent a similar crisis from happening again. Instead they would all go home to their respective countries and force sacrifices on the most vulnerable. They would do this by firing public sector workers, scapegoating teachers, closing libraries, upping tuitions, rolling back union contracts, creating rush privatizations of public assets and decreasing pensions—mix the cocktail for where you live. And who is on television lecturing about the need to give up these “entitlements”? The bankers and hedge-fund managers, of course.
This is the global Saqueo, a time of great taking. Fueled by a pathological sense of entitlement, this looting has all been done with the lights left on, as if there was nothing at all to hide. There are some nagging fears, however. In early July, the Wall Street Journal, citing a new poll, reported that 94 percent of millionaires were afraid of "violence in the streets.” This, it turns out, was a reasonable fear.
Of course London’s riots weren’t a political protest. But the people committing nighttime robbery sure as hell know that their elites have been committing daytime robbery. Saqueos are contagious.
The Tories are right when they say the rioting is not about the cuts. But it has a great deal to do with what those cuts represent: being cut off. Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered—a union job, a good affordable education—being rapidly sealed off. The cuts are a message. They are saying to whole sectors of society: you are stuck where you are, much like the migrants and refugees we turn away at our increasingly fortressed borders.
David Cameron’s response to the riots is to make this locking-out literal: evictions from public housing, threats to cut off communication tools and outrageous jail terms (five months to a woman for receiving a stolen pair of shorts). The message is once again being sent: disappear, and do it quietly.
At last year’s G-20 “austerity summit” in Toronto, the protests turned into riots and multiple cop cars burned. It was nothing by London 2011 standards, but it was still shocking to us Canadians. The big controversy then was that the government had spent $675 million on summit “security” (yet they still couldn’t seem to put out those fires). At the time, many of us pointed out that the pricey new arsenal that the police had acquired—water cannons, sound cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets—wasn’t just meant for the protesters in the streets. Its long-term use would be to discipline the poor, who in the new era of austerity would have dangerously little to lose.
This is what David Cameron got wrong: you can't cut police budgets at the same time as you cut everything else. Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves, you should expect resistance—whether organized protests or spontaneous looting.
Naomi Klein
Homepage:
http://www.thenation.com/article/162809/daylight-robbery-meet-nighttime-robbery
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
London riots *were* a political protest
18.08.2011 09:04
I would argue it was a political protest. It was sparked off by the death of a black man at the hands of the police, and carried on by resentment at poverty. Both of these are political protests, even if they aren't party political.
anon
What is political about burning peoples homes and shops down?
18.08.2011 10:45
Realist
Is it political?
18.08.2011 11:05
If the rioters were inspired by some well-defined political organisation, they would be labelled as terrorists. Either way, they would be treated harshly and I don't think that make any difference in the eye of the "decent, law-abiding" (anti-revolutionary) citizen. Perhaps the policing would be even harsher and gave an opportunity to the state to use the police for more straightforward political violence.
Of course, in revolutionary (anarchist/communist) perspective these acts were pure political actions by the crowd (objectively). It is easy to say, that they are pure criminals, but anyone who actively seeks the fall of the current political establishment (democracy) is also a criminal by law, but acts completely for political reasons.
Shelter of Crime
e-mail: shelterofcrime@riseup.net
Homepage: shelterofcrime.wordpress.com
What ISN'T political about burning peoples homes and shops down?!
18.08.2011 11:31
This is class war. The ruling classes have picked a fight, and for the first time this fight has been brought out into the open. Unsurprisingly, the media reacts by feeding us shocking images (really not that shocking in all but the most privileged countries) and we're supposed to get terrified by the idea that it could happen to us. If you really believed there was no fight before now, you are unbelievably blinkered.
Also, I don't see why it's necessary to support one working class group over another. There is no perfect route to effectively bring the class war to the ruling classes, they make sure of that, it's a rigged game. We can regret that violence was directed at working class homes without condemning people who rose up.
eid
Why the riots were not revolutionary!
18.08.2011 13:11
You call people who are against the riots anti-revolutionary as if you somehow know that everyone affected by and against the riots is a tory voting anti-trade union conservative. Many infact most of the people and shop owners who were burned out and lost everything were asians! A gay book shop was also attacked. Yeah some revolutionaries who attack asian owned businesses and carry out a gay hate crime as well as destroying the working class areas! Where are the people of Peckham and Lewisham supposed to shop now? And look at some of the targets - Aldi, poundland and charity shops hardly capitalist exploiters who are ripping off working class shoppers.
Realist
Realist
18.08.2011 13:35
Workingclassguy
Being REALISTic about Poundland
18.08.2011 13:37
Is that the same Poundland where working class people stack shelves for their benefits?
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/03/now-jobseekers-told-volunteer-at-poundland-or-lose-your-benefits/
And like Aldi if it isn't making profit from the exploitation of working class people, where exactly do you think the profit is coming from?
Many charity shops are professionally run, and in many instances most of the takings go on overheads rather than to helping the people who they claim to be raising money for.
unrealistic twaddle
Realist: Complete misunderstanding
18.08.2011 14:14
If they were asians, they can not be anti-revolutionary? It would be a bad generalisation if you say that someone is pro-revolutionary just because they are immigrants, or gay. As such a question is almost completely binary (either you are for or against revolution, I don't see any middle ground here), this type of argument is completely false.
As for the targets: I walked around in many areas, and I have to tell you that despite the media hightlights, the majority of the attacks weren't directed against working class people and "local businesses". Also, the latter is kind of a false assumption too, I don't think that local business any less of a capitalist establishment than a Tesco.
You jump to conclusions too fast. If someone highlights the fact that the whole motivation behind the riot was inevitably political, thus the riots were political, does not that political action was revolutionary. Sometimes there's racist motivation behind rioting, but it is still political. It sounds great for a media and democratic hate campaign to account the whole series of event to sheer criminality but that's just a convinient way to back out from any analysis, any further progressive (in terms of revolutionary) action. There's a need to come to terms with the context how these events took place to seek improve and direct these energies to actions that really help for putting through an anarchist agenda.
Lastly, no matter how many times you use the "working class" label on the victims, you must see that classes, and working class in particular is not an moral classification of individuals, it is only useful term in wider political-economical analysis and understanding. People who work for wages can be racists, leftists, fascists, conservatives, cops, or even bank directors or MPs etc. That doesn't mean there's no confrontation betweenf revolutionaries and people who work for wages. You impose a false moral here where it doesn't belong.
Shelter of Crime
e-mail: shelterofcrime@riseup.net
Homepage: shelterofcrime.wordpress.com
Class?
18.08.2011 14:28
Workingclassguy
even anti-social rioting is political
18.08.2011 16:05
But if you look at most of the rioting, it was against big businesses - and since they have shut most of the small businesses themselves by pricing them out of the market, they are the majority of shops in high streets these days anyway.
And as I said before, the root cause that sparked it all off was resentment at the police, which is very political.
anon
Looting of Egyptian Treasures
19.08.2011 15:04
Now we have a situation in which David Cameron is being praised by the mother fucking chinese for his human rights policies.
Looking forward to seeing Cameron and his cronies on trial in cages aka Mubarak.
let's not let them divide and conquer us!
The British are just a bit out of practice at rioting that's all.
So, next time can we please have a bit more Robin Hood, and not so much lame US-gang culture wannabe-ism, it doesn't suit us.
Ok GO!
ed