machiavelli the democrat

For a profoundly revisionist take on the Florentine listen to this "Occupy interview" with John P. McCormick, Professor of Political Science from U Chicago, and author of Machiavellian Democracy. You can also read McCormick's brief article, "Defending the People from the Professors," which not only departs from the the Machiavellis of old, ( Straussians, neo-Republicans, and those who McCormick refers to as "self-proclaimed radicals,") but presents a Machiavelli for "democrats" for "theoretical insight, institutional inspiration, and spiritual fortification." 

road not travelled by progressives

From (Notes on) Politics, Theory, and Photography, 5/19/12, comes this reminder:

Let's see now, the government funds lots of basic research that leads to massive technological advance; let's call it the Internet. And a bunch of guys make oodles of dollars exploiting the technology for commercial gain. And then those same guys turn around and spend oodles of dollars on groups that spout libertarian nonsense about how "government regulation stifles innovation and, without innovation, there is no economic growth." Bullshit.

And let’s not also forget, in addition to the public subsidies handed out to whole industries also  the massive expenditures for the building and coordinating of the interstate highway system, a la "the grid," as well as subsidies for public health, sanitation, and transportation systems. The Hoover Dam is just one example. And who can forget all those salaried uniform personnel to collect tolls and police the whole thing? I cant imagine war efforts either, like The Manhattan Project, without state involvement. Nor nuclear power. Jeff Madrick has written on these issues; his The Case For Big Government, (2009) convincingly argues that since public goods, like the aforementioned, benefit society overall more than any individual or business, public investments as well planning and regulation would simply not have been adequately undertaken by private firms. But even before I had come across Madrick's book, I had a good inkling to what libertarians were up to: despite their occasional Social-Darwinian pretensions and underneath their arguments for free-markets, sotto voce, is the concern for law and order. Turning civil society into an outdoor mall or gambling casino well-patrolled by security guards and surveillance cameras is their little ideological trade. They deny the very entity they are bed with: the state.  
       
And yet, as much as I surely prefer large scale "social-democracy" with strong unions and active, albeit legitimate, economic involvement by the state, (including, of course, imposing very high taxes on the rich,) to large-scale plutonomy with gated communities and a decimated social and cultural landscape, I can’t help flinching whenever I hear progressives hope for rebuilding the big benevolent nanny-state. Large scale bureaucracies and centralized political power, whether acknowledged or not, are still inherently undemocratic both in design and orientation. The complex regulatory decision-making mechanisms devised through the administrative mega-state, like it or not, devalue democratic participation at the local level.

Historically, progressive reforms have been more successful along the institutional axes of arranging and defining the scope of the power of the state to act than along a participatory axis of facilitating the exercise of democratic power.[1] This legacy is particularly striking given the broad sweep of social and educative initiatives that Progressives sought. Indeed as it turned out, the populist rhetoric to bust Wall St. and flout its indentured political parties and actors, though appropriated from earlier protest movements in the south, and animated by ethical-religious language as well as various Constitutional arguments, helped transform localist regimes of courts and parties into a more integrated national state. Progressives certainly succeeded in winning suffrage for women as well as greater bargaining power for labor unions. More generally, intervention by state power on behalf of those disadvantaged by the market forces of advanced capitalism became to be seen as legitimate. Millions were given new opportunities. And though Progressives did not root out political corruption one of their most important their successes included higher standards and expectations about government at every level. Nonetheless their failure to attract and maintain a more direct democratic politics, (though the social movements of the 1960s and 70s are important exceptions,) seems these days only to be undoing the state whose construction Progressives began. Today, the national state not only happens to be lost to international regimes and kingpins but is also accompanied by an electorate that is en masse methodically manipulated, lied to, trivialized, and exploited. Democratic institutions exist only as a set of creaking procedures, services, and regulations, which can serve law-abiding subjects as well as actors intent on utilizing them for selfish ends. And the democratic principles which these regimes seldom pay lip-service to, to recall's Nietzsche's description, have indeed become lies that creep out from the state's mouth.  

Though Corey Robin claims that "the path forward for the left lies in the alliance between active social movements on the ground and a strong national state," I suspect it would be dangerously facile to pave over the relationship between "a strong national state" and a democratic political culture. A regime which promotes the general welfare while protecting individuals and minority populations by securing the right kinds of conditions and opportunities is obviously commendable... and, as far as that brief formulation goes, is frankly ideal. A progressive political state can conceivably guarantee civil rights and workplace safety, as well as enforce the rule of law and uphold principles of fairness and equality; it can also presumably educate citizens into viewing their personal lives in terms of collective goods and the general welfare of society. In these respects, freedom is not negative, as the libertarian gang would have us believe but dependent on institutional and ethical collaborators. But I still remain skeptical whether attempts to pursue and accomplish any of these things through more policy and more state without a participatory ethic at the local level is possible - if desirable. Any effort to "regulate" radically dismantle the interlocking configurations of state and economic power requires, (as impossible as it sounds,) sustained popular political action from the bottom up - warts and all.

A passage from Tocqueville comes to mind: "democratic peoples often hate the repositories of central power but they love the power itself." These words could very well apply to libertarians - can they also apply to progressives?            

---

[1] Eileen L. McDonagh, “Race, Class, and Gender in the Progressive Era,” in Progressivism and the New Democracy, 1999 (edited by Sidney M. Milkis and Jerome M. Mileur.)

talking about unions

lessig and hedges talk it out

brought to us by the fine people of Occupy Wall St. Think Tank.

Moyers with Hacker and Pierson

Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson on Winner Take All Politics from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.



Hacker and Pierson argue in Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer - And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (2010) that the widening gap of inequality in the US, (“the rich are getting fabulously richer while the rest of Americans are basically holding steady or worse,” p.20) has not primarily been due to changes in technology, education, and economics, or what is casually referred to as “globalization,” but changes in the American political realm. Not only are the growing rates of inequality in the US evidently foreign to other advanced countries which are also indebted to the globalized economy, say Hacker and Pierson, these inequalities are the product of a sustained assault on the American middle-class by business organizations and industry lobbies on myriad labor groups, social programs, and economic and progressive tax policies. The “sustained hyperconcentration” of wealth found in the US these days has been made possible by the coordinated efforts and planning of “trickle-up economics” dating back to the 1970s. And, “alas,” they remind us, “the evidence is overwhelming that upward social mobility has not increased at the same time that inequality has skyrocketed,” (pp. 28-29) and actually lag behind rates of mobility now found in Canada, Germany, Australia, France, Finland, Spain, Norway, and Sweden.  

The important point made by Hacker and Pierson is that politics is not a trivial sideshow for cable tv but the battlefront where class warfare gets conducted by other means. Thus what their book attempts to do is repoliticize economic realities.  

“Governments do redistribute what people earn.. But government policies also shape what people earn in the first place, as well as many other fundamental economic decisions that consumers, businesses, and workers make. Practically every aspect of labor and financial markets is shaped by government policy...Even the word 'redistribution' is symptomatic of the pervasive distortions in contemporary discussion. It suggests the refashioning of a natural order by meddling politicians, a departure from market rewards. But the treatment of the market as some pre-political state of nature is a fiction. Politicians are there at the creation, shaping that 'natural' order and what the market rewards. Beginning in the 1970s, they helped shape it so more and more of the rewards would go to the top.” (pp.55-56)

So not only did powerful business and employer lobbies work together to achieve shared goals. They did so by generating mass political campaigns, and spreading large sums of cash throughout both political parties. When the cost of political advertising began to skyrocket in the 1970s the increasing hunger for cash gave the political parties good reason to listen to those with deep pockets. “The newly mobilized business groups understood that Democrats and Republicans could play distinct but complementary roles” (p.121). Business PACS could provide mixed donations to both parties - and even hedge their bets by spending on candidates competing in the same race. Eventually, both parties earned their business cred. They ostensibly embraced free markets as well as the cutting of social welfare programs. National economic policies became the consequence of a new kind of politics. And in the long run, those organizations that had once provided leverage to workers and middle-class Americans simply lost their clout.    

Hacker and Pierson close by affirming their hope in politics nonetheless. Though the battle may last decades, they suggest, the American political system can perhaps be made responsive once again to sustained democratic engagement and the hopes of the American middle-class. Yet given the neoliberal globalization of markets which Hacker and Pierson reference, I wonder whether the political realm they appeal to still has the autonomy to actually become once again the arena of political change. Let's remember its not just the organized infrastructure of labor unions and lobbies as well as the Democratic party that have been compromised perhaps beyond repair. The American political infrastructure itself has undergone deep structural changes. And, perhaps most significantly, so has the political culture of the American public. Thus, are political and economic reforms still possible within the US given these historical conditions and the global regimes they are embedded within? And if reforms are possible, can Americans reasonably hope they will result from what Hacker and Pierson call, "the quiet heroism of sustained renewal" of traditional political forms, i.e., electoral politics and democratic organization? Should we refer back to the successes of the New Deal, and to Walter Lippmann's advice that democracy lift itself up by its own bootstraps, given the realities of the contemporary age? More broadly, I continue to wonder whether Americans are in the midst of a new political founding? Perhaps entering into a new age of techno-feudalism?

the occupation movement heckles michelle bachmann

 


Occupiers cannot simply continue twinkling at electoral politics and the concentration of political and economic power, and this video suggests they are starting realize it... I think. I also wonder whether they'll be willing to heckle Democrats as well. Because even if the Occupation does not endorse candidates, preferring to “stay out of politics,” it should still plan on clarifying and coordinating its “autonomous” position in regard to the two-party system itself, its candidates, and schemes, especially in light of the onslaught of campaign rhetoric, (“the lesser of two evils,”) eventually on its way. 'Cuz, you know, power kinda works that way.

UPDATE: 11/22/2011

Watch here Obama spin the wheels of co-optation when speaking to an audience in New Hampshire, “including”, he says, “the ones who were chanting at me, you're the reason I ran for office in the first place.” Still no 3rd party people?




though Rahm seemed far more perturbed.

proceduralists are fake anarchists

If one of the appeals of OWS has been the “99%” mantra, amongst Occupiers there exists a litany of “non-hierarchical” and “leaderless” memes which are also well-known. These buzzwords ostensibly signify radical egalitarianism and hyper-resistance to authority, something more Kropotkinian than either liberal or Marxist. So while an anarchist ethic may be appealing to neo-Nietzschean personalities capable of continually subverting the processes and techniques of power by virtue of their creative agonism, “leaders,” (as many Occupiers never tire of reminding me,) are flawed animals – and thus vulnerable targets for those looking to co-opt or discredit them and their “followers.” According to Malcolm Harris in “Baby, We’re All Anarchists Now,” this leaderless revolution is not just another attempt to not be co-opted but true “autonomous” social action. It is non-representative, post-political, post-systems, post-individualist as well as post-mensch. And it is “premised on the necessity of acting with your body itself, whether through your legs, arms, vocal chords, fingers, whatever.” He adds, “the latter is threatening as hell, especially to the professional left which is thrust into the conservative position of defending its requisitioned authority.”

Sorry to be such a concern troll but if the aversion to hierarchy precludes the coordination of chains of command and their “demands,” many may wonder of this anarchist ethic, cui bono? I’d say that most people these days, the 99%-ers, could give a rat’s ass about anarchist ethics and Foucauldian micro-strategies. Financial security, jobs, better education, a more just and peaceful world… things like that… are probably a lot more in tune with the common folk than some anarcho-situationalist code reversals, let alone The Revolution. The 99% may nod in perfunctory agreement when they hear the slogans, pontifications, and “positivity” of smug college kids but I wonder how deep they actually believe them. Do they even care?

Nevertheless, much of the popular appeal of OWS has been its unruly antagonism to “the system” – not just to concentrations of financial and political power but to the “the culture of capitalism” itself, to its institutional complexes, norms, strategies, and “values.” People are becoming increasingly aware of their exclusion, abandonment, and powerlessness. OWS has called ordinary people of diverse backgrounds and abilities together to talk, debate, perform, and vent anger in ways that show they are trying to think about “paradigms” in new ways, and be creative. So however it turns out, OWS can be said to have successfully reclaimed public space, and even celebrated the anarchical spirit of debate, noise, disorder, and resistance. And despite what some Occupiers may claim, this rowdy spirit – warts and all – is also downright adversarial to the organizational and policy imperatives of “systems” as well as to the managerial stinginess of “consensus” models flaunted at the GA and its working groups. It does not proffer sophisticated models and ideals, nor sets of solutions and procedures, but rather enacts a disruptive and subversive politics which challenges established orders and their mechanisms of control. Interactions are more fluid, and are constantly adapting to people's changing needs. The problem however with this social (or rebellious) vibrancy is that it is difficult to sustain over time. It not only bears the scars of history, and is perhaps more symbiotic to “the system” than we care to admit; it is also impulsive, improvisatory, and vulnerable to rationalization as well as demagoguery. 

The most revealing criticism of the “horizontalist” imperative getting pushed onto people around Zuccotti is that existing hierarchies have already congealed within OWS, and denying this fact may perhaps be an effective rhetorical tactic in opening to a wider following but it also signs-on to secretive networks and potential autocracy. Although OWS’s groups are said to be open for anyone to attend the existence of inner circles is evident. I would not want to exaggerate the power of those who occupy these circles, but they often meet privately, often miles from Zuccotti Park, and traverse OWS networks – not just the GA but its myriad “working groups,” “break-out groups,” and other “sub-groups.” Now, I don’t necessarily have a problem with leaders individuals who happen to be more committed than the rest of us in pressing “the system” continually to open avenues for democratic participation and the empowerment of ordinary people provided, I would add, they accept their commitments as a service, or even sacrifice, for the interests of those they ostensibly serve, and, are also prevented from occupying exclusive positions which operate in secret and have some semblance of lasting duration and significance. 

I also understand standard parliamentary procedures and protocol for assemblies known for factions and competing interests. But I do have a problem with “facilitators” who go about selling the Revolution by setting down the procedural rules and histrionic rhythms for the 99%to follow. The process is political – and nowhere else are proceduralists more exacting in their displacement of substantive debate than the facilitation apparatus in OWS.

I attended one “spokes council” one evening, and observed a deceptively informal semi-circle of a couple hundred people who were thoroughly “facilitated” by several individuals whose role it was, (after telling us how to appropriately hand signal during the assembly: “this means… ‘I feel good,’ this means… ‘I don’t like what I’m hearing’”) to keep procedural order, and sort out various agenda items, proposals, questions, concerns from participants. Yet the obvious problem was that – aduh – exacting procedural order is out of synch with the imaginations, concerns, and questions of the assembly which not only seemed to have a life of its own by virtue of its raucous and improvisatory latency but which found itself at times debating procedure itself. Anygoo, I also noticed on a couple occasions whispering into the ears of facilitators by several individuals otherwise peacefully stationed against the wall. No one blocked. No one voiced objection. They “consensed.” 

The criticism that OWS suffers from depoliticization, and is weak on substance, is on the mark. But Its starry-eyed refusal to openly recognize and address hierarchy is also internally debilitating. As Doug Henwood, supporter but resident curmudgeon of OWS, put it, “(w)ith such a freewheeling organization, if that’s the right word, lines of responsibility and accountability are very murky.” Indeed Occupiers will only continually confront the simple politics of how to appropriately allocate the gains of their appeal and accomplishments, like, for instance, how donations should be distributed through the GA.

Occupiers are correct to insist that “what’s your demand?” is a conventional narrative of rationalism, interest group realpolitick, and legitimacy which misunderstands the fundamental challenges posed by OWS. Yet like it or not, the demand for demands is still inevitable. Talk of “cultural revolution,”  “paradigm shifts,” and “we’re all anarchists now,” is theoretically feasible in the loooong-term but OWS still cannot afford to disengage from institutions of power, like the state and the economy. You know, because if you don’t go through politics and the state, politics and the state go through you, no matter how much you say the word “autonomy.” The real difficulty however with “making demands” is that Occupiers simply don’t yet have the numbers willing to go for the mat for them anyway, whatever they are, nor the organization to make them possible.(And things like this make it near hopeless.) Thus OWS has to grow in numbers and appeal to make its presence more efficacious and powerful. Future political and economic crises can only present such opportunities. But if it atrophies into festering blobs of “Occupations” sans “demands” it will become the nomenclature of nose-ringed A-circling suburbia. 

zuccotti is not a model

OWS is a miracle. It’s also exiting. About a month ago, I jokingly referred to Zuccotti Park as a kind of refugee camp from Hampshire College’s better days playing host to a wide variety of political activists and performers. Radicals, liberals, freaks, Marxists, anarchists, Ron Paul trojan horses, occasional saboteurs, and the honest-to-god-just-curious were there all on display. While Zuccotti Park has also become a haven for homeless people and various drifters attracted to the free meals and a place to stay, the site has over time also attracted some unsavory characters and become more dangerous as well as a little less exciting. There already exists in the park an informal band of security personnel which has been undoubtedly busy of late. One person today openly queried whether some form of ID should also be required, perhaps “wristbands” handed out and worn at least by those sleeping and eating in the park. “What constitutes a member and a non-member?” Another activist told me that “women don’t feel safe, and its’ not simply a media representation.” (There’s also this report from Salon.) 

Insofar Zuccotti Park gains a sticking reputation for being an unsafe cesspool, deservedly or not, the broader effects of this development could be irreparable. Most onlookers in the general public will probably not confuse the political cause behind OWS, (“the 99%”) with criminals and drug users. But city authorities can only relish some additional ammunition to discredit it nonetheless. So even if the overall perception of OWS in the public seems to be a work still in process, rifts will grow between those in the park as well. (So much for “autonomy” I guess, and all that “non-hierarchical” utopian flapdoodle!) More disturbingly, I sense “the Occupation” at least in NYC is imploding – and starting to get lost. That it has had to seriously ramp up its “policing infrastructure” in light of these Lord of the Flights awakenings is indeed the most depressing irony coming out of Zuccotti Park to date.

Truth is, I started getting queasy with all the petty bureaucratic mechanisms and manners weeks ago. Grassroots political activism is fucking hard enough. Frankly, it can bore me to tears. I can understand people trying to get high on “process” by injecting a little self-expression through histrionic hand gestures, working groups ad infinitum, and the-will-to-mic-check. I also understand the importance of putting together a political movement with lasting potential – and that kind of thing requires some degree of hierarchy and organization even if Occupiers prefer not to admit it. But as formalities these activities can also become distractions which sap precious energy and resources. I sat in on one particular “working group” and encountered droves of petty diversions and disagreements about “facilitating” simple courtesies and common sense. There was also some talk of “paradynamics.” I don’t remember such “experiments” going down @ Tahrir Square when Egyptians were continually staying on message and continually demanding that Mubarak resign. I wonder why OWS @ Zuccotti Park had to turn so inward, and so procedural? Is there too much aversion and indifference to coordinating explicit demands? To direct action? What happened to the antagonism? (More exciting things are happening outside of Zuccotti Park.) Can we get it back?

To give you an idea as to the thorny issue of “making demands,” one observer writes:

The GA actually laughed out loud when the facilitators suggested that the group take thirtyfive minutes to discuss the proposal. After an hour has passed, they had not even made it through the Clarifying Questions surrounding the proposal.

Some of Occupy’s original organizers are furious that the Demands Working Group was able to make this proposal to the GA. They say that Demands can’t even be a working group because on the third day of the occupation of Zuccotti Park, the GA came to consensus that the occupation would not make demands.

All of this reminds me of something someone else wrote centuries ago – and it’s not exactly a note of optimism.

For an emerging people to be capable of appreciating the sound maxims of politics and to follow the fundamental rules of statecraft, the effect would have to become the cause. The social spirit which ought to be the work of that institution, would have to preside over the institution itself. And men would be, prior to the advent of laws, what they ought to become by means of laws. Since, therefore, the legislator is incapable of using either force or reasoning, he must of necessity have recourse to an authority of a different order which can compel without violence and persuade without convincing.  

wandering between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born

An excellent discussion on OWS.

Is OWS beholden to “the lesser of two evil” meme?

Can OWS be harnessed by the Democratic Party for 2012?

Glenn Greenwald asks also: “Would it not be a bit odd for a protest movement to 'Occupy Wall Street' while simultaneously devot(e)itself to keeping Wall Street’s most lavishly funded politician in power?” And after documenting the usual mounds of evidence of Wall St. ties to Obama and the Democratic Party, Greenwald sarcastically concludes:

“So best of luck to CAP and the DCCC in their efforts to exploit these protests into some re-branded Obama 2012 crusade and to convince the protesters to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested all to make themselves the 2012 street version of OFA. I think they’re going to need it.”

OWS should obviously be commended for being able to shift the public discourse back onto Wall St., growing inequalities, and the runaway corporate plutocracy that has taken over the political realm. Greenwald here thus refers to Naomi Klein who on DemocracyNow! claimed that the protestors, in Greenwald's words, “are out on the street rather than working for the DNC or OFA...precisely because they concluded that electoral politics or working for either party will not address the issues motivating them; part of what they’re protesting is the Democratic Party.” Which is all probably true. Charlie Rangel was booed away. And so was Geraldo Rivera. But having attended OWS rallies in NYC, I can tell you unequivocally that there is virtually no noise being made about 2012. Little or no clamoring is being made about getting sold out by any particular political figure or political party. There is also virtually little or no “third-party” presence there either. Thus, barring some future development, the OWS protestors may end up turning out to vote for Obama and the Democrats anyway! Though they certainly feel betrayed by the two-parties and “the system” more generally, (and rightfully so!) it remains unclear whether they will at some point actually begin the process of organizing positively for a political alternative, either as a popular electoral base for a challenger to Obama within the Democratic party during the primaries, or for someone even further to the left.   

capitalismo doesn’t work but we do

From a good piece by Kevin Gosztola, “Why Establishment Media & The Power Elite Loathe Occupy Wall St,” comes this passage from Howard Zinn. 

“What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future.

The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

wall st. is our street

find out more: https://occupywallst.org/

and not just a coincidence

From The Guardian, "England Rioters: Young, Poor, and Unemployed."

blokes and birds

Of course, for the first three days of the London riots the American media was pretty much Nothing To See Here Folks, Just Move Along. But now that the violence does not show signs of abating, and has actually spread beyond London, even to police stations in Liverpool, Nottingham, and Canning Circus, we may begin hearing discussions on this side of the pond, (like this one seen earlier today on Al-Jazeera,) pertaining to social and political factors, (like police harassment, economic and social inequality, and good ol' injustice,) which  deepen disaffection, resentment, and only increase the likelihood of turmoil and violence when something goes very wrong.

Yet Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns, and Money makes an awfully safe bet:  

Urban riots are usually complex events, in which people participate for many reasons, ranging from simple boredom and criminal opportunism on one end, to conscious political protest on the other.

Although its been a while since my last epistemological tweaking I'll contend that  one-to-one causes for individual action is quite beside the point here simply because widespread rioting and looting are not individual events. It would be like citing the endless array of individual reasons given to a questionnaire which asked mobs of people why they end up packing into a stadium for a football match. Such data clearly takes place against a greater field of sociological meaning which attendees also share. This is not to say that all kinds of action rationally make sense or that they even can be justified; but even acts which may seem irrational or contradictory can be understood as a structure of meaning nonetheless insofar they can related to other structures of meaning and institutional patterns. Even if crowds are contestable, disagreeable lots, that doesn't mean they lack a raison d'etre. Actions also often have meaning for actors which is not exhausted by positivist data but which may be crucial to understanding their importance. So, for example, in participating in an event like voting one may also be contributing to the honor or demise of a political party, or vindicating the value of free elections, or defending law and order, justice, whatever. Campos completely misses the significance of the London riots.

Breakdowns of social order (or outbreaks of resistance) obviously reflect disenchantment.  So with widening gaps of economic inequality, a slumping economy, high unemployment, and systemic theft and looting by the rich and powerful – all against the setting of increased budget cuts and enforced “austerity,” (and all of which are secrets to no one,) – can anyone lucidly claim that the UK rioting is surprising? Or, that the cynicism and distrust that many feel toward the powerful these days only denude the good ol’ social contract? Even former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, quipped that a whole “generation” is “growing up completely uncertain about their future,” citing economic and political insecurity specifically. Nina Power, writing in AlterNet, also reminds us that the relationship between the British police and people of color has been contentious as well. Clashes in Bristol between civilians and police already took place earlier this year, and, as reported last December in The Guardian, out of the 333 number of deaths that have occurred in police custody since 1998, only zero have led to any convictions.

The most sensible take on the riots I've seen so far is presented by Camila Batmanghelidjh, “Caring costs – but so do riots,” writing for The Independent. “Our leaders still speak about how protecting the community is vital,” she writes, but (t)he trouble is, the deal has gone sour.” Remarkably, I'd add, these leaders seem only ready and willing to continue taking its chances by continuing to turn their back on inequality, injustice, poverty, and political and economic blight. As Batmanghelidjh writes, “The insidious flourishing of anti-establishment attitudes is paradoxically helped by the establishment.” But Batmanghelidjh provides one particular insight into the enormous depth of the problem, and a problem many may prefer to deny.  

Working at street level in London, over a number of years, many of us have been concerned about large groups of young adults creating their own parallel antisocial communities with different rules. The individual is responsible for their own survival because the established community is perceived to provide nothing. Acquisition of goods through violence is justified in neighbourhoods where the notion of dog eat dog pervades and the top dog survives the best.

But no need to be at street level. Two economists attend to the question of whether budget cuts in particular contribute to social unrest – and they conclude that they do. Via Henry Farrell at The Monkey Cage,   

Expenditure cuts carry a significant risk of increasing the frequency of riots, anti-government demonstrations, general strikes, political assassinations, and attempts at revolutionary overthrow of the established order. While these are low- probability events in normal years, they become much more common as austerity measures are implemented. … We demonstrate that the general pattern of association between unrest and budget cuts holds in Europe for the period 1919-2009. It can be found in almost all sub-periods, and for all types of unrest. Strikingly, where we can trace the cause of each incident (during the period 1980-95), we can show that only austerity-inspired demonstrations respond to budget cuts in the time- series. Also, when we use recently-developed data that allows clean identification of policy-driven changes in the budget balance, our results hold.

Of course, the predictable response from the right is too render sociological realities completely irrelevant. Criminal behavior, like the kind exhibited in England the last few days, we’re told, can’t be explained – and it definitely shouldn’t be rationalized. Since angry youth and the underclass will clamor at the gates, and burst out periodically into what Cameron called, “criminality pure and simple,” the only thing that can be done is squelch it, clean-up the mess, and get back to business. Inequality, injustice, and economic and political crises, play absolutely no role. So as soon as you do refer to everyday facts on the ground, some ignorant whitey will query: “well, surely you don’t mean to condone rioting, do you?” Case in point, I find this exchange bloody outrageous…